Jose Mesa Is Dead

WE'RE NOT HERE TO COOPERATE

[josemesaisdead]

The #Cavs Unlocked the Future of the NBA When They Traded for Kevin Love

And it was in Golden State. Think about it: GS is on the verge of trading Klay Thompson for Love when Cleveland steps in and effectively kills the deal. Either Brian Windhorst or Zach Lowe stated on a podcast that Golden State called Minnesota after Minnesota had agreed in principal with the Cavs and tried again.

Then this happens: David Lee gets hurt and Draymond Green is moved into the starting lineup. New coach Steve Kerr keeps him there.

Golden State then becomes capable of playing 5 guys in small lineups who are either transcendent offensively (Curry) or can defend, pass, and shoot. This is clearly the present/future of the NBA. The Cavs cannot compete with two minus defenders (Kyrie Irving and Love) who are good but not transcendent offensively, especially since the league has passed LeBron by -- Golden State and San Antonio can defend his isolation/pick and roll heavy game using players who don’t have to give up anything (or much) on the other side of the ball. First, with the Celtics and Tom Thibodeau, defenses got more sophisticated. Now offenses are catching up, but the only way to be a great offensive team against a great defensive team is to play like Golden State or San Antonio, in complex system-oriented offenses where most if not all of the players can pass, score and shoot.

I fear the Cavs built a team that was unprepared for this shift - and how could they have been? The shift didn't happen until they traded for Love and Golden State didn't.

[josemesaisdead]

A "Super Max" Contract For Kyrie Irving?

In October, Kyrie Irving,  two-time NBA All-Star, will begin the fourth season of his Rookie Scale Contract. He will therefore, in the language of the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, be a "5th Year Eligible Player" at the end of the 2014-15 campaign.

As a result, Irving is free to sign an extension with the Cavaliers starting this summer. Kyrie and his agent and the team have through October 31st to come to terms on an agreement. If they do not, Irving will be a free agent after the '14-'15 season unless the Cavs make a qualifying offer of $9.7M - at which point Irving would become a restricted free agent (meaning the Cavaliers would have the option to match any competing contract offers).

No doubt negotiations between Irving's reps and the front office will begin shortly after July 1st. While there is reason to question whether or not Irving is worth a Maximum Contract Extension, the Cavs have to at least play the game. Even owed max money, Kyrie would most likely be easily tradable.

How much money then are the Cavs set to offer the young PG? 

Per the CBA, a Maximum Salary Extension for Irving is determined by first calculating 25% of the salary cap at the time the contract is signed. The deal can be up to five years long, with a raise of up to 7.5% of the base year salary per year.

Here then is what the contract would look like based off a projected salary cap of $66.5M in 2015:

2015-16

$16.625M

2016-17

$17.871875M

2017-18

$19.11875M

2018-19

$20.365625M

2019-20

$21.6125M

TOTAL DEAL $95,593,750

(Note that the last year of Irving's Rookie Scale Contract is revised as part of the extension. Irving signing a 5-Year Max Extension would give the Cavs control of his playing rights for four, not five, additional years.)

That said...

Irving may actually be eligible to receive a "Super Max" Contract Extension this summer.

What is a "Super Max" Contract Extension?

Notably, the term "Super Max" does not appear in the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement; it appears to be a term that was invented by the press. The term though alludes to a specific section of the CBA that calls for Fifth Year Eligible Players to be eligible for a Maximum Salary worth 30% of the salary cap, instead of 25%, if he meets one of the following criteria (again, directly from the CBA): 

(i) the player is named twice to the All-NBA first, second, or third team

(ii) the player is voted in twice as an All-Star starter

(iii) the player is designated once as NBA MVP

Irving, everyone should know, has not yet met any of these criteria. Although he is a two-time All-Star, he was only voted in once; the first time he was selected by the coaches. 

Therefore, Irving is not eligible for a Super Max Extension... yet.

Max Extensions for Fifth Year Eligible Players are drawn up in a way to allow for the fact that a player could meet one of the above criteria during his fourth season.

This puts the Cavs in a precarious position. 

If the fans vote Irving into the All-Star game this season as a starter, he will meet one of the above-referenced criteria, and his deal will suddenly cost far more than originally planned. 

Here's what Irving's contract would look like if he gets the "Super Max:"

2015-16

$19.95M

2016-17

$21.44625M

2017-18

$22.9425M

2018-19

$24.43875M

2019-20

$25.935M

TOTAL DEAL $114,712,500

The difference is a staggering $19,118,750 over the course of five years.

The result is a perverse incentive for the Cavs to kill any effort by the fans to vote Irving into the All-Star game as a starter - which would force the team to give him the Super Max and therefore eliminate a portion of important cap space that could be used to help build the team moving forward.

Clearly, a winning number of votes for Irving would not make him a better basketball player. 

If the Cavs and Irving agree to an extension, then, should the team start an anti-Irving stealth campaign? Maybe it should just root wholeheartedly for a healthy Derek Rose and Rajon Rondo - and for John Wall to continue to get a whole hell of a lot better. 

[josemesaisdead]

THE CALCULUS OF LEBRON'S DECISION

Here is one flow chart of how LeBron James might decide what to do on or after July 8, 2014 --

1) Will Dwyane Wade opt in or out? 

2) Will Chris Bosh opt in or out? 

3) Given the above, which players can Pat Riley promise to add to the roster in Miami? 

4) Where will Carmelo Anthony sign? 

5) Given the above, what is the probability of the Heat winning the East? This can be calculated to some extent using estimated wins in combination with analyzing match ups and gut instinct. 

6) Which other teams in the NBA are realistic options for LeBron to sign with? 

7) If any of these teams are in the Western Conference, what is the probability of said team making it to the Finals? Again, this can be calculated to some degree.

8) Do the Heat have a higher probability of making it to the Finals than team B in the West? I suspect the answer to this is likely "yes" unless Melo signs with Chicago and then the answer is a little more gray.

9) What is the overall probability of team B in the West winning the championship? What is the overall probability of the Heat winning the championship given the above factors?

10) Which situation offers the highest probability of winning a title?

Note that this examines the decision on the basis of winning a title in 2015 and nothing else. The choice becomes far more complex if the calculus involves winning multiple championships over multiple years. The number of variables increase exponentially. 

This analysis is also based in the idea that LeBron will execute on a robot-like thought process grounded in one simple question: "What gives me the highest probability of winning a title in 2015?"

We have been taught to think about a free agent's decision in far more emotional terms, factoring in qualities like loyalty, legacy, and quality of off the court life. As computer analysis becomes a deeper part of our culture, this may or may not change in sports, which are a replacement for religion in many ways in an increasingly secular America. In general, I think the question of legacy is a silly one to discuss while a player is still playing. Not only are we comparing what he does to what other players did in a fundamentally different world, league, and game, we are also trying to establish something - a legacy - that by definition can't be established until after a player's career has ended.

Certainly people in some sectors would deride LeBron if he "chased" championships with different teams for the rest of his career. But if he were to win, say, eight more championships (yes, the probability of it being this high is low) and largely remained the best player on his team throughout this period no one at his Hall of Fame induction speech could really say shit. 

[josemesaisdead]

RE-ASSESSING THE IDEA OF "TEAM," LEGACY, AND FANDOM IN THE NBA

Teams win championships we are told. Not players. But when it comes to judging the greatest players of all time the average fan falls back on discussions about how many rings said player has won:

"LeBron is a schmuck! He only has two rings! Kobe is the greatest... except for Jordan because he has one more ring! No one will ever be better than Bill Russell!"

When was the last time you heard someone having an argument about which franchise was the greatest franchise in history? Sure, it happens. The conversation though is primarily limited to the Lakers and the Celtics due to the success of those teams when the league was fundamentally a different concoction than it is now - with fewer teams to spread a smaller wealth of players (the international game wasn't what it is now).

Players who are concerned with their legacy then must be focused on winning as many championships as possible, given how we treat them if they don't win "enough."

I believe that we should judge players based on individual accomplishments within the confines of a team game. Did a player have a career in which he made his team better? How much better? Although this can be a difficult question to answer, or at least quantify, data like WARP and Real +/- help.

To this end it is important to remember that teams are organic, evolving creatures. Players, coaches, and management change from year-to-year. Ownership changes, too, albeit less frequently. 

Assuming that things about any given team change every year anyway, why should we criticize players for going to a different team? They are simply changing the players and the coach and the general manager and the owner around them - all things that would have happened (to different degrees) if they had simply stayed in one place.  

Is a player really any worse because he's playing with a dumb team name (sorry, Pelicans) on his chest? 

He isn't. And we shouldn't criticize a player who changes his teammates and his organization unless we truly are a culture that wants to reward faith in upper management... and I know too many of you have watched THE OFFICE or OFFICE SPACE or read about the 2008 financial crisis or the War in Iraq to truly believe in that premise. 

Next season if LeBron is playing half of his games in Miami with different players or half of his games in Los Angeles with different players there is technically no difference. In a sense, switching teams is a greater risk for him - that should like most risks be appreciated and carefully observed - because he is then acting not only as a player but also as a partial GM instead of simply hanging around and relying on two old white guys in Miami. 

Fans of specific teams won't agree with this idea, but that's OK - they are by definition fanatics with irrational allegiances and emotions.

To pour salt in the wound, I will add that I tend to think the idea of being a fan of any one city's teams is archaic, as it is rooted in an era when it was impossible to watch every single basketball game on television on any given night... when going to games was a definitively better experience than watching them at home and only local games were on TV. Now we have access to NBA League Pass and can watch any team we want to as much as we want. Why should any child grow up rooting for the team nearest to him if he doesn't actually like the guys on that team more than the guys on some other team he can watch on the same flatscreen TV?

He shouldn't. That would be illogical. Especially since as I've already discussed the players on a team change over time anyway. Fandom, in other words, shouldn't be static. Why would anyone root for a mascot or a name or an ownership group? They wouldn't. They root for the players on the floor. 

The NBA's growing global audience is particularly aware of the inanity of loyalty to any one team. What difference does it make to a kid in India if LeBron is playing in Cleveland or Miami or Houston? Geography is doubly meaningless to him. 

Although teams win championships and great players are judged on the number of rings they keep in their jewelry boxes, we are ultimately fans of players, not  teams. Even if we are only fans of a player when he is on a certain team... we aren't rooting for a mascot.

Yes, if Lebron leaves Miami for another city he will be chasing more rings. But he'll be chasing more rings if he stays in Miami, too. He'll just be doing so by a different mechanism, one in which he will have less ownership. And he knows that if he doesn't get to six rings you will never be willing to acknowledge that he was better than Jordan anyway. You will root against him no matter what... while the kid in Beijing will simply dial up NBA.com and order a new jersey. He needed new clothes for school anyway. 

[josemesaisdead]

Byron Scott, Stan Van Gundy, and Expected Wins

Across the course of my entire life, I've only been able to convince my dad of one thing when it comes to sports: Byron Scott is not a very good coach. Therefore, after nearly every Cavs' game, we have some spirited discussion via email that Scott should be fired at the end of the season and replaced by my hero, Stan Van Gundy, who is absolutely brilliant on "The Dan Le Batard Show" every Wednesday.

It's hard to find public data on coaches. I'm sure teams and gamblers have it, but as far as I know the usual sites only keep track of the basics, like winning percentage. Therefore, I've gone on a search to find data to support my belief that Scott is an old school coach who has watched unwittingly as a league and a franchise growing more and more focused on statistics passed him by.

Last night, after the Cavs lost to the Heat, I decided that one possible way to quantify the impact of a coach would be to measure a team's expected win-loss record (based on point differential) versus its actual win-loss record... my theory being that the gap between the two - whether a team won or lost more games than it "should" have - could be attributed, in part, to coaching.

This afternoon I added up some numbers comparing Scott to Van Gundy. Here's what I found: 

Counting partial seasons, including the current campaign and the two years in which Scott was fired by the Nets and the Hornets, respectively, his teams have won 2 more games than expected, based on their point differential. 

Counting the partial season in which he was replaced by Pat Riley in Miami, Van Gundy's teams have lost 9 more games than expected, based on their point differential. 

Hard to say what this proves, if anything. It certainly suggests that Scott's teams perform better in close games than Van Gundy's - although how much credit the coach should get for that is debatable. Interestingly enough Rick Carlisle's teams have won 13 more games than expected over the course of his career in Detroit, Indiana, and Dallas...

For what it's worth. 

[josemesaisdead]

The Browns Tell You It's OK To Suck Forever As Long As You Never Quit

The Browns posted the above article on their Facebook page today. I was going to comment on the post there, but I thought, "What the hell?" why not write a blurb for Mesa instead.

Here then are my thoughts --

LOL at the organization that has gotten knocked down about 42K times since reforming in 1999, only been to the playoffs once, and generally shown little to no improvement from year to year emphasizing "getting up after each fall." 

Last time I checked, based on the fact that the team is still an operational business that is part of the National Football League they are contractually obligated to "get up after each fall."

Congratulations, Browns. You were scheduled to play 16 games this year. Therefore, you must "bounce back" against the Steelers.

And don't worry: No matter what, your fan base will stay loyal.

[josemesaisdead]

Pause

No Mesa post tonight. Tim and I have been discussing how to proceed, given the lack of relevant conversation starters on the Cleveland sports scene at the moment. We seem torn between a new post-when-it's-called-for schedule or a complete overhaul that incorporates a fresh, high concept idea. 

Tim or I will update with more information ASAP. 

Thanks, as always, for caring. 

Mike.

[josemesaisdead]

On Speculation

Yesterday, ESPN's Jerry Crasnick wrote a column in which he made out offseason report cards for every team in the AL Central. The Indians placed last in Crasnick's list, with a 'D' grade. His reasoning was simple: Chris Antonetti made no moves other than signing Austin Kearns--not exactly an impact contract--whereas every other team in the division made at least one banner-headline trade or signing.

These grades are the sports journalism equivalent of white bread--completely empty calories that satisfy hunger for only the minimum possible time period.

And yet, I can't even be upset about them because I am one of the hordes of people who is demanding to be fed at staggering pace.

Let me explain.

With rare exceptions, writers making grandiose statements about the future of entire teams based on current moves (or lack thereof) are all but useless. Yes, occasionally, someone like Peter King will correctly predict the Super Bowl match-up in the pre-season, but for every one of those hits there is a colossal collection of misses.

For another quick home-town example, consider that Mel Kiper Jr did a column a few weeks ago in which he regraded every NFL team's 2010 draft. In that column, most teams' choices ended up looking considerably better or much worse to Kiper after the rookies in question actually played a full season than they did when they'd just put on a hat with their new team's logo. (The Browns, for instance, were raised from a C to a B+.)

This shouldn't be surprising, with hindsight being 20/20 and all that. Almost inevitably, the writers who compile these columns will admit that they're barely ever right. (King, to his credit, has repeatedly made the point that his correct Super Bowl prediction was possibly a once-in-a-career anomaly.) In many cases the preseason picks become recurring sources of good-natured ridicule among writers' colleagues and fans.

All of this begs the question: Why do they write these columns in the first place?

Easy: because there's demand for information, and the writers have to fill space.

When tasked with writing about sports in a dead zone like the MLB offseason, you're forced to manufacture stories. Aside from minor deals like Vlad Guerrero signing with the Orioles last week, the "breaking news" portion of MLB offseason activity is over. Spring training hasn't started yet. And it'll take til at least July before anyone really has any idea which teams are legitimately good and which aren't. 

As Mike noted yesterday, this is true of a certain period in all sports. Right now is almost indisputably the worst segment of the sports calendar year. The only major league working is the NBA, and they haven't even entered into the stretch playoff run yet. (Not that it will make much of a difference if you're a Cavs fan.)

This entire situation is made worse by the fact that there's a high probability that both the NFL and NBA will go through lock-outs in 2011. If that happens, we're all going to be seeing speculative sports journalism taken to a whole new level between now and 2012.

I don't begrudge any writers this--it's the machine that we as sports fans/consumers have created. Every day we log onto various sites demanding new information to help us whittle away time. The writers need to say SOMETHING, so they create predictions, then re-evaluate those predictions mid-season, then re-re-evaluate them at the end of the season. If they don't, websites go dead, TV shows go dark, and people lose jobs. It's self-preservation, really.

In fact, this post itself is a perfect example. What the hell is going on in the world of Cleveland sports that REALLY needs to be discussed right now? Not much, as far as I can tell. And based on his comments from yesterday, Mike agrees with me. So for the purpose of creating a post, I dug out an article about the Tribe just so I could spend time writing about how useless the article was because, in theory, there are people who are going to come to this website at some point today looking for content. Ironic, right?

It will be an interesting experiment to see if there's actually a lower quantity of sports news out there if a double-lock-out happens. My guess is that there won't be. There's too much demand for information, at least from the major providers, for them to just allow the cycle to lapse. So my guess is we're all going to have to get used to the idea that a greater and greater quantity of the stories available to readers will be based on rumors and predictions rather than actual facts or performance. And I as a writer am going to have to get used to the idea that the same will be true of the "stories" I generate.

In short, Jerry Crasnick, I ain't mad at you. We're all playing the same game.

-T

[josemesaisdead]

What Does It All Mean?

This past week we saw the Cavaliers lose their record 24th straight game...

We saw the Orlando Magic lose to the Boston Celtics and the Miami Heat... 

And we just saw the Pittsburgh Steelers lose Super Bowl XLV to the Green Bay Packers. 

What does it all mean? 

I honestly have very little idea. 

(When was the last time you saw a sports columnist admit that?)

Truth be told, my interest in professional sports is sagging. This is natural. Like all of us, I only have a limited amount of free time. The Cleveland teams - those that my dad raised me on, and that became something for me, him, and my brother to bond over once we became adults - are, at the moment, uninteresting.

The Browns' season is over. I'm not going to analyze the draft. The Cavs are pathetic enough that I'm considering writing a new post every day on how awful Antawn Jamison is at defense. Free agency, for the Indians, is non-existent. Spring training is not that far off ... and also not that compelling. 

The Browns, the Cavs, and the Indians have always been my gateway to the rest of the NFL, NBA, and MLB, respectively. Therefore, I haven't been following the leagues in general very closely. So I'm not comfortable writing posts about why LeBron's advanced stats are down this year, or, theoretically, why I think Aaron Rodgers is a better quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger. 

When we started this website, our intention was to supply fans of Cleveland sports with an outsider's perspective, one that wasn't hopelessly tied to a "woe is me" attitude. We all like to feel special. Making yourself out to be the king of losing is one way to do that. Clevelanders, in my opinion, do this spectacularly. 

It does not make me fond of them. 

Not "them" per se, but rather, their pervading attitude. At Mesa, we've tried to be realists since the beginning. I think we've done that. Has it mattered? I don't know. Have we made an impact?

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I don't think we have. 

Why is this? 

Realism isn't commercially appealing. I know this because I work in the movie business. Narratives that sell to mass audiences aren't based on what we know is true but rather on what we want to believe is true (and I'm paraphrasing William Goldman when I say that). Moreover, these stories need to be wrapped in tight little packages with just enough of a twist so that they feel different - but can still be consumed in a familiar fashion. 

What I'm saying, essentially, in this admittedly somewhat rambling post, is that Mesa is an indie movie screening for a city full of people who were hoping to see TRANSFORMERS 3. 

What does it all mean? 

I have a few ideas ... but if anyone else is out there, I'd be curious to hear what you think.

[josemesaisdead]

Anthony Parker Trade Scenarios

Rumors surfaced this week that Chicago’s front office has registered serious trade interest in Anthony Parker, contingent on the health of his back. The outlines of a deal aren’t in place, so there’s no indication of compensation on the Cavs’ side yet. But since all I think about with the Cavs nowadays are trades, I figured I would spend some time trying to figure out what would be realistic for Chris Grant to get back in an A.P. swap.

Ironically, the Cavs are still dealing with the same trade dynamic they’ve been dealing with for the past few seasons. They just happen to be on the opposite side of it. Contenders are now looking to the Cavs to supply key role players that can help push their nucleus to the next level.

Of course, the hitch is that the contending teams want to give up relatively little to acquire that key role player.  They’re also generally pretty asset-light. Their rosters are normally stocked with stars, veterans, and a few developmental young players on contracts complicated by Base Year Compensation rules. In short, even if they were willing to be generous, contending teams often don’t even have many of the assets a rebuilding team wants. Chicago is no different.

Let’s clear this up immediately: there are basically no actual Bulls players that the Cavs would both really want and likely be able to acquire.  Taj Gibson (the anti-Glitch, as far as I can tell) is a significant contributor averaging about 23 minutes per game; Chicago’s not giving him up. Omer Asik could possibly be available, but he’s a base year player and thus difficult to incorporate into a deal. Plus, the Cavs already have one developmental 7’ center in CSKA Moscow’s Sasha Kaun. They’d be better served in trying to fill the other myriad holes in the roster.

That leaves James Johnson as the only available young gun on the Bulls’ bench who could fit. He’s no longer on a base year deal. He plays a position of need (SF). But unfortunately, he’s been back and forth to the D-League this year, and his numbers in the majors have not been impressive. 

In light of all that, the only appealing offer for Chris Grant revolves around the draft. Chicago still owns their 2011 and 2012 first-round picks. They also hold a future first rounder from Charlotte, but I assume they’d be more prepared to deal one of their own first-round picks than the Charlotte pick because of likely draft order. Meanwhile, Chicago’s second-rounder in both 2011 and 2012 is owed to Milwaukee.

Theoretically then, the best scenario for the Cavs is to demand one of Chicago’s next two first-round picks as the centerpiece of the trade.

After mulling it over, I think Chicago’s front office can justify that pay-out. Right now the Bulls conservatively project to have one of the top five records in basketball, meaning their 2011 first-rounder will be #26 at best. The incoming draft class is weak by most accounts I’ve seen, and the danger of a lock-out grows by the day. With Parker as another serious three point threat to pair with Kyle Korver, the Bulls become a championship-level team with minimal sacrifice.

On top of the “basketball reasons” for the Bulls to pull the trigger, Parker’s status as walking salary relief adds to his trade value. His $2.9M salary comes off the books at the end of this season. This gives the Cavs some bargaining power, as keeping Parker would have clear benefits and should force the Bulls into sweetening the deal with a pick they may not otherwise want to include.

So what’s the likely trade? I can see two possibilities. One would be A.P. for Chicago’s 2011 #1, James Johnson, and Brian Scalabrine. In that case, the Cavs get Johnson as a low-risk project ($1.7M this year, with team options for the next two at about $1.8M each). They would likely buy out Scalabrine’s one-year veteran minimum contract, thereby saving some cash and allowing Scal to return to the end of the Bulls’ bench before the playoffs as an even more translucent version of early 2000s Mark Madsen.

The other possibility would be for the Cavs to replace Johnson in the deal above with Keith Bogans ($1.6M). This is the cleaner deal for the Bulls, since Bogans and Parker play the same position and roughly the same quantity of minutes. Having both players on the roster would be redundant. Bogans (career 107 Defensive Rating) is a slightly better defender than Parker (career 109 Defensive Rating), but not nearly the dead-eye from distance (35% 3P career to Parker’s 41.2% 3P career). The Bulls can live with any minor defensive drop-off to gain the serious bump in firepower.

For the Cavs, there’s little difference between the two versions of the deal. Both are a wash from a financial standpoint. Bogans’s contract for next year is a non-guaranteed $1.73M—basically identical to the $1.8M team option on James Johnson’s contract.  Scalabrine would be bought out in either scenario. Bogans would probably do more for the Cavs’ quest to avoid the worst record in NBA history, whereas Johnson has more potential for the future.

But in all likelihood, neither player matters.  At their cores, both versions of the deal amount to a 40% off sale on a first-round pick. (The established going rate for straight-up selling a first-rounder is $3M.) Hardly inspiring when defined that way, but still a net positive for the Cavs.

None of this matters if Parker’s back gives out again in the next two weeks, or if a third team gets involved. But if a deal does materialize strictly between the Cavs and Bulls, the over-arching point is that it’s not going to alter the Cavs’ immediate future in a significant way. However, the asset stockpile will grow, and that’s about all we can ask for at this point.

-T

[josemesaisdead]

Short post for me tonight, regrettably. But here is a link to a very good article, as usual, by Michael Lombardi that discusses the Packers and the Steelers most recent head coaching hires - more specifically, neither organization's desire to "win the press conference." 

It seems to me that Mike Holmgren followed a lot of these same principles when hiring Pat Shurmur to be the Browns newest head coach. 

Personally, I am always in favor of a decision that comes without a desire to win the press conference ... but, in that case, I really wonder why Holmgren didn't remove Mangini last season. Because if Holmgren believes in the principles Lombardi discusses in this article, then the notion of Mangini being the appropriate head coach for this organization seems deeply misguided. 

[josemesaisdead]

Return of the Double Standard

I watched last Thursday's "Inside the NBA" over the weekend. During the course of the broadcast, I was reminded of something that I'm sure we noted at the beginning of this season (though I'm not going to spend the time trying to dig back into our archives and prove it).

Essentially, TNT's studio team was lauding Boston's play and discussing what a tough out they'll be in the playoffs this spring. One of the essential components of their argument: just think of what they'll be able to do when they have a healthy Shaquille O'Neal back on the court.

Whomever made this point was greeted with a loud round of agreement. Shaq was indeed going to be a handful in the post-season.

Compare this to the reaction of NBA analysts last year when The Big Aristotle was in a Cavs uniform. All we heard about during that time was how old Shaq had gotten, how he'd lost several steps, how he didn't have any lift, couldn't be depended on to deliver in a major way during the playoffs, etc. 

However, with his 38th birthday looming in 34 days, Shaq has somehow been thrown into some kind of analyst rejuvenation machine. Somehow, by putting on a different uniform, he has once again become a force to be reckoned with. 

I'll admit that I haven't been paying as much attention to the league as a whole this season as I have in previous years. My sense from what I had seen up to today was that Shaq was largely doing the same things in the same quantities with Boston as what he did for the Cavs last year. But in the interest of fairness, I decided to check the numbers tonight to be sure.

Here's what I found:

2009-10 Shaq Vs. 2010-11 Shaq

Games Played: 53 Vs 35

Minutes Per Game: 23.4 Vs 20.9

FGA per 36 min: 13.4 Vs 9.6

FG%: 56.6 Vs 66.7

FTA per 36 min: 6.6 Vs 6.4

FT%: 49.6 Vs 55.8

Offensive Rebound %: 9.4 Vs 8.8

Defensive Rebound %: 24.0 Vs 20.2

Total Rebound %: 17.0 Vs 14.8

Assist %: 11.3 Vs 5.8

Turnover %: 15.7 Vs 17.1

Offensive Rating (Points scored per 100 possessions): 104 Vs 113

Defensive Rating (Points allowed per 100 possessions): 102 Vs 98

Fouls: 4.9 Vs 5.8

In summary, Boston Shaq shoots a much higher percentage from the floor and a slightly less terrible percentage from the stripe; is no better at getting to the line; rebounds worse (particularly defensively); assists about half as much; turns the ball over more frequently; and fouls more often than Cleveland Shaq, with a negligible difference in minutes per game (-2.5 this season).

So while his offensive rating has improved noticeably, and his defensive rating somewhat, the category by category breakdown suggests that this is not a dramatically different player than he was a year ago. Even the current upticks in his offensive and defensive ratings are likely to settle before the end of the season. Case in point: in his last 4 games, Shaq has totaled 10 points...combined.

This isn't a column meant to bag on Shaq, who I still root for on an individual level. The point is that, once again, the same phenomenon can look a whole lot different to the sports media depending on whether it's happening in the TD Banknorth Garden instead of The Q. Some things never change.

-T

[josemesaisdead]

The 4-3 Defense and the Princeton Offense

Tim, myself, and @joshrosen had an illuminating, albeit brief, conversation on Twitter Sunday night regarding the Browns' apparent switch to a 4-3 Defense.

Ever since the possibility of this transformation came up, I've been asking myself a simple but important question. 

Why? 

Why do the Browns want to become a 4-3 Defense? 

Is the 4-3 Defense more effective than the 3-4 Defense they have been running? 

Does Pat Shurmur only understand how to coach a 4-3 Defense? 

Does Tom Heckert only know how to supply players for a 4-3 Defense? 

What, really, is the point? 

This is a crucial question because obviously the two kinds of defenses need different types of personals. In the simplest terms, the 4-3 needs one more starting end than the 3-4. The 3-4 needs one more starting linebacker than the 4-3.

This means that a personnel overhaul is coming. Free agents will be signed. Draft picks will be used. Trades could be made. 

And for what? 

If the 4-3 was really more effective than the 3-4, you would think that the two teams competing in the Super Bowl this Sunday would be deploying it. 

They are not. 

The Browns had a bunch of weaknesses already. Now they have one more - defensive players who are not suited for the 4-3. 

If Pat Shurmur only knows how to coach a 4-3, I'm not sure what to say. As a former Offensive Coordinator, ostensibly, he should understand both types of defenses. And since there isn't going to be an Offensive Coordinator on this coaching staff at all, I don't see how Shurmur will have any time to spend on the defense as is. 

So what was it? Heckert can figure out 3-4 personnel, can't he? He did so last year. Was Dick Jauron such a can't miss hire that the Browns had to have him - and Jauron, we know, has a history coaching the 4-3? 

This seems unlikely since they did, after all, interview other candidates. 

When Tim, Josh, and I were exchanging messages about this, Tim made what I thought was a great point: "Any time a coach preferentially imposes a system w/o considering strengths of his personnel it is mistake." 

While I would hesitate to use the "always" that is buried implicitly inside of Tim's tweet, I largely agree. If a coach is going to demand his team play a certain style or within a specific system that runs counter to the personnel he was given he better make a compelling argument for why. 

Here, in Cleveland, we're watching this movie already. Byron Scott came in and kicked out Mike Brown's offensive and defensive systems, simply for the sake of his own familiarity. Sure, Scott has had success running the vaunted Princeton Offense before, but he did so with superstar point guards Chris Paul and Jason Kidd at the helm. A carbon copy of either one of those two point guards is not on this team.

So, I ask, what was the point of installing a new system? Because Scott liked the Princeton Offense more?

This is a classic mistake by upper management. We all have our preferences, but our preferences must serve a purpose or they won't be effective at anything beyond making ourselves feel more comfortable. 

Which, when your job is winning games, shouldn't really be at the top of the priority list. 

Ultimately, changing systems means re-education and changing personnel - and it probably means some amount of regression. In the case of the Cavs, this has actually worked out well, since it is better for the organization in the long run that the team is tanking this badly this quickly.

When it comes to the Browns, however, another year of regression is unacceptable. Otherwise, why bother firing Eric Mangini if you're just planning on getting worse anyway? 

You don't. You fire Mangini to get better. And there is reason to wonder if switching to the 4-3 will make getting better in 2011 at least slightly more difficult for the Cleveland Browns.  

[josemesaisdead]

Colt Vs Kolb

  Adam Schefter is reporting that the Philadelphia Eagles have decided to franchise Mike Vick and trade Kevin Kolb.

More importantly to us, sources are listing the Browns as one of the teams potentially interested in trading for him.

You're not going to find a bigger proponent than me of the notion that until your NFL team has a quarterback, they're just not important. You're also not going to find anyone more unsure than me about whether or not Colt McCoy is the real deal at the position.

Then why am I adamantly opposed to the possibility of Holmgren & Company dealing for Kolb?  Two simple reasons.

First, by almost every statistical category I've checked, McCoy was better than Kolb last season. From our friends at Advanced NFL Stats:

2010 COLT McCOY vs. KEVIN KOLB

Games played:  8 vs. 7

Win Probability Added: -0.18 vs -1.02

Expected Points Added: 16.5 vs 4.4

Completion %: 60.8 vs 60.8

Pass Yards per Game: 197 vs 171

INT per Game: 1.125 vs 1.0

% of Pass Attempts Over 15 yards: 20.3 vs 19.6

Adjusted Yards Per Attempt: 4.2 vs 3.8

In summary: McCoy played one more game than Kolb last season, but apart from throwing .125 more interceptions per game, was as good or better in every way.

I would highlight Completion Percentage, Percentage of Pass Attempts over 15 yards, and Adjusted Yards per Attempt in this comparison, because they illustrate that McCoy and Kolb are both West Coast style quarterbacks. In other words, both are equally well-suited toward the type of O that Pat Shurmur is going to run.

Add to the above that we were bombarded with report after report about McCoy's leadership ability and presence in the huddle as a rookie, and I just don't see a logical argument for the idea that Kolb is a superior quarterback.

This leads us to the second reason that I'm against the idea of a trade: compensation. If memory serves, the Eagles are supposedly asking for multiple picks, including at least one first rounder, for Kolb. The Browns need talent all over the field, with the possible exception of RB and the center to left side of the O line. Given that reality, shipping off multiple picks in order to acquire a quarterback who is not markedly better than your incumbent seems like about as good an idea as wearing capri pants to a UAW bar.

So while I'm not yet sold on McCoy, I hope the Browns brain / mustache trust recognizes that they need a talented, deep draft class more than they need another unproven quarterback.

-T

[josemesaisdead]

Boobie Gibson and the Oklahoma Thunder

The last time the Oklahoma City Thunder were on national television, I remarked on Twitter that I would not be able to take them seriously as a contender until they could make for than 5  threes a game (good for 28th in the league).

I wrote this because I'm a big believer in the impact the 3P shot has on offensive efficiency. When your team can shoot well from behind the arc, not only does it lead to more points on fewer shots, it also spreads the floor. Statistically, as Kevin Pelton at Basketball Prospectus has illustrated, 3P shooters have a positive effect on a team's offense. 

Hence my logic regarding OKC.

But then I discovered that the Thunder are currently ranked 6th in the NBA in Offensive Efficiency. 

So what gives? 

Namely, free throws. 

Oklahoma City is 1st in the NBA in FT% at 83.1%. Portland is 2nd - 3.4% behind.

The Thunder are also 2nd in Free Throw Rate, or the number of free throws attempted per the number of field goals attempted. 

What this means effectively is that the Thunder could be a dominant offense with one or two good to great three point shooters. 

In other words, Daniel Gibson, OKC GM Sam Presti has probably said your name at some point over the past few weeks to Chris Grant. 

Boobie is taking 6.0 3P attempts per 40 minutes and making 2.7 of them, which is good for 44.9%. On the Thunder, Boobie would be the best 3P shooter by far. Of the players who play regular minutes, James Harden is #1 from 3P at 37.8%. 

So then, if you're Chris Grant, and Presti calls you about Daniel Gibson, what do you think you can get for him? Would you move Boobie and Anthony Parker to OKC for Eric Maynor and James Harden? Probably. Would Presti give away two young players for one guy in his prime and one guy at the end of his career? Probably not. Could you get either Maynor or Harden though? 

Who knows. I don't. But I am pretty confident that Gibson could help the Thunder on both ends of the floor - although he would hurt their FT shooting a bit (only 82.2% this year). 

[josemesaisdead]

Let's Make a Deal. (Please, I'm Begging.)

Like a lot of other Cleveland sports junkies, I grow a little more frustrated every day by the Cavs. However, I'm no longer talking about the record or the lack of defense. I'm not talking about the players. I'm not even talking about the infallible Byron Scott (for once).

I'm talking about the front office.

Clearly, the team isn't going to turn things around. At this point they'll be lucky to avoid the worst record in modern NBA history. But I worry, because I have seen nothing in weeks that indicates the front office has accepted this unavoidable reality.

Mike and I have already argued on this blog for months that the best possible move is for the Cavs to declare the present a total loss and do anything they can to prepare for the future. By now, we're certainly not alone, and it's no longer a revolutionary opinion (if it ever was).

Yet every day I check for Cavs' trade rumors, and every day I come up empty.

So for all the talk about the need to collect assets and build through the draft, I have no real evidence that the front office is making overtures to try to do that. And if they're not, I cannot for the life of me imagine why. Because at this point, that's their only function besides scouting the NCAA and Euroleagues--making this team worse now (and better later) by pawning off any semi-valuable players to contenders at the highest possible price. 

Other people have written about how Dan Gilbert's near-psychotic need to win faster than LeBron has already hindered the rebuilding process. The argument is that after being humiliated by James, Gilbert convinced himself that the Cavs should try to compete for the playoffs this year as a way of saving face.

Of course, I don't have behind-the-scenes knowledge of what's going on in the owner's box, but I suspect that there's a good deal of truth to this theory. All you have to do is realize that whatever the Cavs could've gotten for Andy over the summer would've been better than what they can get for him for the rest of this season, which is basically nothing.

The real problem is that I now fear that Gilbert will try to save face by holding onto would-be "stars" like Jamison and Mo in hopes of avoiding the worst record ever--without realizing that those big(ger) names are directly contributing to the reasons the team is losing as much as it is. (To prove Byron Scott is either a hypocrite, out of options, or out of touch, consider that Jamison is averaging 31.3mpg this season despite Scott's insistence that only players who will lock down on defense will see playing time. Watching Jamison try to D up reminds me of that moment in every ghost movie where someone or something passes directly through the body of a specter and leaves all witnesses amazed and terrified.)

I admit that just because I'm not seeing rumors on the web doesn't mean that talks aren't happening behind closed doors. The Cavs' case is also hurt by injuries to some of their more tradeable assets: Andy out for the season, Mo having only appeared in 34 games because of nagging ailments.

But between now and the trading deadline (which is only a month away), I sincerely hope to see strong evidence that Chris Grant and company are working the phones like mad to try to get what they can for what they have. If they're not--or if Gilbert's ego is holding them back in any way--this rebuilding process is going to be as delayed and bumpy as major real-world construction projects so often are. Having been up close and personal with one of those for a number of years, I hope for the city's and the fan base's sake that none of us have to suffer through that.

-T

[josemesaisdead]

Competition and the Popularity of Pro Sports

In yesterday's post, Tim wrote some things that I didn't wholeheartedly agree with (it happens from time to time). I'm overgeneralizing a bit, but his argument was essentially that, of the three major professional sports,  the NFL is the most friendly to small market teams, citing competitive balance as his measuring stick. 

There are, of course, different ways to gauge competitive balance. The easiest way - which doesn't necessarily make it the best way - is to look at the number of different teams that have won championships over an extended period of time.

In the past thirty years then (since 1980), here is the breakdown: 

NBA: 8 champions NFL: 15 champions MLB: 19 champions

As you can see, Major League Baseball - despite Tim's assertion that its system is "out of whack"  - has produced the most different champions of any of the three professional sports.

Admittedly, MLB, NBA, and NFL have gone through multiple collective bargaining agreements over this time period. MLB's revenue sharing system has been in place since the year 2000. In those 11 years, there have been 9 different World Series Champions. 

Not bad. 

In relation to this, I thought it was worth looking at some poll numbers CNBC's sports business reporter Darren Rovell tweeted earlier today. Here are the favorite sports amongst US fans, according to SportsBusiness Journal and Daily: 

NFL: 31% MLB: 17% College Football: 12% Auto Racing: 7% NBA: 6%

These numbers suggest that competitive balance - as measured by percentage chance your favorite team has of winning the championship - probably has some significance when it comes to the favorite sports of Americans. 

There are obviously other factors to consider, as well. Tim commented on the notion that MLB and its season, which consists of 162 3 hour games, doesn't fit with the speed of life in the 21st century. I would agree. That may be why, according to Rovell via Harris Interactive, MLB has had the greatest drop in popularity over the past 25 years (a 6% decline). 

On the contrary, America's most popular sport, the NFL, has only 16 games in its regular season, all of which are played on the same two days of the week, each weekend, for 17 weeks (minus the odd Thursday night games). This implies that the NFL necessitates a time commitment that is right in line with what the country is willing to give. Needless to say, the NBA and its 82 game season full of 2 and a half hour games isn't much better than baseball ... except for the fact, maybe, that a large portion of the NBA season occurs during the winter when there is less to do outside in most parts of the country. 

Race, I would argue, is another factor in all of this, albeit one that is less spoken about. There is certainly a school of thought that says black, tattooed basketball players - the most visible of all the pro athletes - project an image that not all white sports fans are comfortable with. 

And we can't forget the games themselves. Football has a lot of dead space, maybe as much as baseball. Possibly more. Definitely more than basketball. But when the action starts it is typically fast, violent, and unpredictable. The bar culture - and NFL Sunday Ticket - which allows people to go to one place and watch all of the games ... and all of the players on their fantasy teams ... simultaneously is another boon to pro football. 

Side note: college football would be smart to emulate this program by allowing fantasy football, which to my knowledge, they do not. 

Ultimately, I think we have to acknowledge that winning championships - and the notion of competitive balance - may not be the be all end all for the majority of sports fans in America. An easy to watch sport, without an excruciating time commitment - event programming, if you will - may be the biggest advantage of all, especially since the NFL can have an equally simplistic fantasy component that allows some of that competitive spirit to be transferred directly to the fan.

After all, might it be more compelling to see if YOU will beat your friends in fantasy football than to see if some guys you don't know but root for anyway beat some other guys you don't know but choose to root against?  

I think it might.