tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40571329968931995512024-03-07T23:58:07.943-08:00A Basketball MindPhilip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-59698883954173899302011-12-31T13:04:00.000-08:002011-12-31T13:04:07.805-08:00Thoughts on a Difference Between College Basketball and the NBAThe reason that the NBA plays a more isolation/matchup type of game is that at that level there are much fewer inefficiencies in defenses that can be exploited by running certain plays. NBA players aren't going to consistently be beaten by motion offenses with lots of screens off the ball because those offenses are designed to take advantage of poor individual and team defensive fundamentals (i.e. not knowing how to deal with screens or how to position oneself on defense). In the NBA these things aren't issues for defenders. The NBA is an efficient market with respect to defensive fundamentals. You can't consistently gain abnormal returns (i.e. score more points than your opponents) by relying on offenses that are built around taking advantage of inefficiencies in defensive fundamentals. <br />
<br />
The reason then that the NBA features more isolations and finding mismatches is because those are the areas in which there are inefficiencies. Those are the areas in which the offense consistently has advantages. Players like Kobe and Lebron can often score regardless of perfect defensive fundamentals and positioning.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that every play should just be a complete clearout for a respective team's best player, but rather that the NBA game might have a 60/40 isolation-to-motion ratio whereas college has a 40/60.Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-25888391654614150582011-12-30T09:15:00.000-08:002012-01-27T09:48:27.485-08:00Post Smarter Not HarderI think playing smarter as opposed to playing harder is underrated in basketball.<br />
<br />
For example, watch almost any high school or college post player try to gain position in the post. <br />
<br />
Watch how much energy he expends.<br />
<br />
Watch him inevitably labor back on defense exhausted, once again disappointed after a guard couldn't get the ball to him and instead decided to do his best Allen Iverson impression with predictably mixed results. <br />
<br />
Now watch how many times he does this.<br />
<br />
Does he continue to expend incredible amounts of energy trying to get position or does he eventually tire out and just stand there (or get taken out cause he's tired)?<br />
<br />
It doesn't have to be this way. <br />
<br />
There is a better way to get position in the post. It's called timing and footwork. In other words, posting smarter.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>The first step to posting smarter is to just stand there. </b><br />
That's right, don't move. Just stand still. <br />
Most coaches will probably have a seizure if they see a player just standing there on offense, but then again most coaches tell you to just "work harder!" too. Well, I'm not most coaches (mainly because I'm not a coach at all, but you get the point).<br />
<br />
Why stand still? Because you have to be ready. You can't be getting distracted and tired out by pushing around some big ugly. You have to be prepared to make your move.<br />
<br />
<b>The second step to posting smarter is to know the play.</b><br />
You have to know when your window of opportunity for receiving the ball in the post is coming. Sometimes there will be a play called specifically to get you the ball. In this case it should be pretty easy to know what's coming and when you need to be in a position to receive the ball in the post.<br />
When it gets tricky is when you're just playing. Maybe the play broke down, or it's transition, or you're just in some generic motion offense. Regardless of the situation, you have to know what's coming. You have to be able to anticipate the exact moment that your guards will be looking to get you the ball (whether it's because they're in trouble or they actually want to get you the ball). <br />
This ability to anticipate takes practice. Like most any skill, it must be developed over time. <br />
<br />
<b>The third step to posting smarter is to set up your defender.</b><br />
In order to get good post position you're going to have to move your defender to a position where you can then seal him. No matter how good your timing or footwork is, if your defender never has to move even a little bit then it will be very difficult to get position on him (unless of course you're Shaq). Sometimes it's enough to just get him off balance. Just making him shift his weight from one foot to the other can give you the advantage you need to get the well-timed, deep post position that you want.<br />
So how do you get your defender to move or shift his weight?<br />
Pretty much the same way you would get a perimeter defender to move: by changing speeds and changing directions. This could mean jabbing right so that you can seal left. Or it could mean using a spin move or half spin move to use the defender's force against him. Or it could even mean doing the lazy walk; just lazily walk in one direction before snapping into action and using a spin or step over to seal your defender at the position you lazily walked him to. <br />
<br />
<b>The fourth step to posting smarter is to finally make your move.</b><br />
After having moved your defender to the place you want him to be you have to finally make your move to seal him there. This can be done in many different ways, but they all boil down to basically two different methods.<br />
The first method is to face your defender and use a quick and low spin move to all of a sudden turn the tables on him. Step across his body with one foot and then drop the other foot to get him on your back. The keys to doing this are to do it sharply and to use your butt. If you aren't low and don't use your butt, you might as well be a ballerina doing some kind of ugly twirl. You've got to make contact with the defender in order to keep him where you want him. <br />
The other way to seal your defender is to start with your back to him and to just use a strong step over move. Again the key to this is to be low and to use your butt to make contact with him.<br />
<br />
Sebastian Pruiti from Grantland.com provided this great example of getting post position by Thomas Robinson of Kansas. It happens to be exactly what I'm talking about:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TiK_mKWF28s" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
Admittedly, the defender isn't exactly putting up much of a fight, but regardless, Thomas Robinson does a great job of posting smarter.<br />
The first thing he does is just stand there. Then at about the 8 second mark he half-heartedly tries to post up, but knows his teammate with the ball is too far out to pass to him and isn't really even looking for him either. When the ball gets passed up top he begins to set his man up. All he does is a really lazy spin before taking one step towards the other side of the lane, but this simple move gets his defender completely turned around. Robinson knows that his teammate #24 will be coming off the ball screen at the top of the key towards his side and he wants to set himself up to receive the ball on the left block. When this happens at about the 13 second mark, he snaps into action using a step over move to seal his defender. As you can see he's using his hips and butt to keep the defender right where he wants him. By the time he receives the ball there's nothing the defender can do but watch the ball go through the net.<br />
<br />
So that's all great and wonderful, but it doesn't always work out that nicely. What if you fail to get position, or your guards fail to get you the ball? Then what? This brings us to the fifth and final step of posting smarter.<br />
<br />
<b>You've got to know when to quit.</b><br />
If you haven't received the ball within a few seconds for whatever reason, it's time to quit. Well, at least quit trying to hold your position. If the man guarding you is as big as or bigger than you, then by this time you are likely having trouble holding your position. Assuming you timed it well, it's also likely that the play has moved on. At this point it's time to start over. You know what that means. Stand still. Relax, retreat and begin the process of setting it all up again.Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-34859682957184859182011-06-10T18:53:00.000-07:002011-06-10T19:02:00.741-07:00Why LeBron Isn't Clutch**This statement comes with a huge qualifier, of course. I don't mean to stay that LeBron can't be clutch, or has never been clutch, or is not clutch every once in a while (like against the Bulls), but rather why LeBron can't consistently be clutch to the level that we have come to expect from him based on his talent. And so with that...here's why LeBron isn't clutch...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In the clutch everyone falls back on the one thing they're great at. They do what they are most comfortable doing. Dwyane Wade slashes. Dirk shoots fadeaways. Jason Terry hits 3's. Etc. <br />
<br />
But what does LeBron do? What is the one thing that he does best? The one thing that he feels most comfortable doing? <br />
<br />
Ummmmmm...It's hard to say.<br />
<br />
He can score 40 when he wants to.<br />
He can get 15 assists when he wants to.<br />
He can lock down an opposing player when he wants to.<br />
<br />
But what is the one thing he always comes back to when it matters most?<br />
<br />
I don't know.<br />
<br />
And I don't think he does either.<br />
<br />
After 8 years in the league and more than enough opportunities to craft his clutch identity, LeBron still doesn't have one.<br />
<br />
Part of his problem in crunch time is that he's too good at too many things. He has too many options. The opportunity cost to LeBron of him choosing any one option is much greater than anyone else's. Nobody else has as much to lose by focusing on one thing as LeBron does. <br />
<br />
You might say, well then why doesn't he just do all of them at once? This, I think, is because of the difference between crunch time and the rest of the game.<br />
<br />
Crunch time is a chess match. Each play is separated from the next. Every player's strengths and weaknesses are magnified. They turn into the most stripped down, raw versions of themselves. Kobe becomes a gunner. Jordan a killer. Robert Horry a spot up shooter. <br />
<br />
But what about LeBron? Which chess piece is he? Should he be the bishop of basketball and set up his teammates, or should he become the rook and look to score himself?<br />
<br />
Or maybe his moniker is more fitting than we know? Maybe he's the king. Maybe he can move in any direction, but only so far. <br />
<br />
Maybe he's paralyzed by options. The so-called paradox of choice. <br />
<br />
It can be debilitating.Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-4336645601951199362011-01-17T09:18:00.000-08:002011-01-17T09:24:12.717-08:00Evolution of Timmaaayyy<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Someone smart probably once said that greatness transcends time. I agree with whoever probably might have said something to that affect. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Tim Duncan transcends time as a basketball player (not to diminish his video game skills, but I have no knowledge of their quality). He is great. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a name='more'></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I recently received one of the best Christmas gifts anyone who has any appreciation for anything worth appreciating can ever receive—a DVD collection of all of the Spurs’ Finals victories. The DVDs simply consist of the game footage of all sixteen victories of the Spurs’ four NBA Finals series victories. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I have only managed to watch the first two games of the collection, games 1 and 2 of the 1999 NBA Finals, but nonetheless I was struck by how differently the game was played back then. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">NBA historians might come to regard the 1998-1999 season as the worst season in NBA history. First of all there was the lockout. To make a long story short (pun intended!) the season ended up being shortened to only 50 games. This was also the Michael Jordan hangover year. Jordan had retired after winning his sixth championship the previous year. Not only this but the basketball was…well…pretty terrible to watch. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Here’s basically how those two finals games went. The Spurs would walk the ball up the court and post Tim Duncan on one block and David Robinson on the other. Then they would feed one of them and let them go one on one while the other four guys just stood around and watched. Duncan or Robinson would inevitably score, get fouled, or kick it out. But this wasn’t Ginobili and Parker that they were kicking out to—no—it was Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, Sean Elliot, and Jaren Jackson. Decent players in their own right, but on the opposite end of the creativity spectrum from Ginobili and Parker. After this incredibly entertaining possession by the Spurs, the Knicks would walk the ball up the court and go into their “offense.” This offense basically consisted of setting one or two screens for Latrell Sprewell, Allan Houston, or Larry Johnson to get them the ball. Then they would try to go one on one and score or get fouled. Again, nothing against Sprewell, Houston, and Johnson—they were good players—but I can’t say their single-minded forays into the paint were very entertaining. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This slow, grind-it-out, muscle over mind style would in the least make many of today’s players uncomfortable. The game was much more physical. Open driving lanes that today are available on nearly every play were almost nonexistent in these Knicks-Spurs games. Size over speed. Brawn over brains. Beef over balance. Mayo over mustard<sup>1</sup>. The game was different, but there was one constant from that era to this one. Tim Duncan is great. Tim Duncan was great.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As a 22-year-old second year pro, Tim Duncan was an emerging superstar. Using his size and diverse set of finely tuned skills, he was a force in the post. Feed him the ball in the post and good things happened. He scored. He got fouled. He scored and got fouled. He passed out of double teams. He scored and got fouled and passed out of double teams<sup>2</sup>. On the defensive end he used his height, awareness, and restraint<sup>3</sup> to team with Robinson in completely shutting down the opponent’s hope of scoring within 8 feet of the basket. In short, he was a great player. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Cut to January 2011. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Almost 12 years later. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Duncan is 34. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He is averaging a career low in almost every statistical category—minutes played, field goals, field goal attempts, free throws, free throw attempts, defensive rebounds, total rebounds, and points. He is only averaging 29.3 minutes per game and 13.8 points per game. Luke Ridnour, Raja Bell, and Ryan Gomes are averaging more minutes. Beno Udrih, Dorell Wright, and DeMar DeRozan are averaging more points. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The stark difference in Duncan’s game is just as apparent in watching him play as it is in the numbers. Once a dominant scorer in the post, at times Duncan now looks almost pathetic when he gets the ball on the block. Sure, he’ll still score every once and while. And yes he can still draw a foul. But so can Chris Kaman, so can Brendan Haywood, so can Kendrick Perkins. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And have you seen Timmy trying to defend a pick and roll lately? Well you don’t want to. It’s ugly. It’s like the process of trying to come up with a good analogy for what it’s like when Tim Duncan tries to defend a pick and roll—long and grueling.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So is that all Tim Duncan is now? Is he just a run of the mill center on a run of the mill team?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And yet the Spurs are 35-6. Best record in the league. Second best efficiency differential in the league. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So how is this happening?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">How can a team who has long been built on the abilities of an offensively and defensively dominant inside player who is no longer either of these things off to the best start in franchise history? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Well…</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">…in long…</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">…rhythm</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">continuity</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">spacing</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">knowledge</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">experience</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">guile</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">craft</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">skill</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">foresight</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">hindsight</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">unselfishness</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">awareness</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">humility</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">corporate knowledge</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">deceptiveness</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">strategery</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">respect</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">submission</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">derision</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">execution</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">leadership. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In short, because the Spurs are a <i>team</i>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now, as anyone who has followed the Spurs success over the last dozen years knows, the Spurs have always been as good of an example of a true team as there is in professional sports. So why is it significant that they are still a team this year? They have the same best three players that they’ve had since 2004. Why is this year different?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Because their best player and leader are no longer the same person. Tim Duncan is no longer their best player. To be honest I’m not sure if their best player is Ginobili or Parker, but so far this year Tim Duncan has not been their best player. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">All too often we see aging superstars who are unable to keep their teams relevant as they slowly descend into mortality. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">But Tim Duncan? He’s different. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He has transitioned from being a dominating all-time great to a team-oriented role player like almost no other has<sup>4</sup>. He has given the on-court reigns of the team to Ginobili and Parker. He has adjusted to a style which practically didn’t exist when he first entered the league. He has become a high post distributor, a screener, a passer. If there was some way to measure rhythm added to an offense I’m sure Tim Duncan would be leading the league. He may run like Erick Dampier<sup>5</sup> and have to resort to using old man tricks on defense, but Timmy D is still a defensive factor too. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He is the rare player whose assessment of his abilities has decreased at the same rate as his abilities. He knows what he can and cannot do. Sometimes perfect knowledge of one’s self and one’s role in the team is more valuable to a team than elite talent. When you watch the Spurs this year, you are likely seeing a team that is completely in tune with who they are individually and as a team. Tim Duncan is at the center of that.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">He is the perfect mentor, the closest we may ever get to a player-coach again. He isn’t so much the main cog in a powerful machine anymore, but rather the oil that keeps the machine running. He has evolved with his team and the league.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Duncan’s play on the court transcends teammates<sup>6</sup> and opponents, styles and strategies. His skills and abilities are multilaterally transferable. He can evolve. He can succeed. He transcends time<sup>7</sup>. He is great. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">1</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Completely random, just to see if you’re paying attention. </span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">2</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">I know it’s not possible to do all three of those things at once, but hey, I was on a roll.</span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">3</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Not sure if he has a choice here. Compared to many NBA players he is pretty limited athletically.</span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">4</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">His predecessor David Robinson being a prime example</span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">5</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Can’t miss an opportunity to take a shot at current or former Mavs </span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">6</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">He is the only player on that 1999 championship team who is still on the team. He, Ginobili, and Parker are the only three players from the 2003 or 2005 title teams that are still on this team. He, Ginobili, Parker, and Matt Bonner are the only four players from the 2007 title team that are still on this team.</span></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: small;">7</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: small; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Not metaphysically, stupid.</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-43299010641690213822010-10-09T12:26:00.000-07:002011-01-17T09:21:06.754-08:00How Wrong Incentives Are Holding the NBA Back<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I think everyone who has ever played, watched, coached, or in any other way been involved with basketball will tell you that it is in a team's best interest if its players are unselfish. But from a player's perspective, is that the case? Is there an incentive for each individual player to play unselfish basketball?</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The coach may want each player to play for the team and focus on doing whatever is most likely to help the team win, but as I am hopefully about to show, a player's incentives make it possible, if not likely, that the player won't play unselfish, team-first basketball. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Before we dive in, I should clarify what I mean by "unselfish" and "selfish." </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A player who is playing unselfishly is putting the team's interests before his own. This means that a player is using his specific abilities for the good of the team rather than his own good. Often in the context of basketball, when we describe a player as unselfish we are describing a player who doesn't score much and is always "doing the dirty work." This is not necessarily what I mean when I use the word unselfish. A scorer can be unselfish too. For example, a player who is a talented shot-creator and scorer would be acting in the team's best interests if he shoots more often than a player who is not a talented scorer. Similarly, a player who is a terrible shooter is acting in the team's best interests when he doesn't shoot as much relative to the better shooters on his team. Another example of playing unselfishly is a player who accepts the role of defensive stopper even though he is not a great defender because relative to his teammates and their abilities he is the best candidate for the job.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A player is playing selfishly when he is looking out for his own interests ahead of the team's. In the NBA it has been shown that scoring average is the biggest determinant of salary (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=bXH91hg9atkC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=salary+correlation+scoring+NBA&source=bl&ots=ULQ7xvezO2&sig=yVGxh3Xn4B5NOHIrjs5ntjX3EQI&hl=en&ei=566wTPyJF8T7lwe8q6D7BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=salary%20correlation%20scoring%20NBA&f=false">The Wages of Wins</a>, <a href="http://stumblingonwins.com/">Stumbling On Wins</a>). In general, the more you score, the more you get paid. If this is the case, and a player wants to maximize his salary, then the player has an incentive to score more even if it is at the expense of his team.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now that we know what is meant by "unselfish" and "selfish," let's look at the tool that I will use to help prove my point.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory">Game theory</a> provides us with a way of representing strategic situations, or games, called a matrix. A matrix like the one we are going to use can show us the different options from which players have to choose and what the payoffs are for each of those options depending on what another player chooses. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In our simple model, there are two players, each of whom has two options. They can either play selfishly or unselfishly. Then, depending on what they each choose, they receive certain payoffs. These payoffs reflect the incentives that a player has. A player has a greater incentive to choose a over b if a's payoff is greater than b's payoff. Obviously actual situations involve many more players and other factors, but I think you will see that the model makes sense.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The top right cell in the following matrix tells us that if Player 1 plays unselfishly and Player 2 plays selfishly, Player 1 would receive a payoff of -1 while Player 2 would receive a payoff of 3.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><h4 style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Basketball Matrix: Incentives from an Individual's Perspective</span></h4><table border="1" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><tbody>
<tr> <th><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></th> <th><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></th> <th colspan="2"><span style="font-size: small;">Player 2</span></th> </tr>
<tr> <th><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></th> <th><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></th> <th><span style="font-size: small;">Unselfishness</span></th> <th><span style="font-size: small;">Selfishness</span></th> </tr>
<tr> <th rowspan="2"><span style="font-size: small;">Player 1</span></th> <th><span style="font-size: small;">Unselfishness</span></th> <td><span style="font-size: small;">2, 2</span></td> <td><span style="font-size: small;">-1, 3</span></td> </tr>
<tr> <th><span style="font-size: small;">Selfishness</span></th> <td><span style="font-size: small;">3, -1</span></td> <td><span style="font-size: small;">0, 0</span></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This matrix tells us the following:</span></div><ul style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">When both players choose to play unselfishly they each receive a payoff of 2. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">When one player chooses to play unselfishly while the other player chooses to play selfishly (like in cells 2 and 3), the player who chose to play selfishly is rewarded (payoff of 3) while the player who played unselfishly is punished (payoff of -1). </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">When both players choose to play selfishly they each receive a payoff of 0. </span></li>
</ul><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I think we can agree that the payoffs are reasonable. To make sense of these payoffs let's think about what we would do if we are Player 1. Being Player 1, if Player 2 plays unselfishly we can help our individual cause (stats, contracts, etc) more by playing selfishly than unselfishly (hence payoff of 3 > payoff of 2). If you know that your teammates are going to be playing unselfishly, and you want to maximize your personal payoffs, then you will play selfishly. Let's think about this is terms of basketball. For example, if you know that your teammates will all play their roles and not take more shots than they should, then there is an opportunity for you to pad your scoring stats and therefore increase your prestige and possibly salary. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Being Player 1, if Player 2 plays selfishly our best option in terms of our individual cause (stats, contracts, etc) is also playing selfishly (payoff of 0 > payoff of -1). If you know that your teammates are going to be stepping outside of their roles and doing what is in their best interest, then it is also in your best interest to step outside of your role and do what is in your best interest. For example, if everyone on your team is trying to pad their scoring stats by taking a lot of shots, then by playing unselfishly (rebounding, passing) you are only allowing them to overshadow you and gain all the attention and eventually the contract money (hence the -1 payoff). Although it doesn't really benefit your cause (payoff of 0), playing selfishly when your teammates are playing selfishly will at least ensure that you don't lose attention and prestige.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So, no matter what your counterpart chooses, it is in your best interest to play selfishly. If he chooses to play selfishly then you should also choose to play selfishly (0 > -1) and if he chooses to play unselfishly then you should choose to play selfishly (3 > 2). In game theory, playing selfishly would be called a strictly dominating strategy. And as you can see, playing selfishly is a strictly dominating strategy for both players. So the likely outcome of this game would be both players playing selfishly and receiving payoffs of 0. Clearly this is not the optimal situation. If they had both played unselfishly they would have both received payoffs of 2. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now by this point you might be a little skeptical. Shouldn't you receive a higher payoff for paying unselfishly no matter what your teammate does? Wouldn't coaches and scouts notice that you are playing unselfish, team-first basketball despite your teammate playing selfishly and therefore value you higher, leading to a higher salary? You would think so, wouldn't you?</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And you would be right...about the first part. Most coaches and scouts in the NBA are good enough to appropriately value players who play unselfishly. Unfortunately it's not the coaches or scouts that really matter when it comes to correctly assigning dollar figures to players. It's the General Managers...but not completely. The GM's might be managing the team, but they are influenced to varying degrees by the owners. The owners are the ones that sign the checks after all. And what are owners interested in? Well, clearly it varies somewhat by owner, but most are interested in two things: the bottom line and winning. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">How do owners improve their bottom line? Well, I can't give you numbers to prove it, but it seems to me that putting butts in seats is probably the best way to improve your bottom line. And how do you put butts in seats? By winning. More than anything else, including having a "star" or scoring a lot of points, winning puts butts in seats. So basically an owner's goal should be winning and winning because winning is the best way to improve the bottom line and to win. And if a owner's goals are winning and winning wouldn't he want a team full of unselfish, team-first players? </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">You would think so. But apparently many owners don't seem to quite get this. They, like most people, value scorers more highly than they should (remember that scoring average is the biggest determinant of salary). This is understandable because scorers are the ones who seem to be having the most direct influence on the outcome of the game, but with each passing day the advanced stats movement is further and further disproving this idea. And this is where the problem of players having an incentive to play selfishly originates.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Players, whether consciously or not, know that they have an incentive to play selfishly, so over time they are likely to respond to those incentives and play selfishly. If everyone (fans, owners, GMs, coaches, scouts, players) correctly valued players (i.e. paid less attention to scoring and more attention to everything else) then players would have an incentive to play unselfish, team-first basketball. Eventually players would catch on and be more likely to play unselfish, team-first basketball. This would improve the quality of play across the league which would benefit everyone.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Hopefully what I have shown so far is that the scoring-centric basketball culture that has developed in the NBA is hurting the league and everyone who is associated with it. Players have incentives to play selfishly and in doing so are harming their teams. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So what is the solution? </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Well like any cultural problem, there is no quick fix. But I do think that we can make slow progress by continuing to advance the advanced stats movement. The more truth about the NBA game that stat geeks can uncover and the better they can communicate that to the public, the more we can begin to change the perception that scoring trumps all. </span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So whether the only stats you've ever heard of are the ones in the box score or you invented your own version of adjusted plus-minus, if you want better basketball (and who doesn't?!), you'll give the NBA stat geeks of the world a little more respect.</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">(Note: I would be remiss if I didn't mention </span><span class="addmd" style="font-size: small;">David J. Berri, Martin B. Schmidt, and Stacey L. Brook's </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.wagesofwins.com/">The Wages of Wins</a> which discussed many of these same ideas and originally got me thinking about them.)</span></div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> (Note 12/8/10: I just read Chapter 2 of <i>Stumbling on Wins</i> and I realize that there is quite a bit of overlap between what I discuss here and what is written there.)</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-4658259713857660362010-09-29T21:46:00.000-07:002010-10-03T19:06:57.863-07:002010 NBA Genesis Draft<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on Monday, August 16, 2010.</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I just finished this year's version of my NBA Genesis Draft. For a description of what a Genesis Draft is you can read my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/707632328/2009-nba-genesis-draft-top-5/">description from last year.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Av2yOjlC_WG-dGJYbUR2NklRUk91RlRjNHhWdzRnZVE&hl=en&authkey=CIuC05MK" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are the pick-by-pick results of the draft with comments included for most players.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Av2yOjlC_WG-dFVmeGVXaTAzYjZnNG1scFdCVC1fRFE&hl=en&authkey=CMDVscUN" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are the team-by-team results.<br />
<br />
One note. I accidentally forgot Tiago Splitter. By the time I realized my mistake I was midway through the eighth round at which point it was too late to try to fit him in. He would have gotten drafted much earlier.</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-14243549898386959362010-09-29T21:40:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:09:13.111-07:00A Big Fundamental: Outlet Passing<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on Sunday, April 25, 2010.</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The Big Fundamental. Average fans think he's boring. He doesn't dunk on people and he doesn't break anyone's ankles when he crosses over. But for anyone who can appreciate the minutiae of basketball, Tim Duncan is endlessly fascinating. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Most people know about his bank shot and his great footwork and even his unmatched interior defense. So I won't take the time to talk about those. What I want to talk about is one thing he does better than almost anyone that isn't talked about much.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let's talk about outlet passing. How hardly anyone has ever mentioned this element of Timmy's game is beyond me. In my opinion he is the best outlet passer in the NBA right now. You know those one-man fast breaks Tony Parker is famous for? Well, it's not magic. Parker doesn't just get the rebound, dribble past everyone, and shoot a layup. No, somebody else usually grabs the rebound and passes the ball to Parker around half court so that he only has to take 2-3 dribbles to get to the basket. And that someone is usually Tim Duncan. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Next time the Spurs are on (like, I don't know, maybe tonight at 7:00 on TNT) make a point to watch Timmy every time he gets a defensive rebound and see what he does with the ball. It's beautiful. There is no wasted motion. There is always a plan. There is always control, yet opportunism. The ball never fails to be on the money. The guard doesn't have to stop, slow down, or change directions. He can focus on where the defense is and where to pass or dribble next because he knows the ball will be delivered to him accurately and on time. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Specifically, Timmy's overhead bounce pass is exquisite. He will grab the rebound above his head, but instead of chinning the ball before throwing a chest pass, he will eliminate any extra motion by keeping the ball above his head and throwing the pass from there. This isn't just any pass though. It is a precision bounce pass that bounces up into the guard’s hands as he runs. The guard practically doesn't even need to look. The ball always seems to bounce right up into his breadbasket. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So in case you're ever stuck in average fan hell watching the Spurs play, make the best of it and watch the Big Fundamental earn his nickname outlet pass after outlet pass.</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-41090213681348809102010-09-29T21:38:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:11:15.092-07:00My Five Favorite NBA Teams to Watch<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on </span>Sunday, January 31, 2010.</i><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">At the beginning of every week I look at the week's upcoming NBA schedule. Given that my NBA viewing is limited to what is on ESPN, TNT, and ABC I watch what I am given to watch. So when I see the schedule I hold my breath and hope one of these five teams is on the slate of upcoming games (not that I won't watch if they're not).</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> <style>
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Spurs</b> - Yes, putting the Spurs first is biased. I'll admit that. I know they don't have any spectacular dunkers, and they don't score a ton of points, and they don't have any captivating stars, but if the Spurs are on I can't take my eyes off the screen. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of course it all starts with Tim Duncan. Next time the Spurs are on treat yourself and just watch Timmy for a five-minute stretch. Notice how he mak</span><span style="font-size: small;">es the right decision every time. He screens when he needs to screen, he scores when he needs to score, and he passes when he needs to pass. The result might not be perfect all of the time. I mean let's be honest, Timmy is not an elite finisher or athlete in NBA terms. So yes he messes up, but it's never a mental mistake and something has to be said for the complete lack of basketball cognitive dissonance that you experience when you watch the Big Fundamental. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Oh yeah, and the Spurs have other players that are fun to watch too. Just the chance of seeing a glorious exhibition of Manu Ginobili's creative brilliance on the court makes watching the Spurs worth it. And DeJuan Blair? Have you seen this guy? Since when are undersized power forwards who do the dirty work happy-go-lucky? Watching Blair enjoy repeatedly schooling taller opponents is worth the price of admission. So yeah, the boring old Spurs are my favorite team to watch.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Suns</b> - Hah! See, I'm not really that biased after all. I mean how could I put the Spurs archrival second if I was biased? I couldn't! </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Anyway, the Suns, despite their obvious decline in talent over the last couple of years, are still incredibly fun to watch.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And like the Spurs, it starts with one near perfect basketball player, the one and only Steve Nash. Like Duncan, Nash seemingly never makes the wrong decision. He is only limited by his relative lack of strength and explosiveness. In my opinion Nash is the second most offensively skilled player in the NBA, behind only Kobe Bryant. From his one-handed scoop shots off the wrong foot to his running left handed hooks off the backboard, there is no shot that Nash can't make. And you know what's even more incredible? For all of the horse shots that Nash shoots in games, he's the first player in NBA history to shoot at least 40% from three, 50% from two, and 90% from the free throw line in three different seasons. Oh and guess what? He's on pace to do it again this year. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Not only is Steve Nash maybe the best shooter in the NBA but he also happens to be the best passer in the NBA. I guess I should probably mention that. His creative yet smart passing has been well documented, but it bears mentioning again. Just like there is no shot that Steve Nash can’t make, there is no pass that he hasn’t tried and completed. From anywhere to anywhere by any means. Now that’s fun to watch.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And even though Steve Nash is reasons 1-6 why I love to watch the Suns there are a few other reasons. Grant Hill is one. Also exceptionally cerebral, Hill is an almost perfect basketball player. Of course he’s no longer really even a star, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a great basketball player. Like Duncan and Nash, Grant Hill can and does make the right play every time. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Not to mention that there’s always the chance that Amare could unleash some of his formerly common freakish athleticism in a rim-rattling dunk. That’s always fun (unless it’s on Timmy).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>LeBrons</b>…Oh, uh, I mean the Cavs. Yeah, Sorry. – So why do I love the LeBr--I mean Cavs? Well, LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I want to mention two things about LeBron this year that have made the Cavs infinitely more exciting to watch. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">First, the minimum one time per game that LeBron flat out obliterates some mere mortal’s shot. I mean <i>every night</i> LeBron has a block that is simply awe-inspiring. Whether he is pounding a seemingly uncontested layup off the backboard or coming from the weak side to swat a shot out of bounds, there is a 100% chance LeBron will alter the game (and maybe someone’s career) with his defense every night. You can only say that about LeBron and Dwight Howard. It won’t be long before we see someone streaking down the floor for an uncontested layup only to remember he’s playing the Cavs and pulling the ball out to avoid the chance that LeBron is within 40 feet of him to reject his shot. Now that will be fun to watch.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The second less obvious reason I love watching LeBron is his alphaness. By alphaness I just mean the way he completely commands everyone’s attention: his teammates, his opponents, the refs, the coaches, and oh yeah, us, the fans. Just the way that the entire game seems to ebb and flow through LeBron is captivating. Nothing happens on the court without LeBron allowing it to happen. He is just so thoroughly dominating it’s ridiculous.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Oh yeah and did I mention LeBron? LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. LeBron. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Lakers</b> – Why do I like watching the Lakers? It’s pretty simple.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Skill. And lots of it.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Like I said earlier, in my opinion Kobe is the most skilled player in the NBA. There is simply nothing Kobe Bryant cannot do on a basketball court. Here’s a little exercise you can do at home. Think of anything a human has ever done on a basketball court. Then ask yourself: “Could Kobe Bryant do that?” Repeat this exercise and you will notice a pattern. (Hint: the answer to every question is yes.)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then there’s Pau Gasol. Sure he’s a finesse player and he’s not tough, but man alive is he skilled. Inside of fifteen feet, Pau is similar to Kobe in that he can do every move in the book. He can shoot, pass, and find ways to score in a multitude of ways. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then add Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, and Ron Artest to Kobe and Pau and you’ve got a pretty entertaining team.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Jazz</b> – I know, I know. The Jazz? You can’t be serious. Well, I am. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This team is always worth watching because they’re a team. And a good team at that. From top to bottom they’re probably the best passing team in the NBA. Starting with Deron Williams, the Jazz move the ball better than anyone. Hey, like you I’m not a big fan of any of their players individually, but watching very good NBA players share the ball consistently is a joy to watch.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Thunder</b> – Now that everyone and their mother has jumped on the Thunder bandwagon (now that sounds like the way to travel!), ranking the Thunder this high doesn’t have quite the same shock value as it would have had at the beginning of the season. But you know what? I’m ok with that. Really, I don’t mind. At least I’m on the bandwagon, right? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Anyway, although I like watching the Thunder about as much as any of the teams I’ve already listed, I like watching them for different reasons. Unlike the Spurs and Suns you experience plenty of basketball cognitive dissonance when you watch the Thunder. Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Jeff Green and company never fail to provide at least a few Doh! moments. But, you know what? That’s ok. Because really we’re just watching a bunch of college kids play basketball. No really, look at this roster. Durant is 21 and would be a senior at Texas right now. Westbrook is 21 and would be a senior at UCLA right now. James Harden is 20 and would be a junior at Arizona State. Serge Ibaka is 20. Jeff Green is 23. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">So the next time somebody on the Thunder takes a bad shot or doesn’t rotate on defense remember that you’re watching college kids play against pros. Wait. Hold on. What’s that? Oh, oh really? Oh, my bad. Excuse me. I’m so sorry. I’ve – I’ve just been informed that in fact the Thunder players <i>are</i> being paid and are therefore considered professionals. I’m sorry about that folks. I really had no idea. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In all seriousness though, the reason I like watching the Thunder is the same reason I flinch every so often when I watch them. They play like a college team. They always seem to be playing hard, they move the ball, and they get after it on defense. Sure they’re not polished, but it’s the smoothing out of the rough patches that makes the Thunder fun to watch.</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-85001849988325984282010-09-29T21:36:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:13:35.804-07:00NBA Roster Ratings (Preseason 2009)<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on Tuesday, October 13, 2009</span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">In June I said that I was going to be working on two major projects to post on this blog. One of the two, the NBA Genesis draft, I completed. The</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> other, roster analyses of every NBA team, I hardly even started, much less finished. Shortly after beginning to work on the first of these roster analyses, I realized that in order to do a good job and produce something that someone would want to read I would have to put in way more work than I was prepared to put in. I also realized that throughout the time that I was working on this, teams would be changing due to free age</span>ncy, etc. This would make this project even harder. So sometime near the end of the summer I realized that I would not be able to produce all of these roster analyses before the NBA season started.<br />
<br />
Recently though, my desire to do something like this has resurfaced. Being as I am pretty busy right now with school and basketball and everything I decided to abbreviate the analysis quite a bit. I came up with a pretty elementary rating system to rate certain elements of each team's roster that resulted in a nice, ne<span style="color: black;">at chart </span>that tells you everything you need to know about every team's roster. OK, so it might not tell you <i>everything</i>, but it does do a pretty good job of summarizing the various strengths and weaknesses of each team's roster.<br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a name='more'></a><br />
I came up with six different characteristics of a roster that I think are the most important. I weighted the different categories based on how indicative of success I think a high rating in these categories is. The first two categories—top level talent and depth of talent—are out of seven. So the best score a team can receive in this category is a seven. The next three categories—fit, balance, and experience—are out of five. Th </span> <span style="font-size: small;">e last category—mileage—is out of three. I weighted these categories this way for a reason. There is no doubt that in order to be a good NBA team you have to have good players, hence the two talent ratings being out of seven. The fit, balance, and experience ratings are all important, but can be overcome if the team is very good in lots of other ways. The mileage rating is only out of three because the amount of mileage on a team’s players may or may not effect how their season turns out. It is much more of a <i>potential</i> problem then it is a definite one.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: small;">Some of these ratings are pretty self-explanatory, but a little clarification shouldn’t hurt.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></span></div><ul style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Top level talent</span> (out of 7): This rating answers the question, "How good are this team's best players?" To score high in this rating (i.e. 6 or 7) you basically have to have multiple all-stars. But this rating isn't just based on the number of all-stars, but also on the quality of those all-stars. For example, the Heat only have one all-star, but that all-star is one of the best five players in the game. Because of that, their rating in this category is a little above average—a 5. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Depth of talent</span> (out of 7): This rating answers the question, "How many good players does this team have?" To score h</span>igh in this rating (i.e. 6 or 7) you have to have more than just a few good players. The highest rated teams in this category have multiple all-star caliber players and above average players who come off the bench. Again I will use the Heat as an example. Besides Dwyane Wade they don't have any other all-star caliber players and have a pretty mediocre roster overall. So even though their top level talent rating was a 5, they received only a 3 in the depth of talent category.</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fit</span> (out of 5): This rating answers the question, “How well do the players on this roster complement each other?” To score high in this rating (i.e. 4 or 5) you have to have a roster full of players that make each other better by having complementary skills. A common reason for getting a low score in this rating is having a team with too many scorers or players who have to have the ball to be effective. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Balance</span> (out of 5): This rating answers the question, “How big of a difference is there between the best and worst elements of a team?” To score high in this rating (i.e. 4 or 5) you have to have a roster that has a good balance of outside and inside talent, starters and reserves, stars and role players, etc. </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Experience</span> (out of 5): This rating answers the question, “How much playoff experience do the players on your roster have?” Good teams have talented, balanced rosters, but in order to be a great team that can truly contend for an NBA title, you have to have experience. That is why I include this rating.</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.1pt; margin-top: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-weight: bold;">Mileage</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> (out of 3): This rating answers the question, “How much mileage do the players on this roster have on them?” Basically this rating is the flip side of having a lot of experience. Experience is great to have, but it comes with the higher risk of the older players wearing down or getting injured over<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> the course of the season. I made this rating the least important (only out of 3) because often a team’s collective mileage never ends up being a problem, but it can be an issue so I decided to include i</span>t.</span></span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: small;">Also, after rating each team in each of the six categories I totaled up the scores to give an overall rating. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><span style="font-size: small;">So here is my <a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApXQeEJ5_LQOdEZJblc1RzdWWnhiS3EydE5jMEdYZHc&hl=en" rel="nofollow">2009 preseason roster ratings chart</a>.</span></div>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-35618861980222569912010-09-29T21:35:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:17:13.361-07:00MAC Commonwealth Advanced Stats and Such<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;"><i>Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on Sunday, August 30, 2009.</i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Over the summer I have worked sporadically on calculating some advanced statistics for Messiah and the other teams in the MAC Commonwealth conference (it's DIII, so no, you haven't heard of it). I was curious as to what some of these stats could tell me about some of the players and teams in our conference. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><br />
Having recently read and enjoyed Dean Oliver's book <span style="font-style: italic;">Basketball on Paper</span> I decided to start by calculating some ratings that Oliver developed: floor percentage and offensive rating.<br />
<br />
I'll let Mr. Oliver himself explain what these are:<br />
"<span style="font-style: italic;">Individual floor percentage</span> is an individual's scoring possessions divided by his total possessions. It answers the question, 'What percentage of the time that a player wants to score does he actually score?' A player like Shaq will do very well here because he shoots well [a high percentage], commits few turnovers, and gets to the line a lot.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Individual offensive rating</span> is the number of points produced by a player per hundred total individual possessions. In other words, 'How many points is a player likely to generate when he tries?' Though Shaq may have a high individual floor percentage, his poor foul shooting means that he has a lot of one-point possessions, bringing his offensive rating down a bit. Good three-point shooters like Reggie Miller, who may not have the highest floor percentage, will have higher offensive ratings." (Basketball on Paper)<br />
<br />
I also calculated some other individual statistics that give insight into more specific aspects of the game. These are effective field goal percentage (eFG%), true shooting percentage (TS%), offensive rebound percentage (OR%), rebound percentage (REB%), and turnover percentage (TO%). <br />
<br />
I could attempt to explain all of these in my own words, but other people have already given much better explanations so I'll just direct you to those:<br />
<a href="http://basketballnotebook.blogspot.com/2005/12/basketball-notebook-stats-primer.html" rel="nofollow">A good explanation of all of these ratings.</a><br />
<a href="http://www.rawbw.com/%7Edeano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm#box1" rel="nofollow">Explanation from Dean Oliver's old website</a>.<br />
<a href="http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=608" rel="nofollow">Further explanation and links to other resources.</a><br />
<br />
So hopefully looking at these rankings should help us better understand who the most effective and efficient offensive players in the MAC Commonwealth conference last year were.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApXQeEJ5_LQOdEhnZEVQZmExamY3ak5wejFBeDlMbEE&hl=en" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are all of the ratings for every player in the MAC that played at least 100 minutes last year.<br />
<br />
The first sheet is ALL of the data, which probably isn't that useful or easy to read, but it's there.<br />
The other sheets in this workbook are the top 10 players for each of the statistics. For this I decided to include only players who played at least 60% of their team's games and averaged at least 10 minutes per game. So the second sheet is the players with the 10 best floor percentages, and the third sheet is a list of the players with the 10 best offensive ratings, and so on and so forth.<br />
<br />
One thing to keep in mind about these stats is that it's basically impossible to reach definitive conclusions about players based on just looking at these stats, but they are valuable. They <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> tell you who the more efficient shooters were, or who took care of the ball better than most. They <span style="font-style: italic;">can't</span> tell you definitively whether Matt Sosna or Brandon Wilkinson is a better shooter, but rather just that they are both really effective and efficient shooters. So don't take the fact that Derek Hall was ranked 1st in rebound percentage to mean that he is definitively the best rebounder in the conference, but rather just that he is <span style="font-style: italic;">among</span> the best rebounders in the conference.<br />
<br />
So hopefully you can learn a little bit about who is good at what in our conference by looking at these stats.</span>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-29541286990134765342010-09-29T21:34:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:21:26.874-07:002009 NBA Genesis Draft<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on </span>Sunday, August 02, 2009.</i></div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">So here it is, my 2009 NBA Genesis Draft.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">But first, a few notes.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">For every genesis draft I do I designate one team to be my "trash team." I put players on my "trash team" that I don't want to have to draft on any of the other teams. Usually the trash team ends up being almost as talented as any of the other teams, but the team is composed of players I wouldn't want on my team or I don't know what to think of. You'll find out pretty quickly which team is my trash team.</span></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I'll give you two ways to view my 2009 NBA Genesis Draft.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The first version is pick by pick from the first pick to the 300th pick in order.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tqY8iqmghQxkZeMnwpmwMnA&output=html" rel="nofollow" style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Here</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> it is.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The second version is a team by team view that shows the players that ended up on each team, but does not specify what order they were picked in.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t14lE6Rmf3-hEbd8EST7JPQ&output=html" rel="nofollow" style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Here</a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> it is.</span></span>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-33438544316938250912010-09-29T21:33:00.001-07:002010-10-03T19:23:45.204-07:00Creating Your Own Shot<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on </span>Thursday, July 23, 2009.</i></div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">You know what’s funny? My last post, you know the really long weird one about basketball and biology, well that post was meant to just be what this post is, a short note about what the phrase “creating your own shot” means. Somehow it turned into the behemoth that it now is. I wish I knew how that happened. Anyway, before this post gets out of hand too, I’ll get to the point.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">You know when people say that so-and-so can “create his/her own shot.” They usually mean that this player is athletic and skilled enough to take his/her defender one-on-one and get a good shoot. I would say that this is only </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">one</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> way to create your own shot, but it is not the </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">only</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> or even most common way of doing so.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The way of creating your own shot that to me seems more relevant to real basketball is creating your own shot when you don’t have the ball. As a result of the fact that most everyone who watches basketball watches the player with the ball most people don’t recognize a lot of what happens in order for a player to get a good shot. The majority of basketball players (those who don’t have incredible athleticism and skills like many NBA players) cannot get a really good shot in a game situation by going one-on-one. Instead, they rely on certain kinds of movement (screens, cuts, etc) in order to get themselves (or their teammates) in a position to score. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In all levels of basketball, but especially with young kids, there is a certain amount of luck that goes into scoring. Often you score because your teammate cut at a certain instant that caused your defender to turn his head which caused him/her to lose track of you just for a split second which caused him/her to be off balance when he/she recovered to you when you got the ball giving you the angle to get to the basket to score. Your teammate probably didn’t intend to cut at that perfect instant, but nonetheless his cut helped you score. At every instant tons of these types of things are happening on the court. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Anyway, if a player can recognize even some of these little things as they are occurring, they can take advantage of them and put themselves (or their teammates) in a position to score. An aware player is able to see that by cutting he might be getting his teammate open, or that by positioning himself in a certain place while the ball is on the other side of the court he is giving himself an advantage when the ball gets swung to his side. Players who are “good at moving without the ball” are just good at recognizing and successfully acting on all of these little occurrences.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The best players read and react to all these little things almost subconsciously. As you probably guessed players do not and cannot think through all of these little things and still play fast enough to be successful. Recognizing and acting on the tons of little occurrences that are constantly happening in a game of basketball is second nature to great basketball players. Some of this ability may be natural and God-given, but much of it comes from just playing the game. That is why it is often so painfully obvious when someone who has never really played basketball tries to play in a game. They just don’t have what people often refer to as a “feel” for the game. They don’t know how to react and interact with the defense and their teammates. There are so many things that experienced basketball players do naturally that are not easily noticed unless you are experienced in the game yourself. The most important of which is probably the ability to create shots without the ball.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">A good way to think about this is to think about scoring like an iceberg. The part of the iceberg that is hidden underneath the water is analogous to all of the things that happen when a player doesn't have the ball that enable him/her to score. The tip of the iceberg is analogous to all of the things a player does with the ball that enable him/her to score. When spectators see what a player does with the ball that enables him/her to score they are usually only seeing the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot that the average spectator doesn't recognize that enables a player to score. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">So, the ability to create your own shot by reading and reacting to all of the little occurrences of the game (whether you have the ball or not) is basically the foundation of scoring and something every basketball player should strive towards.</span></span>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-44661639029772272032010-09-29T21:32:00.000-07:002010-10-03T19:29:18.429-07:00Basketball is Like Biology<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"><tbody><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on </span>Thursday, July 23, 2009.</i></div></div></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"><tbody></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"><tbody><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I love basketball and I hate biology. Those are just two constants of my life. I’m always in the mood to play basketball. I have vivid memories of the one time in my life that I turned down that opportunity. But biology, I run from it like the plague. I didn’t even try to take the AP Biology exam even after taking (or rather, being forced to take) regular and AP Biology in high school. If you asked me what my favorite hobby was, I would say basketball without any hesitation. And if you asked me what my least favorite subject in school was, the first word out of my mouth would be biology. These two things could not be any more different. Basketball is my passion and biology is my nemesis. I mean I </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">love</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> basketball and I </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">hate </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">biology.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Or at least that’s what I thought.</span></span></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"><tbody><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="blogbody"><tbody> <a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">But of course I had to go and think about it and what do you know I come up with this serendipitously alliterated analogy: “Basketball is like biology.” Basketball is </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">like</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> biology. Yeah, not “Basketball is the opposite of biology.” Or “Basketball is way better than biology.” But rather “Basketball is </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">like</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> biology.” </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I think I’ve got some explaining to do.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">So here goes.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I don't pretend to know much about biology, but if I remember correctly from my high school biology class, all living things are classified into kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses, and species (OK, so I didn't actually remember all that from high school--Wikipedia may have been involved) based on the various characteristics they possess. Some things have this and not that; others have that and not this. You get the idea.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Basketball players are the same way. At the kingdom level of basketball, we classify players based on really basic things. For example, we might classify them by height or position. So there might be the point guard kingdom, the shooting guard kingdom, etc. Then as we move down to phylums, classes, and orders we might start classifying them by more specific things like can they shoot 3's or can they play good defense. And as we move even farther down into families and genuses we might classify players on very specific things like whether they can guard quick players at their position, or whether they can shoot well from a particular spot. Eventually we get to the most specific level, the species, where we hopefully can get a very specific description of a certain player's characteristics. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Basketball is like biology in other ways too. While many think living things evolve over the course of thousands or millions of years, basketball players (especially young players) can evolve over the course of a few weeks or months. They can develop new skills with some good coaching and lots of practice. Also like living things, basketball players are affected by their surroundings. A simple example of this is the player who may be a good scorer but is on a team with a bunch of great scorers. In order to survive (help the team win, get playing time) this player may have to change his focus from scoring to distributing. As a result, he becomes (at least for this team) a better passer and a worse scorer. Sure sounds like survival of the fittest and evolution to me.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Besides just being another attempt to make sense of an aspect of the great game of basketball, this analogy should also help to shed some light on the difference between the casual fan and an NBA scout or GM. Casual fans see basketball at the class or order level. They might see a player as being good at shooting, but bad at defense. Or maybe even more specific, like good at distributing the ball, but bad at rebounding. An NBA scout, on the other hand, sees basketball at the genus and species levels. Their job is to know everything about certain players. They don't think as much about really general things like whether a certain player can shoot or not, but rather whether that player can shoot from the corner off the catch, or drive and finish at the rim with their left hand, etc. The ability to distinguish Toxicodendron radicans from Toxicodendron diversilobum is what separates a good biologist from a weekend hiker. Similarly, the ability to recognize that a player is a much better shooter coming off of pin-down screens than he is spotting up in the corner is what separates NBA coaches and scouts from casual fans. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This analogy can also be helpful in explaining the roles of different people who are involved in basketball. In the NBA, it is the scout's job to know players at the species level. They should know what players can and can't do (or as is often the case, what a player will hopefully be able to do one day, and what a player will probably never be able to do). The coaches of the team are the ones who put the players in positions to succeed based on their characteristics. The coaches also know how these individual characteristics translate into team characteristics. This sounds kind of like the role of a gardener to me. They have to know which plants can grow where and how those plants interact with each other. The GM should then be the one who studies his players' and team's characteristics (with help from the coaches), and the characteristics of all of the players who aren't on his team (with help from the scouts) with the intent of finding the best possible combination of players. This may be analogous to some sort of ecologist who studies how ecosystems function. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Anyway, when you think of a GM as being like someone who plans ecosystems that will function well (sounds like God to me) you begin to understand how difficult being a GM is, or would seem to be. I've never been a part of an NBA front office, so I can't say this for sure, but looking in from the outside it's hard to imagine that all or even most front offices look at players at this almost theoretical species level. Although I obviously think that front offices know more about basketball and basketball players than you or I, I don't think they have yet reached the ceiling of what they can know about players. I don’t think they look at basketball and its players at the species level. And this, I think, is where the statistical revolution comes in. GM's like Daryl Morey are daring to study players at the species level and then make decisions based on these observations. What's unfortunate (or maybe wonderful) about basketball is that you can never know for sure whether you are absolutely right or not. There are so many millions of variables that being able to know about and control a few dozen is relatively unimportant. Maybe GM's up to this point have just been getting lucky when they produce a good team (I mean somebody has to win). They didn't </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">really</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> know what they were doing. Ironically, this unsurety is what always frustrated me about biology. There were always exceptions and inconsistencies, and areas where science was still unsure. Now apparently basketball is the same way. So I guess I’m a hypocrite. I actually love basketball </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">and</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> biology. (Or do I hate them both?).</span></span>
<tr></tr>
<tr><td width="5%"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span></td><td valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-34171022655214582342010-09-29T21:29:00.000-07:002010-10-03T19:34:40.534-07:002009 NBA Genesis Draft, Top 5<i style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on Sunday, July 19, 2009</span>.</i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">True to my word I am working on my 2009 NBA Genesis Draft. Currently I am midway through the 3rd round of what will eventually be a 10 round draft. To give you a taste of the draft I am going to post the first five picks of the draft. But before you delve into the sweet, buttery goodness that is my 2009 NBA Genesis Draft I should tell you what this draft is... </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">This draft is simply my simulation of how a draft would unfold if all of the NBA teams were starting from scratch and all of the players were free to be drafted. <br />
</span></span></div><div style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div><div style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2.</span> I do take into account fit. So this is not a fantasy draft where you draft players solely based on there statistical accumulation potential (SAP) regardless of how well the team would do in real life. This also is not just a simple ranking of how good I think each of these players are. When I am doing this draft I am trying to build teams that I think would perform well in real life. I am drafting players based not only on how good they are in a vaccuum (you know what I mean), but also on how they would fit with the other players I have already drafted to that particular team.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">3.</span> I do take into account age. What I mean by this is that while Ray Allen may be a better player than O.J. Mayo right now, I may draft Mayo higher because he is younger and has more potential for the future while Allen probably only has a couple of effective years left. In other words, I am not just drafting for this year. I am drafting as if I am building a franchise with these players that will continue year after year.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">4.</span> For this draft I do <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> take into account anything involving salaries. So for example, the fact that one player has really good value because of his cheap contract in real life does not affect where I draft him in this draft. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">5.</span> This is a snake draft. This means that the draft order is reversed in the even rounds. For example this means that the team that picks last in the first round picks first in the second round. I have found that this results in the most even teams. </span> </div><span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> Now that you know </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">what</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> this draft is, let me tell you </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;">why</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> I am doing this draft...</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1.</span> The first reason that I do this draft is simply that I like doing things like this. I wouldn't do this if I didn't. <br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2.</span> The second reason is that this draft provides a way for me to kind of quantify how players' stocks have risen and fallen over the past year. For example, I drafted Tracy McGrady 18th overall last year. He then proceeded to have a bad, injury marred season. Well this year he will probably get drafted in the third or fourth round because of doubts about whether he will ever be healthy enough to be really good again. So in this way I can track how my perceived value of players has fluctuated from year to year. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">3. </span>The third reason I do this draft is that it forces me to learn more about all of the players, especially the ones I rarely if ever get to watch. I am very busy during basketball season so there is no way that I can watch the amount of basketball that I would need to watch in order to know a lot about 300+ players. So in the summer when I am not as busy, I do this draft and in doing so I look up almost every player to see (at least statistically and through second hand accounts) how they performed last season. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">4.</span> Lastly, doing this draft gives me an avenue through which I can practice trying to put players together that would play well together. Now, there is no way (at least not yet) to accurately simulate how these combinations of players would play together in real life, so there is no way of actually knowing whether I did a good job or not, but at least it is a good exercise to go through to practice thinking about what kinds of players fit well together.</span></div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Also, I can guarantee that you will probably disagree with quite a few of the picks so feel free to comment on how idiotic (or brilliant) you think they were. Just keep in mind that I realize that there is a lot I don't know about these players and that the main reason I am doing this is for my own fun and entertainment.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">So without further ado here is the link to the top five draft picks of the 2009 NBA Genesis Draft:</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tDbvaKQF0sMYb_dUadRukIg&single=true&gid=1&output=html" rel="nofollow" style="font-family: Times New Roman;" target="_new">http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tDbvaKQF0sMYb_dUadRukIg&single=true&gid=1&output=html</a></span>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-36985050816667757562010-09-29T21:28:00.000-07:002010-10-03T19:36:24.081-07:00The Principle of Passing Lines<i><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: small;">Note: This was originally posted on my <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">old blog</a> on </span><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Sunday, July 12, 2009.</span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">For me, daydreaming pretty much means thinking about basketball. Sometimes I imagine myself performing amazing feats of skill and athleticism on the court. Sometimes I think about the NBA, who was good, who is good, and who is going to be good. And sometimes I just try to make sense of the game or some aspect of it. This post falls into that third category. There isn't really a particular structure or purpose to this post. It's basically just a slightly more organized and grammarized version of my scatter brained thoughts. Hopefully it will astonish and amaze you nonetheless. With that, I present to you the principle of passing lines. (gasp!)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Principle of Passing Lines</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">: When you don’t have the ball on offense you should always be trying to create passing lines between you and the ball. If there is not a practical passing line on which a pass could come from the ball to you, then you should be moving to create one either for yourself or your teammates. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This principle of passing lines means that just because you are open does not mean that you are doing the right thing for the offense and are allowed to stop moving. If a pass cannot reach you in a timely manner, then the fact that you are open is irrelevant. This does not mean, however that you should resort to playing amoeba ball and run towards the man with the ball because that is seemingly the only way to create a passing line. You have to be clever in recognizing how to move to get yourself open and your teammates. Yes, your teammates. You cannot accomplish this alone. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Coaches so often install set plays and offenses because they realize how to create scoring opportunities but their players do not, so the players must be given specific jobs that if done right will result in a good shot. This situation (the coach using the players as puppets) is not optimal though. The optimal situation is when the players “get it.” They realize the big picture of the play or offense. That is the point at which they can really play and are most effective, combining the discipline and structure of an offense and the freedom and intuitiveness of individual play. This point is not easy to get to. Some players never reach it. For most it takes 1-2 seasons of playing under a specific coach and in a particular system. </span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">But before a player can truly “get it” in a particular system he/she must “get” basketball. A natural and intuitive sense for the game regardless of set plays and offenses is crucial for success. Again, this point of “getting it” is not easy to get to. Some players, even professionals, never reach this point. Many players reach this point eventually given enough practice. And some players are seemingly born with this court sense and natural feel for the game. Players like Steve Nash and Chris Paul come to mind. As evidenced by the rather obvious examples of Nash and Paul, it is often point guards who are described this way. But one player who “gets it” is practically useless if he is all alone. Wings and big men can “get it” too, and that is when offenses become devastating. So no matter what position a player plays he/she must be a basketball player, not just some robot or puppet. And one of the simplest ways to be a basketball player is by practicing the principle of passing lines. Make yourself available. Be a basketball player.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">One of the best opportunities to create passing lines is in transition. Quickly transitioning from defense to offense is essential to scoring. A set defense is always better than a defense in transition.</span><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><br style="font-family: Times New Roman;" /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Against a good defense these passing lines may only be present for a split second, which is why it is important to have a ball handler (usually PG) who can quickly recognize and capitalize on these passing lines.</span></span>Philip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4057132996893199551.post-12337809339465632162010-09-29T21:21:00.000-07:002010-09-29T21:23:55.899-07:00Welcome!Hello all, and welcome to <i>A Basketball Mind</i>!<br />
<br />
So what is this blog all about?<br />
<br />
Well, I'll explain it like this:<br />
<br />
From time to time, my mind gets going. Sometimes the impetus is an interesting article on <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop">TrueHoop</a> or some other blog or website. Sometimes it's a book I'm reading. Sometimes it's a subject I'm studying. Sometimes it's a game of basketball I'm watching or playing in.<br />
<br />
And when my mind gets going, no matter where it started, if I give it time, it will come around to how that impetus relates to basketball--the nature of the game, the beauty of the game, and the complexities of the game.<br />
<br />
And the best way for me to fully develop these mental ramblings is to go through the process of explaining them to someone else. And the best way for me to do that is this blog. <br />
<br />
So basically this blog is a space where I will try to put words to the thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head. It just so happens that most if not all of these thoughts will relate to basketball.<br />
<br />
<br />
This blog is a continuation of/upgrade from my old blog by the same name: <a href="http://philibuster01.xanga.com/">A Basketball Mind</a>. I will post some of the better posts from that blog to this one, but if you're interested you can check that one out too. (Warning: I started the blog when I was a sophomore in high school, so if you go back far enough you'll find...well, you won't find anything worth much, except a few jokes about Shaq, Nazr Mohammed, and Rasho Nesterovic).<br />
<br />
So thanks for stopping by and I hope to see you again!<br />
<br />
- PhilPhilip Ribbenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302279352493437484noreply@blogger.com0