JT's Playoff Diary

What’s it like to be an NBA sportswriter? Well, courtesy of NBAMate I had the chance to find out, by attending two games in Chicago and New York during the first round of the playoffs. As experiences go it was off the charts, a dream come true for a life long hoops fan. ‘Surreal’ is the best way to describe it.

I am not going to take you through the nuts and bolts of the game; that’s old news. What I will do is describe the experience of attending the playoffs as a member of the media. From walking into the stadium through the media entrance, to the post game press conference, I’ll lay it all out for you.

Before we proceed, a valuable tip. If you’re going to make this epic journey from Oz to realise your NBA dream, then don’t let your mother-in-law drive you to the airport. Let’s just say, if we cut it any finer ‘JT’s Playoff Odyssey’ would have been over before it started.

Read more of my article at NBAMate

November In The NBA

It’s that time of the month folks, when I chime in with 10 observations from the previous month’s NBA action (in no particular order). Let’s get into it.

1. No Haslem, No Title?

LeBron’s been too passive, Wade looks lost and Bosh has no presence on the inside. All this can and will be rectified, but what can’t be overcome is the loss of Udonis Haslem. I would liken it to the Lakers losing Lamar Odom; he plays a similar role (especially on the boards) and is critical to their success. With Haslem gone they have lost their depth on the front line, and more crucially, their only blue collar guy. This will be exposed against elite competition in the playoffs.

Wade’s absence in the preseason and the complexity of trying to mesh two ball-dominant alpha dogs, is reason for the slow start. Expect them to start clicking after the All-Star break, but the loss of Haslem may have ultimately sealed their fate.

Read more of my article at NBAMate

True Title Contenders - Why There's Only Two

(Published by Yardbarker.com on 03/10/2010)

The word ‘contender’ gets bandied about too often in NBA circles. According to those in the know, teams such as Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Utah and Chicago are ‘contenders’ for the upcoming season. My understating of a contender is a team that is capable of winning an NBA championship, and no disrespect to the teams above but neither will be hoisting the Larry O’Brien trophy in 2011. The reality is there are only a few teams each season, generally two or three at the most, that have a legitimate shot at capturing an NBA title. And this year is no different.

With the seven game series format in the playoffs the NBA is not a hard sport to predict. Don’t believe me? Ask my poor wife, who must endure my predictions each October and the gloating that usually follows in July.

But under a system that ensures the best team will progress, how does one reliably identify who these ‘best’ teams are? This is what I hope to answer.

My objective: to create an easy-to-use tool that can clearly distinguish the non-contenders from the true contenders.

There are certain qualities that an NBA champion must possess. With that in mind I have identified five key elements that will form the basis of my theory; DEFENSE, EXPERIENCE, DEPTH, BIG-GAME PLAYERS and the X-FACTOR.

Let me explain.

DEFENSE

It’s no secret that defense wins championships in the NBA, but more specifically it’s interior defense that is the critical element. If a supposed contender fronts up to a season with a thin/small frontline (ex. Atlanta/Utah/Phoenix), they might as well pack their bags and go home because come the playoffs they aren’t going anywhere. Poor interior defense means no title and it’s as simple as that.

EXPERIENCE

To succeed in the NBA you must first fail. Winning is a process and valuable lessons need be learnt before you can take your place among the NBA’s elite. Whilst championship experience isn’t a necessity, a team must have at least three regular rotation players with deep playoff experience before they can realistically expect to contend for a title.

DEPTH

A thin bench will only get you so far in the NBA. There are exceptions, like the Lakers of the last two years, but they had the luxury of an ultra talented starting unit and Lamar Odom off the bench. But history shows most NBA champions sport a deep bench, and if you want to compete with the big boys you will need at least three players of real quality coming off the pine.

BIG-GAME PLAYERS

What do Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Dwayne Wade and Manu Ginobli have in common? Apart from each winning an NBA title in the last five years, they’re all elite big-game players. To climb the NBA mountain requires a special player of this ilk who can take the game over on the biggest stage. But it doesn’t stop there; you’ll need this big-game quality in some of your role players too. Like a Fisher, Posey, Horry or Payton. A team without this will come up short in their quest for a title.

X-FACTOR

All championship teams have an aura about them; that is, they have something unique that makes them special. With the Lakers of the last two years (although I think they got off lightly in 2009 with Garnett’s injury) they were led by the ruthless Kobe Bryant hell-bent on furnishing his legacy, with the best number two in the league by his side; the 2008 Celtics were ferocious defensively with three Hall of Famers in their prime; and the 2007 Spurs were a clinical machine with no chinks in their armour. This is what I call the ‘X-Factor’; a defining characteristic that will set you apart from the competition.


THE RATING SYSTEM

My rating system works like this. For a given team, each of the five elements above will be assigned a rating of A, B or C. The meanings are as follows:

A – Championship Calibre
B – Average
C – Sub par

The way I see it, any team that scores less than four A’s and one B is not a legitimate title contender. Score a C in any category and that will automatically remove you from the discussion. This may seem harsh but in order to identify the cream of the crop a rigorous standard must be applied.


RATING THE FIVE BEST TEAMS IN THE NBA

I will now apply this tool to the five best teams in the NBA. Some people may question Portland’s inclusion but I maintain that if healthy, and that’s a big if, they are the only team equipped to challenge LA in the west.

LOS ANGELES LAKERS

A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
A - X-FACTOR

Total: Five A’s

Comment: LA solidified their bench in the offseason with the acquisitions of Steve Blake, Matt Barnes and Theo Ratliff. As a result, this Laker team will be a notch better than last season and even better than that with a healthy Andrew Bynum. Yikes.

MIAMI HEAT

A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
A - X-FACTOR

Total: Five A’s

Comment: People will nitpick but the reality is they’re going to be a nightmare for any team to handle. Concern has been raised about interior defense, but let me just say this; the Chicago Bulls won six NBA championships with average to below-average players manning the middle. The Bulls did it collectively, as will the Heat. Miami has some very good individual defenders in LeBron, Haslem, Anthony and Chalmers, and freed from the burden of carrying their teams, Wade and Bosh should also join this group. Combined with the fact that Erik Spoelstra is an exceptional defensive coach – last season the Heat ranked second in fewest points allowed per game (94ppg) despite the lack of quality on the roster – and this Heat squad should be one of the best defensive teams in the NBA.

BOSTON CELTICS

A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR

Total: Five A’s, one B

Comment: Show me a team that has won an NBA championship when most of their key players are past their prime? It doesn’t happen, and with two super teams to compete against, it won’t happen this year either.

ORLANDO MAGIC

A - DEFENSE
A - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
B - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR

Total: Three A’s, two B’s

Comment: There’s something lacking here. For mine it’s an elite go-to scorer, and I don’t think Dwight Howard will ever be that guy. The Vince Carter experiment was a bad one, and if they can’t turn his ending contract into the type of player they need (Gilbert Arenas?), they’re in trouble.

PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS

A - DEFENSE
B - EXPERIENCE
A - DEPTH
A - BIG-GAME PLAYERS
B - X-FACTOR

Total: Three A’s, two B’s

Comment: They have the size to challenge LA in the west, they’ve got a big-game player in Brandon Roy and they have a deep roster, but unfortunately all their key players are injury prone. At full strength they would be dangerous.


CONCLUSION

In LA and Miami you have two teams of the highest quality, and this is reflected in the results. Although Boston could contend for a title in a weaker year, their heavy reliance on players past their prime will rob them of the crucial ‘X-Factor’ that champions typically possess.

Therefore, although time will ultimately be the judge, I predict that the only true title contenders for 2011 are the Los Angeles Lakers and Miami Heat. In the case of an injury to a key player, then Orlando/Boston in the east, or Portland/Dallas/Oklahoma in the west could step up. But so long as either LA or Miami are in the finals with their key pieces intact, that’s where the championship will land in 2011.

And who would win an LA versus Miami finals match-up? Sorry, I am willing to stick my neck out but not that far; it’s just too early to call. But for what it’s worth, one thing I will say; a lot depends on the health of Andrew Bynum.

Without big men, what's the point?

Published by www.probasketballnews.com on 09/07/2008
Link: http://www.probasketballnews.com/todd_070908.html

Quick. Name a team that has won an NBA championship in the last 15 years with a dominant point guard as its centerpiece?

Having trouble? That’s because there are none.

So why are we consistently hearing now that the NBA is a point guard’s league, when history tells us otherwise?

The theory seems to have arisen because of the stellar play of third-year point guards Chris Paul and Deron Williams, who have not only had tremendous individual success, but team success as well.

But can a team led by a dominant point guard win the ultimate prize? Let’s examine recent history.

Since 1999, eight of the 10 NBA championships have involved either Shaquille O’Neal or Tim Duncan, two of the greatest post players to ever play the game. The two exceptions are the 2008 Boston Celtics and the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Both teams relied on a combination of physical defense and balanced offense to beat the odds and claim a title.

OK, let’s go back even further. During the 1990’s, the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls won six NBA championships (1991-93 and 1996-98), the Houston Rockets won two (1994-95) and the Detroit Pistons one (1990).

The Bulls championship teams of the 90's did not have a dominant post player or point guard, but let’s take a look at their strategy. Phil Jackson’s Triangle offense creates regular post-up opportunities for versatile wing players, and with Jordan and Scottie Pippen filling that role, they were unbeatable.

On the other hand, the Rockets' championships were due in large part to another
Hall of Fame post player, Hakeem Olajuwon (two-time Finals MVP).

So we have to go back almost 20 years to 1990 to find a Hall of Fame point guard in Isiah Thomas who led the Pistons to an NBA championship (and gained a Finals MVP).

As for San Antonio point guard Tony Parker ... well, he is a tremendous player and top three point guard in the league. But let’s face it, he’s more of a complementary player who feeds off the brilliance of Tim Duncan. Yes, Parker won the Finals MVP in 2007, but generally speaking, he’s not consistently dominant like Paul or Williams. It's true that Parker is only 26-years old, and he may yet develop that type of consistency, particularly as Duncan’s play begins to decline. But he hasn't yet.

The 2008 Finals featured two teams with role-playing point guards. The Celtics started second-year point man Rajon Rondo, who is extremely talented but still very much a work in progress. The Los Angeles Lakers went with trusty veteran Derek Fisher in the backcourt, but in reality he’s more of a combo guard than a pure point guard. Thus, both teams reached the grand stage without being heavily reliant upon dominant point guard play.

Rather, offensively speaking, Boston relied on the inside-outside versatility of Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce, while the Lakers fed off Kobe Bryant’s dominance. Garnett is capable of being a dominant post scorer in stretches, but because of the limited amount of time he plays in the post he cannot be labelled an elite post player.

Steve Nash won the league MVP in both 2005 and 2006, yet was still unable to lead a talented Phoenix Suns team to the Finals. When it’s all said and done, Nash will be remembered as one of the all-time great point guards, but his inability to win a title will tarnish his legacy, as with other Hall of Fame players who come up short (Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, etc.). With the current situation in Phoenix, one has to wonder how long Nash's championship window will remain open.

In regard to the most recent NBA draft, as expected the Bulls selected Memphis point guard Derrick Rose with the first pick. There is no doubt that the Bulls will improve with Rose running the point, but until they acquire a reliable low-post scorer they will not contend for a championship. There is a reason why talented teams like the Bulls and New Jersey Nets drastically fell away this past season, mostly due to their complete lack of low-post scoring and total reliance on jump shooters.

It’s actually quite simple if you think about it. A low-post scorer by definition sets up close to the basket, thus making it an easier shot. Jump shooters, on the other hand, attempt shots that are further away from the basket, making it more difficult and less reliable.

Call me old-fashioned, but if given the choice of drafting a Dwight Howard or Greg Oden, or Chris Paul or Deron Williams, I would choose big over small every time.

I have no doubt that Paul and Williams are headed for superstardom -- but until proven otherwise, I will hold onto the belief that together with solid defense, an NBA championship is won through great post play or legendary brilliance.