A Closer Look At Eric Murdock

Two of the biggest stories basketball stories of the last two months are the firing Mike Rice at Rutgers for abuse and the recent commitment of newest high school basketball prodigy Andrew Wiggins to Kansas.   While these stories seemingly have little common ground, old school NBA enthusiasts will recognize 1980s and 1990s players figured in both stories (Eric Murdock and Mitchell Wiggins).

The man behind the Mike Rice story is former point guard Eric Murdock.  Murdock was director of player development at Rutgers and apparently was a whistle blower in giving over videotapes of Rice screaming homophobic slurs at the players, shoving players, and throwing balls at the players.  Today, we’ll look at Murdock and his interesting (from a stats guys perspective) career.

Murdock played point guard for Providence from 1987-91.  Providence wasn’t particularly good at that time (19-13 and 7-9 in the Big East in 1990-91) but Murdock was great as a senior (25.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 5.3 apg, and 3.5 spg).  The Jazz drafted Murdock 21^st in the 1991 draft and he was a solid backup behind John Stockton for 10 mpg in 1991-92 (13.6 PER).  Jerry Sloan lost confidence in Murdock late in the season and Sloan barely played him in the playoffs.  In the playoffs, Murdock played 11 total minutes, despite the fact that the Jazz would go to the Conference Finals (this was fewer minutes than even fellow rookie Corey Crowder and bench fixture Bob Thornton).

After the season, the Jazz traded Murdock and Blue Edwards (a competent swingman) to Milwaukee for Jay Humphries (a 30-year old starting point guard who had a 16.5 PER) and Larry Krystkowiak a hustling but undersized power forward.  In short, the Jazz dumped Murdock, a player with potential, to have role players who wouldn’t make mistakes while they played with Stockton and Karl Malone.

The 1992-93 Bucks were bad (28-54) but Murdock took the starting job and put up really impressive numbers (14.4 ppg, 7.6 apg, 3.2 rpg, 2.2 spg, 19.3 PER).  The Bucks regressed in 1993-94 to 20-62 but Murdock held onto the starting job and played even better (15.3 ppg, 6.7 apg, 3.2 rpg, 2.4 spg, 20.3 PER).  Murdock’s minutes were identical both years but he made a big jump in threes (from .261% to .411%) that propelled him over 20 PER.

After the season, the Bucks’ drafted Glenn Robinson overall and now had a team of Murdock, an emerging Vin Baker, and Robinson going into 1994-95.  At 26 in 1994-95, Murdock’s career appeared to be heading straight upwards and now was on the brink of being a very good player.  In fact, Murdock was fourth in point guards in PER (behind Mark Price, Stockton, and Kevin Johnson, and ahead of Rod Strickland, Mookie Blaylock, and Gary Payton among others).  Had Murdock put up these numbers in the present day, the advanced stats community would have seen him as one of the more underrated players in the NBA.

Murdock suffered an eye injury in the 1994 pre-season and struggled a bit and fell to 13.0 ppg, 6.4 apg, 2.9 rpg, 1.5 spg, and 17.3 PER.  The big drop off was in shooting (from .468% to .415%) and it seemed that if he could bounce back to more normal shooting levels he would continue to excel.  The unreported story at the time was that Murdock lost minutes to Lee Mayberry (who started 50 games at the point).  Mayberry was slightly younger than Murdock and was a player with few major weakness but no great strengths.   Mayberry was a decent passer and defender but could score or create free throws at all.  Mayberry’s 1994-95 numbers (5.8 ppg, 3.4 apg, 1.0 rpg, and 9.9 PER 21.3 mpg) should not have convinced the Bucks that he was a viable alternative to Murdock.  That coach Mike Dunleavy was playing Mayberry so much was (and is still is) a little bewildering.

Nevertheless, the addition of Robinson to Baker and Murdock improved the Bucks to 34-48 and gave reason for optimism in 1995-96.   Leaving camp in 1995-96, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Dunleavy decided the Mayberry should be starting at the point.  Murdock, for his part, did not step up to the challenge and put up a 10.4 PER in 20 mpg for 9 games.  Murdock shot 36% and the team went 3-6 over that stretch.

It is not clear if the Bucks’ were annoyed with Murdock or just wanted a center but Dunleavy then traded flipped Murdock and Eric Mobley to the expansion Vancouver Grizzlies for languid big man Benoit Benjamin (who was at the time average at best).  Murdock’s value had plummeted from underrated top ten point guard to chit in a trade for remains of Benjamin (who Vancouver had gotten for free in the expansion draft).

Murdock played 64 games as a backup to Greg Anthony in Vancouver and put up 9.1 ppg, 4.5 apg, 2.4 rpg, 2.0 spg, and a 16.2 PER in 23.1 MPG.  Not a bad performance but the Grizz were so bad that Murdock had now reached confirmed journeyman status.   Murdock signed with Denver to back up Mark Jackson in 1996-97 but was cut after 12 games (despite an 18.1 per in 10 mpg) and went over to Europe for the rest of the season.

In 1997-98, Pat Riley and the Heat signed Murdock to back up Tim Hardaway.  Murdock was basically the same player he had been in Vancouver and the end of his time in Milwaukee.  He put up a 15.7 PER in 17 mpg and reestablished himself as an NBA player for the moment.  Murdock spent the next two years as a backup point guard in New Jersey and with the Clippers but his shot had declined enough that he only put up PER in the 12.5 range those two years.  He did not play in the NBA again after his 1999-00 season with the Clippers.  While guys like Mitchell Butler, Anthony Goldwire, Kevin Ollie, Mike James, and Derek Fisher lasted forever in the NBA as back up guards, Murdock was done in the NBA at age 31.  Murdock spent some time in the minors and Europe before giving up playing in or around 2003 (it’s a little hard to find the Euro stats to know when exactly he stopped playing).

I hadn’t really thought about Murdock much since the late 1990s until I saw he had leaked the tape of Rice acting like a total jerk.  The question has become now whether Murdock was a good Samaritan, opportunist, or something in between.  Murdock did not release the tape until after the school let him go and he is apparently pursuing a wrongful termination suit, so the argument could be made that Murdock’s motives are less than pure.  On the other hand, Basketball-Reference indicates that Murdock made over $11 million in his NBA career and, if he was careful financially, he probably wouldn’t need the headache of a lawsuit unless he really felt wronged.  Nor is there any record of Murdock being anything other than a good pro.

I’m not casting judgments either way, but Murdock’s dispute with Rutgers can easily be spun as pure or unsavory.  In either case, it’s hard to feel too bad for Rutgers for allowing Rice to go on with his idiotic coaching methods.

As for Murdock, he may be in the media vortex now for the Rice situation but whenever I hear his name, I only wonder: (a) how he could’ve gone from 25-yearold with a 20.3 PER to cut by a lottery team in three years and (b) why Dunleavy thought Mayberry was anywhere near as good player.

I wondered if another young guard has ever fallen so quickly so fast without injury issues.   Since 1979-80, I couldn’t find another guard with a PER of 20 or over fall out of regular playing time without injuries (T.J. Ford put up 20 PER at age 24 but had spinal issues).  As far as I can tell, Murdock should’ve enjoyed a Mookie Blaylock-type career but nothing but bad luck had him out of the NBA way too quickly.

NBA Draft: Michael Carter-Williams

Carter-Willams as a prospect is the opposite of the other top PG prospect this year, Trey Burke. Burke is 6’0”, which is small even by PG standards. Carter-Williams is tall for a PG, listed at 6’6”. Burke is a good offensive player who is limited defensively.  Carter-Williams is dominant defensively and erratic on offense. Burke could probably step right in and play decent NBA PG right now, but has little upside because of his size and weak defense. Carter-Williams is very much a developmental project, but his upside is much higher than Burke’s. When the two squared off in the national semifinal Burke’s Wolverines won, but both players had their worst games of the tournament.

Carter-Williams had his issues with scoring efficiency this year, but he also posted some very impressive numbers in defense and passing. He finished with an 8.3 A40 and a 9.1 RSB40. These are totals few players have ever put together in the same season. Here’s a look at other NCAA major college PGs who posted an A40 over 8.0 along with an RSB40 over 9.0:

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Gary Payton	569	333	27.3	8.6	3.7	2.2	9.1
Jason Kidd (Frosh)	537	286	16.4	9.6	4.8	2.0	11.3
Jason Kidd (Soph)	545	362	19.0	10.3	3.6	2.1	11.8
Andre Miller	519	286	13.3	8.3	2.4	2.1	9.3
Jamaal Tinsley	404	242	13.4	8.1	3.2	1.6	10.7
Michael Carter-Williams	441	297	13.5	8.3	3.1	2.2	9.1

Payton’s numbers were posted in his senior season, Tinsley’s his junior, Miller’s his sophomore. This is some pretty fast company Carter-Williams finds himself with. We have a couple of top 10 all-time PGs.  Also there’s Andre Miller, who is still going strong at 36 and Jamaal Tinsley, a solid player who the league just doesn’t know how to quit. Even if I were to lower the standard to 8.0 RSB40 along with the 8.0 A40, the players added to the list—Rod Strickland, Randy Brown, Ray Felton, Kenny Anderson, Brevin Knight, Greg Anthony and Pooh Richardson—are all players who went on to long NBA careers.

The good thing for Carter-Williams here is all PGs who have shown the ability to pass and defend this well, have had some level of long-term NBA success regardless of how impressive or poor their offensive numbers were.  Tinsley, Brown, Felton, Knight and Richardson all fell short of the .500 2-point percentage benchmark in college ball, but still went on to long careers because of their extraordinary defense/passing combination.  To repeat, any player who posted 8+ A40 and RSB40 in a season playing for a major college has gone on to play a long NBA career. That Carter-Williams is part of this club makes him an excellent long term NBA prospect.

This isn’t to say his inefficient scoring isn’t a problem. Carter-Williams scored only 13.5 P40 with percentages of .441 and .297. Those are very poor prospect numbers. No team wants to use a lottery pick on the next Randy Brown or Brevin Knight. Likewise no team wants to draft a player who will sit on their bench for 3 years then watch him develop into a star elsewhere. Here are the numbers of a couple of other big PGs in their sophomore seasons who developed their games significantly in subsequent years:

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Gary Payton	514	397	15.3	7.8	2.4	2.2	6.3
Chauncey Billups	425	401	23.4	5.9	2.6	1.7	8.7
Michael Carter-Williams	441	297	13.5	8.3	3.1	2.2	9.1

Both Payton and Billups were better scorers at this point in their careers and Carter-Williams has yet to show consistent 3-point ability. I post this comp not to suggest that Carter-Williams is a future HOFer just waiting to bust out, though that is a far high end possibility. But it is important to know that players aren’t always complete as college sophs and there is a history of big PGs developing their games quite a bit after their sophomore seasons.

Another thing to note is that Carter-Williams’ scoring skills are probably a little better than they appear in the cumulative stats. Here are his monthly breakdowns from this year compared with his freshman year:

Michael Carter-Williams	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	450	389	10.4	8.0	3.0	3.4	9.8
Nov-Dec	455	256	15.1	12.5	3.9	2.5	10.8
January	339	313	13.4	6.7	2.6	1.8	7.9
February	481	304	14.0	6.1	3.2	2.2	8.7
March	473	350	11.6	6.5	2.6	2.0	8.4

His freshman season was only 269 minutes, the majority of which were logged in November and December when the schedule is always easier. He also topped 8.0 A40 and 9.0 RSB40 as a freshman, which is impressive. There was a lot of variance during his sophomore year. He started off as a dominator, before a brutal shooting slump in January really brought his efficiency down. The good part here is that he adjusted and improved his efficiency from both inside and outside the arc during the season. A 2-point percentage in the 47-48% range in February and March, when the schedule is much more difficult isn’t a huge negative. That he improved while maintaining solid passing and defensive numbers is actually pretty impressive. The bad part is even at his best the P40 remained low.

In Michael Carter-Williams we have a player who is almost certain to have a long NBA career based on his stats. His raw skills give him an outside chance to eventually become one of the top PGs in the league and a perennial all-star, which is something that can be said about only a few prospects each year. That makes him an intriguing prospect. Right now his arc is somewhere between journeyman and perennial all-star.  Because I generally prefer upside in prospects I would have to rank him as the top PG available in the 2013 draft. The only reason to draft Trey Burke ahead of him would be if it were for a team that absolutely needed immediate help at PG and the draft was the only place they could fill this need.

That isn’t to say there’s no risk in drafting such a player. Any team taking Carter-Williams has to realize that he’s a developmental pick with who won’t have much immediate impact and may never reach his full potential. I certainly understand why a team would pass on such a player. In 1997 the Celtics drafted future great PG Chauncey Billups with the 3^rd overall pick. Billups was traded in February of his rookie year for veteran Kenny Anderson who gave the Celtics 3 so-so years. That’s not much of a payoff for the 3^rd overall pick. Billups’ early career is why, despite the upside, drafting Michael Carter-Williams too high in the lottery could become a similar draft day disaster.

NBA Draft 2013: Trey Burke

I’m going to start the 2013 draft previews with the PGs and work my way from the perimeter to the bigs. Burke is the Wooden award winner and possibly the top PG available, so he seems like a good player to start the 2013 analyses with. With Marcus Smart going back to school Burke is generally considered the top PG out there. He led Michigan into the championship game and that boosted him from the fringes of the lottery into the top 5 in most mocks. David Thorpe at ESPN (insider) made the case for Burke as the top overall pick. Even the overly contrarian and stat-focused Ed Weiland got briefly swept up in the Trey Burke frenzy, placing Burke 3^rd overall in his post-Tournament top 60.

Before I get into Burke’s prospects here’s a quick recap of the statistical benchmarks that have historically separated the best successful PG prospects: 2-point pct. over .500, P40 over 18.0, A40 over 5.0, S40 over 1.5, A/TO over 1.4 and RSB40 over 6.5. A minimal ability to hit a 3-pointer is also important. With 2PP,  assists, steals and RSB40, the higher over the benchmark, the better the prospect becomes. Each benchmark a prospect falls below is considered a red flag and makes it more likely he’ll fail in the NBA. Burke only misses one benchmark, with a RSB40 of 6.2. That in itself doesn’t kill him as a prospect, but it does bring him down a notch.

What I like to do with prospects is compare them to past prospects with similar stats. In Burke’s case the skills that stand out on his resume are scoring and passing. He was over 20 points and 7 assists per 40 minutes this past season. Those are pretty impressive totals that few sophomore PGs have ever matched. Here are past NCAA PGs who also surpassed 20 and 7 in either their freshman or sophomore seasons, along with Burke’s numbers from this year.

	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Strickland, Rod	584	533	20.0	8.0	2.5	2.3	7.3
Bibby, Mike	526	387	21.5	7.1	3.0	2.6	7.1
Lawson, Ty	582	361	20.1	8.2	2.5	2.4	6.9
Anderson, Kenny	544	410	21.8	8.6	2.4	2.1	8.3
Douglas, Sherman	556	327	21.3	9.3	2.1	2.4	5.4
Williams, Jason	483	403	21.5	8.4	3.3	1.5	7.3
Knight, Brevin	470	373	20.4	8.1	3.4	1.9	8.3
Norris, Moochie	483	424	24.5	9.3	3.1	2.9	9.1
Singletary, Sean	456	362	23.3	7.2	2.1	1.6	6.7
Tyler, BJ	494	365	21.1	7.5	2.7	1.8	7.1
Hannah, Stefhon	478	385	20.9	7.5	2.7	1.8	7.1
Thomas, Chris	416	385	20.5	7.6	2.0	1.7	6.6
Burke, Trey	506	384	21.5	7.7	1.9	3.0	6.2

I try to list players in order from best to worst. Ty Lawson is something of a guess at this point and could finish anywhere in the top 5 of this group before he’s done. The two statistics here that separate the successful players from the not so successful ones are 2-point percentage and A/TO. The more successful PGs posted a 2PP well over .500 and an A/TO over 2.0. The others missed on both, one or the other. Burke topped both numbers, though his .506 2PP is on the low side and suggests he may struggle some on offense. It’s also important to note that Burke has the lowest defensive numbers of any player in this group.

Next I want to take a look at the progression of Burke’s career at Michigan. Here are the numbers posted by Trey Burke comparing his freshman season to a month-by-month breakdown of his sophomore season:

Trey Burke	2PP	3PP	P40	A40	S40	A/TO	RSB40
Freshman	490	348	17.6	5.4	1.1	1.7	5.7
Nov-Dec	620	383	22.1	9.2	1.4	3.8	5.6
January	481	351	21.3	8.0	2.1	3.9	6.3
February	532	442	23.2	6.6	1.7	2.9	5.4
March	400	362	20.7	6.9	2.3	2.1	7.1

The most important thing to take from this list is Burke improved pretty dramatically between his first and second college season. He improved his scoring, efficiency, passing and defense by quite a bit. This is a very impressive feat. Improvement is always a good thing for a prospect. If nothing else it suggests both a solid work ethic and the intelligence to adjust one’s game.  Especially impressive is how his defensive numbers went from being substandard for a prospect during his freshman season to strong in March of his sophomore season when the competition was the most intense.

On the downside is the only time he was truly dominant as a scorer was during the non-conference schedule of his sophomore season, when the competition is generally much weaker. For that reason there are still legitimate concerns as to whether Trey Burke will bring enough offensively to become a solid NBA starter. Also a concern is that his best month defensively was also his worst offensively. The question that arises from this is whether concentrating more on defense hurt his offense and if he is capable of playing both at the level an NBA starter needs to at the same time.

Trey Burke is something of a mixed bag. In addition to the overall improvement, the optimist would point out that he had some excellent months where he flashed the ability to score, pass and defend at the level of successful NBA PG prospects. The pessimist would point out that overall the defense was soft and the offense was inefficient except for one brief stretch.

One more thing before I wrap this is a quick look at other PGs who were Wooden Award winners: Phil Ford, Jay Williams, TJ Ford, Jameer Nelson and Jimmer Fredette. What to take from this list is that PGs who have taken the Wooden award and were drafted in the top 10 have been much more likely to disappoint than succeed. This is a small sample and shouldn’t be weighed too heavily. But it might show that, at least for PGs, winning the Wooden can add undeservedly to their draft stock. The idea that Trey Burke is a top pick simply because he was voted the top player in the nation is just a wrongheaded assumption. Just as wrongheaded is any suggestion that his leading Michigan to the title game makes him a top prospect. Bobby Hurley and Mateen Cleaves are past examples of tournament success being a poor way to judge PG prospects.

In the final analysis I just don’t see a great NBA career in Trey Burke’s future. He even has some potential to become a bust. The only skill where he’s shown consistent proficiency is as a passer. Both his offensive and defensive numbers are a mix of mild promise and red flags. I like that he’s a smart player who obviously works hard at improving his game, but he has some physical limitations that can’t be ignored. I see Burke’s high end as an ordinary NBA starter. The player I have compared Burke to most often has been Darren Collison. After looking at his career and the skills he displayed more closely, I have my doubts that Burke will even be that good.

2012-13 Playoff Preview

This season flew by like a flash and we are once again faced with the playoff season.  As usual, we’ll go through the match ups and make are somewhat fearless but equivocating predictions.  Before we really dig in, we should acknowledge the non-shocking revelation that we are headed to a rematch of last year’s Finals.  Miami and OKC are the leaders in SRS rating and OKC actually rates a good deal higher than the Heat (9.15 to 7.03).   In the East, Miami does not look like it will be tested much, while OKC will have to run a gauntlet to get to the Finals.

In fact, the Knicks, as the two seed in the East have nearly an identical SRS rating (3.73) to the West’s eight seed Rockets (3.69).  That stat is a beat of a cheat because the six seed Warriors (1.32) and seven seed Lakers (1.49) have worse point differentials than Houston.  Still, no one would seriously contest that the Rockets, Lakers, and possibly the Warriors could beat any East team not named the Heat in a seven game series.  Nevertheless, Heat’s lack of competition is not necessarily a bad thing for their competitive juices.  In fact, the Lakers spent most of the 1980s blowing away Western playoff pretenders before battling with the Celtics or 76ers in the Finals and it did not affect them Lakers adversely.   With all that said, let’s take a look at the NBA match ups and see how we will get to the Finals most people expect.  As always, we also will look at each series from an historical perspective and review the most recent playoff match up between each franchise.   Continue reading 2012-13 Playoff Preview…

Quick Thoughts

1.   Kobe’s Pain: The big story of the last few days is the unfortunate Achilles tear suffered by Kobe Bryant at the end of his Friday game against the Lakers.  The injury raised a few questions to examine.  Let’s take a look and see if we can answer them.

-Does this injury end the Lakers’ season?

Well the Lakers are in the driver seat to make the eight seed still if they win their remaining games two games.  Kobe’s presence would’ve given the Lakers a puncher’s shot of upsetting the Spurs or Thunder but that’s about it.  Even with Kobe, the Lakers are a poor defensive team (20^th in the NBA) and they have no one to match up with either Russell Westbrook or Tony Parker.   The Lakers are 0-2 against the Spurs (with one more game to play) and 1-3 against the Thunder.  So, the injury is disappointing on many levels but probably changes nothing for this season.

-Did heavy minutes cause this injury?

There really is no way we can answer this question but we do know that Kobe had averaged a ton of minutes the last few weeks.  In the past seven games, Kobe did not play fewer than 41 minutes in any game and hit 47 minutes four times (and would’ve hit that number in the Warrior game if he hadn’t gotten hurt).  For the season, Kobe has averaged 38.6 minutes per game, which was basically the same number as last season and fewer than in 2009-10.  That sounds like heavy time but Michael Jordan played even more minutes at age 34 than Kobe did (38.8 mpg).

As for Achilles tears, I’m no doctor but WebMD indicates they can be caused by both a single isolated rauma or overuse.  So, we can’t preclude the possibility that Kobe’s injury might have have been caused by being  run too hard the last few weeks.  We will never know the answer unless the Lakers let someone review the MRI of the tear to tell whether they are consistent with a sudden injury or wear and tear.  Given all this, I’m agnostic on this question but do come away wondering whether Bryant should’ve been monitored a bit more carefully.

-Can Kobe still be Kobe next year?

Again, I’m no doctor but news reports believe it’ll take 9-12 months to recover and that he could lose a little lift afterwards.  The only other big time players I can remember suffering this injury had mixed results.

Dominique Wilkins tore his Achilles on a similar play at age 32 in 1991-92.  He returned the following year with no problems at all and even had a better PER.  Here are the stats for comparison (on a per-36 minute basis):

-(pre-tear) 1991-92: 9.5 fgs, 20.6 fgas, .464 FG%, .289 3FG%, 7.9 ftas, 6.6 rebs, 3.6 asts, 1.2 stls, 0.5 blks 2.7 tos, 26.5 pts. 22.2 PER

-(post-tear) 1992-93: 10.1 fgs, 21.5 fgas, .468 FG%, .380 3FG%, 8.5 ftas, 6.6 rebs, 3.1 asts, 1.0 stls, 0.4 blks, 2.5 tos, 28.8 pts, 24.3 PER

As can be seen, Wilkins was basically the same player after the tear.  His numbers looked better because his three point shooting drastically improved (this was a fluke) but he was still able to get to the line and do all the other athletic things he was able to do before the injury.

The other recent(ish) case of a star player tearing an Achilles was Patrick Ewing during the 1998-99 playoffs (right before the Knicks famously went on a tear to the NBA Finals without him).  At the time, Ewing was 36 and really slowing down as a player.  He returned for the 1999-00 season and was not quite the same but close (his PER dropped from 19.4 to 16.9 the next season).  Of course, Ewing was older and already declining rapidly, so it is hard to say how much of the decline at that age can be attributed to the injury.  In any event, the Wilkins and Ewing cases give us optimism for Kobe.  If an older and slower Ewing could still play post tear, there is no reason to think Kobe won’t likely have a few good seasons left.  The rub, though, is that even if Kobe does come back close to his 2012-13 ability, he won’t be back until January (unless he tries to return insanely early) and there is a shot that the thin Lakers will be so mediocre without him (even assuming that Dwight Howard returns) that they will too far behind in the seedings to make a playoff run.

2.  Louisville and the NBA: Louisville recently ran through the NBA tournament with relative ease.  Despite this, they don’t have too much NBA talent (Gorgui Deng is the only projected first round right now).  Of course, you don’t need an NBA star to win in college if you are as deep as Louisville is.  The question I wondered is where each of the NCAA champs ranks in terms of NBA talent.  Let’s take a look at all the titlists since the NCAA went to the 64-team tournament back in 1984-85 and assess which title teams had the best NBA talent: Continue reading Quick Thoughts…

About Hoops Analyst:

Hoops Analyst is the premier destination for in-depth basketball analysis, insight, and commentary.