-The Heat had Shane Battier inbound the ball near half court and David West guarded that pass.  West played up on the pass but allowed Battier pass the ball towards the three point line and denied any passes toward the foul line or the corners.

-The Heat put in shooters Norris Cole and Ray Allen at opposite ends of the base line.  George Hill was on Cole and Sam Young played Ray Allen.

-Chris Bosh was at the top of the key with Tyler Hansbrough on him.

-LBJ stood at the foul line elbow with Paul George guarding him.

-The Heat then ran a motion play to get someone open.  Allen ran from the baseline across the three point line around Bosh (who was also cutting to the corner vacate by Allen) and in front of James.

-As Hansbrough switched to Allen near the foul line, James ran a quick curl and Hansbrough’s presence actually slightly blocked George from defending the pass.

-When James caught the pass near the top of the key after the curl, George stepped up almost adjacent to LBJ’s right side, giving James an open lane on the left.  In an even race to the basket with George, James glided to the basket easily for a basically uncontested layup.

-The motion play had vacated the paint of any help defenders.  The closest help defender was Young, who had been sort of guarding Bosh in the corner.  LBJ was going too hard and too fast for Young to get there in time or do anything.

Having seen how the play worked out, where would Hibbert had made a big difference?  If Hibbert was man on man with Bosh, he probably would’ve had to switch onto Allen (as Hasnbrough did) and would not likely have been a factor on the play.  If they had Hibbert just guard the paint and not tightly stay with a small faster player, Bosh (or some other Heat player) would’ve had a wide open jumper.  This scenario would’ve been preferable to LBJ’s wide open layup but also not an ideal (the ideal would’ve been Cole or Allen shooting a contested long jumper).

In the end, no matter what the Pacers did with Hibbert, the game was lost when George overplayed James.  Had George given James a few feet cushion, this would’ve force LBJ into a makeable but lower percentage jumper.  Even if Hibbert was somehow guarding the rim on the play, blocking a wide open James would be tough and, though Hibbert could conceivably block him (just ask Carmelo Anthony), it is most likely that James would’ve gone to the foul line.  This is better than the actual result but not great either.  Actually, the best move would’ve been to put the long armed Hibbert on the inbounds and deny a clean pass to anyone (particularly LeBron).  This is easier said than done but, with 2.2 seconds left, the harder the Pacers made the commencement of the play, the harder it would’ve been for the Heat to execute.  Frank Vogel made some mistakes hear but the notion that Hibbert in the paint would stop James is not very likely.

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.  

Eastern Conference

1. Heat v. Bucks: The Bucks will make a nice facsimile of a speed bump in the first round for the Heat.  Though the Bucks actually beat the Heat one time this year, they have no one to guard LeBron (Larry Sanders?) and the Bucks play at a fast pace, which allows Miami those spurts that just destroy most opponents.   Worthy of note, J.J. Redick has not blended well in Milwaukee and has only shot .318% from three so far, despite being 39% for his career.  Expect a sweep.  Miami wins 4-0.

Last time they met in the playoffs: Milwaukee and Miami have never met in the playoffs before.

2. Knicks v. Celtics: In theory, the Celts vet team is scary.  The Knicks’ success this year as a decent defensive team that shoots very well seems fragile and Boston’s defensive ability combined with its ability to turn it on in the playoffs indicate that they could give the Knicks a run.  The game plan would be to knock Carmelo Anthony off his game (Honey Nut Cheerios style?) and score just enough to take the series.  Kevin Garnett, however, does not look healthy and there really is no other second scorer behind Paul Pierce.  When good teams get old, it tends to happen quite quickly (see, e.g., Pistons of 1980s, Rockets of 1990s, etc.).  It was a remarkable run in Boston and it lasted several years longer than I thought it would but I think it is finally over.  Knicks win 4-1.

Last time they met in the playoffs: Tables turn quickly in the NBA.  In 2010-11, the Celts were the three seed and the Knicks were 42-40 and barely in the playoffs.  New York played hard but lost the first two games in Boston by a total of five points.  Back in New York, Chauncey Billups hurt his knee during Game Three and Boston proceeded to blow away New York and sweep the series.

3.  Pacers v. Hawks: Did you know that Pacers were first in the NBA in defense?  I knew they were good but this team really jumped to the next level this season.  Unfortunately, they have no go to scorer right now.  David West kind of fills the role but the Hawks have precisely the players who can guard him in Josh Smith and Al Horford.  Yet, the Hawks have their own problems (very little scoring and almost no depth without Louis Williams).  The Hawks have some pieces to give Indiana problems but, ultimately, Atlanta will have too much trouble scoring on the Pacers to win this series.  Indiana wins 4-2.

Last time they met in the playoffs: You have to go back all the way to 1995-96 to find their last match up.  It was a very similar series to this one, as Indiana was the three seed and Atlanta the six seed then too.  The Hawks were a decent team (Steve Smith, Christian Laettner, and Mookie Blaylock) with no bench at all and the Pacers were a quasi-contender with Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and the Davis Brothers.  Reggie Miller had fractured his eye socket and missed the first four games of the series, which the teams split.  Miller came back for the deciding Game 5 and scored 29 points (he shot only 7-17 but was 13-15 from the line) but lost 89-87 to a balanced Hawks team.

4.  Nets v. Bulls: The Nets and Bulls are mirror images.  The Nets score well and defend sporadically, while the Bulls defend very well but score really poorly.  Assuming we won’t see Derrick Rose, this will be a very close series.  As an aside, I would not bring Rose back this late in the year anyway.  The Bulls aren’t likely to get past the Second Round with or without him anyway, so why risk an injury for nominal benefit?

The Bulls are 3-1 against the Nets this year, though three of the games were decided by less than three points.  In the battle of contrasts, the Nets have defended well enough but the Bulls’ defense has kept them at 90 points or under every single game.  For the Nets to win, they’ll need someone to really explode offensively (Deron Williams?).  If the Bulls could score at all, they would run away with the series.  Match ups aside, SRS likes the Nets (1.25) significantly better than the Bulls (-0.01).  In all, this series is a coin toss but I’ll go with the Nets’ star power as the difference.  Nets win 4-3.

Last time they met in the playoffs: It has been a while since a young John Calipari brought his up and coming eight seed Nets against Michael Jordan’s final Bulls team in 1997-98.   The Bulls needed overtime to win the first game.  The Nets had a bunch of young studs (Kerry Kittles, Sam Cassell, and Keith Van Horn) but they were led that game by Chris Gatling and Sherman Douglas before MJ scored 39 to pull it out.  Game 2 was also relatively close (96-91) before the Bulls came to Jersey and won easily to sweep the series.

Western Conference

1. Thunder v. Rockets: This will be a fun series on many levels.  First, of course, is James Harden playing his old team.  After that, it is also clear that the Rockets are better than their record and really should be a six seed but for a poorly timed slump at the end of the year.  Their expected win loss is 50-32 and they are first in pace and sixth in offense.  As for OKC, their pace is fast (10^th) and they are the best offensive team in the NBA.  In the three games between these teams, the winning team topped 120 points each time.  Alas, the Thunder beat Houston by about 30 points in two of those games so I don’t expect Houston to put up too much of a fight.  Thunder win 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: The Rockets have never played the Thunder in the playoffs but have met them as the Sonics several memorable times.  Most recently, the vintage Clyde Drexler/Charles Barkley/Hakeem Olajuwon Rockets met the vintage Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp/Detlef Schrempf Sonics in the Second Round of the 1996-97 playoffs.  Seattle was down 3-1 before roaring back to force a Game 7 in Houston (both teams were 57-25 that year).  All of the usual suspects played well in Game 7 but the difference might have been Matt Maloney, the Rockets’ rookie starting point guard (his first year post-college he was undrafted and played in the CBA before hooking up with the Rockets in 1996-97), who scored 15 points and hit three three-pointers.  Maloney was outmatched by the Rockets the previous two games (he shot 2-12 and 1-10 from three in that losing stretch).  Maloney parlayed that decent season into a long term deal where he made over $17 million.  He was the starter for the Rockets for one more season before crashing with injuries and losing his job to Cuttino Mobley in 1998-99.  Maloney then bounced around as a role player for a few more years until 2001 (and a cameo in 2002-03).

2.  Spurs v. Lakers: A few weeks ago, this series could have been interesting.  Even as it stands, Tim Duncan v. Dwight Howard and Tony Parker v. Steve Nash sound worth watching.  Of course, Nash is hurt and he couldn’t guard Parker when he was healthy anyway.  More troubling, few of the Lakers play any defense.  Howard’s numbers are down but he is still the only formidable defender.   Contrast that with Duncan, who had reduced minutes but was excellent in those minutes (24.4 PER and a league leading defensive rating of 95).  If Howard can’t win the battle with Duncan, the Lakers have little chance of making up the ground elsewhere.  Spurs win 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: It’s actually been quite a while since the rivals of the 00s have played.  Their last meeting was in 2007-08 when the Kobe/Pau Lakers beat them 4-1 to go to the NBA Finals.   This wasn’t a particularly memorable series, with the Lakers going up 3-1 to take away any real drama.  As for the Lakers/Spurs overall competition in the last few years, here is the breakdown of their playoff meetings:

-2007-08:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-1 in the Conference Finals

-2003-04:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-2 in the Second Round

-2002-03:  Spurs beat Lakers 4-2 in the Second Round

-2001-02:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-1 in the Second Round

-2000-01:  Lakers beat Spurs 4-0 in the Conference Finals

-1998-99:  Spurs beat Lakers 4-0 in the Second Round

Six meetings in ten years and the Lakers controlled most of them.  Interestingly, the winner of this series made the NBA Finals every single time.  That probably won’t happen this year.

3.  Nuggets v. Warriors: The 2012-13 Nuggets have the most wins and best SRS rating of any Denver team since they came to the NBA.  Yet, there are some reasons to be concerned that they aren’t quite a title contender.  Denver has ridden superior depth in the regular season but that depth is less of a factor in the playoffs when rotations contract a bit.  In addition, Danilo Gallinari’s absence hurts.  They will need Wilson Chandler to shoot much more and take Gallo’s minutes.

Watching Denver play another fast paced team in the Warriors will also be a good series that few are talking about.   Denver took three out of the four in the regular season, with the Warriors only winning by one point in their victory.   The Warriors chance of winning revolves around Stephen Curry and their three-point shooting (.403%, best in the NBA).  I don’t see GSW having the athleticism to ultimately stop the Nuggets.  Denver wins 4-1.

When they last met in the playoffs: Surprisingly, the Nuggets and Warriors have never met in the playoffs before.

4.  Clippers v. Grizzlies: Do you realize that every single First Round out West is much more interesting than those in the East?  It’s not that the East games are terrible but they are all rather blah.  Nets/Bulls and Hawks/Pacers might be okay but would you really rather watch those than OKC/Houston or Lakers/Spurs?  But the best series of the First Round is Clipps and Grizz, two 56-win teams facing off with somewhat different styles.

The Grizz are the slowest team in the NBA and a great defensive team (2^nd in the NBA).  The Clipps are much more balanced (4^th on offense and 8^th on defense).   On the surface, the Clipps have a more going for them: (1) they have a much better point differential than Memphis, (2) they beat Memphis 3-1 for the season, (3) they probably have the two best players in the series in Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, and (4) they beat the Grizz last year in the First Round.  Yes it is hard to discount Memphis when it can throw good players at every position and have some nice matchups (Marc Gasol v. DeAndre Jordan) and have players in Mike Conley and Zach Randolph who could complete with Paul and Griffin.  Still, the series will be tight but the factors seem to favor the Clipps.  Clippers win 4-3.

When they last met in the playoffs: We all remember last year’s seven game series won by the Clipps when the Grizz blew a huge lead in Game 1 and lost Game 7 at home.

Incidentally, the last time (and only other time) two 56-win teams met in the 4-5 series in the First round was 1997-98 when the Suns (Jason Kidd, Antonio McDyess, Penny Hardaway, and Danny Manning) played the Spurs with a rookie named Tim Duncan and his buddy David Robinson.   TD played quite well and the Spurs won the series rather easily (3-1).

Second Round

-Heat beat Nets, 4-1

-Knicks beat Pacers, 4-3

-Thunder beat Clippers, 4-1

-Spurs beat Nuggets, 4-1

Conference Finals

-Heat beat Knicks, 4-1

-Thunder beat Spurs, 4-1

NBA Finals

-Heat beat Thunder 4-2

1.  Denver Nuggets:   When you look back at the past decade of Denver Nuggets history, yet another first round loss might seem like stagnation.  The Nuggets have made the playoffs each of the last nine seasons but made it past the first round only once (2008-09 when they lost to the Lakers in the Conference Finals).   But there is progress.  Really!  Trading Carmelo Anthony and Nene has gotten Dener some nice young players (Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Javale McGee and some other parts) and has reset the clock on Denver.  Throw in a great draft pick in Kenneth Faried and Denver is still oozing young talent.

The cap situation is fairly stable too with Gallinari locked in at a good price and Faried and Ty Lawson still on rookie contracts.  This will allow the Nuggets to re-sign McGee, who is a question mark but is young enough that to have a tom of upside and it young enough that he won’t be immovable if he doesn’t develop.  The other decision will come with Andre Miller, who has aged really well and was a big part of the team.  Given his age and willingness to stay in Denver, Miller should be back on a cheapish contract.  None of this makes Denver a title contender but they are now in place to convert some of depth for a star if one becomes available by trade.  If not, they still have a 48-50 win team.

2.  Dallas Mavericks: It wasn’t the weakest title defense we’ve seen but this wasn’t too impressive.  Dallas floundered early and was ultimately swept by a young Thunder team.  The popular wisdom is that Dallas punted on the title defense because they didn’t want to overpay for Tyson Chandler, who has had some injury issues in the past.  Rather, Dallas planned to get by with patchwork short-term signings and then go for Dwight Howard and Deron Williams in the summer.   The plan looks worse in retrospect than it was at the time.  Chandler was a great defensive presence but a repeat seemed unlikely.  In fact, the Mavs’ defensive efficiency was totally unchanged from 2010-11 (the Mavs were 8th both years).  Rather, the fall off came on offense when the efficiency plummeted from 8th at 109.7 in 2010-11 to 22nd at 103.3 this year.   How did this happen?  Let’s take a look the per/36 minute stats of the major players from each season:

2010-11 Mavs

-PG, Jason Kidd:  8.5 pts, .361 FG%, .340 3-FG%, 4.8 rebs, 8.9 asts, 14.4 PER

-SG, Jason Terry: 18.2 pts, .451 FG%, .362 3-FG%, 2.1 rebs, 4.7 asts, 15.9 PER

-SF, Shawn Marion: 16.0 pts, .520 FG%, .152 3-FG%, 8.8 rebs, 1.8 asts, 17.0 PER

-PF, Dirk Nowitzki: 24.2 pts, .517%, .393 3-FG%, 7.4 rebs, 2.7 asts, 23.4 PER

-C, Tyson Chandler: 13.1 pts, .654 FG%, 12.1 rebs, 0.6 asts, 18.4 PER

-G, JJ Barea: 16.6 pts, .439 FG%, .349 3-FG%, 3.4 rebs, 6.8 asts, 14.8 PER

-C: Brendan Haywood: 8.7 pts, .574 FG%, 10.2 rebs, 0.5 asts, 11.7 PER

-G: DeShawn Stevenson:  11.9 pts, .388 FG%, .378 3-FG%, 3.3 rebs, 2.4 asts, 9.8 PER

2011-12 Mavs

-PG, Jason Kidd: 7.8 pts, .363 FG%, .354 3-FG%, 5.2 rebs, 6.9 asts, 13.1 PER

-SG, Jason Terry: 17.1 pts, .430 FG%, .378 3-FG%, 2.4 rebs, 4.1 asts, 15.7 PER

-SF, Shawn Marion: 12.6 pts, .446 FG%, .294 3-FG%, 8.7 rebs, 2.4 asts, 15.0 PER

-PF, Dirk Nowitzki: 23.2 pts, .457 FG%, .368 3-FG%, 7.3 rebs, 2.4 asts, 21.7 PER

-C, Brendan Haywood: 8.8 pts, .518 FG%, 10.2 rebs, 0.6 asts, 12.9 PER

-G, Vince Carter: 14.4, .411 FG%, .361 3-FG%, 4.8 rebs, 3.2 asts, 13.6 PER

-G, Rodrigue Beaubois: 14.8 pts, .422 FG%, .288 3-FG%, 4.7 rebs, 4.8 asts, 15.3 PER

The list shows us that the Mavs suffered a general offensive decline from all returning players.  Haywood actually improved a little bit with more minutes and Carter and Beaubois probably were more effective collectively than Barea and Stevenson (Barea was good but Stevenson couldn’t score at all).  Putting aside efficiency, we see that Marion had the biggest fall on offense.  Indeed, this was Marion’s worst effective field goal percentage of his career and quite a fall from last season.  Combine this with the age issues all over the roster and Lamar Odom crapping out spectacularly and Dallas went from title contender to decent playoff team.

Even with all these things going wrong, Dallas played OKC pretty tough for a few games before falling apart.  Had they drawn Memphis, the Clippers, or the Lakers and Dallas might’ve actually won a series in the playoffs.  Still, none of this changes the fact that the Mavs weren’t winning a title again with or without Chandler this year and things could get real ugly next year if they were locked into the 2010-11 roster for a few more season.  Now the Mavs have some salary cap (albeit not enough to sign Williams AND Howard unless they can dump Marion).  Things are tough though.  Dirk is signed for two more seasons but Kidd and Terry are free agents and will both probably be gone.  The Mavs will have to have a Plan B if Williams isn’t coming to town or Dallas could decline even more next year.  Even if they do sign Williams (assuming Howard doesn’t come along) the Dallas roster needs to improve depth.

3.  Memphis Grizzlies:  I agree with Lionel Hollins that the 2011-12 Grizzlies should be considered a success.  They lost painfully in the playoffs (blowing a huge lead in Game 1 and losing Game 7 at home) but this team had the best winning percentage of any Grizzly team ever.  (Oddly, this is not the best Memphis team by SRS.  Both last year’s team and three playoff teams from the mid-2000s scored higher under SRS.  So, I guess you could say this was the “worst” Memphis playoff team ever by SRS, even though the five Memphis playoff teams are not separated by much).

The Grizzlies’ rebuild has always confounded me.  They have amassed some good players but have gotten here in a weird way.  They dumped Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown and the rights to Marc Gasol, who ended being much better than anyone (including the Grizz) could’ve ever hoped.  They then picked up Zach Randolph, whose contract and attitude where both toxic, and he ended being great and a changed player (in a good way).  They also traded the pick that was Kevin Love for O.J. Mayo.  On top of that, they re-hired Hollins, who had been 18-46 in two prior stints as coach.  Does that sound like a recipe for success?  Well, I guess it was.  The Gasol trade may have been lucky but they hit on most of their draft picks the last few years and Hollins has done a really nice job turning Memphis into a tough defensive team.  (The Grizz also scored by trading Shane Battier for Rudy Gay and in signing Tony Allen on the cheap).  The question is where the Grizz can go from here.  They are capped out with Randolph, Gay, M. Gasol, and Mike Conley for the next three seasons.  This means O.J. Mayo is probably gone as a free agent for nothing (after Memphis flirted with trading him for years).  Instead, the transactional goals will be modest as Memphis will just seek to get Marreese Speights and Darrell Arthur re-signed cheaply and hope to hitg on a draft pick to add some more depth.  Memphis will likely be a tough second tier playoff team again next year but whether they get bumped in the first round or the conference finals will depend greatly on how much their competitors improve.

4.  Utah Jazz:  Jerry Sloan is probably not too happy that his old school team has been turned into an offense first team (6th in offense but only 19th in defense).  Still, Tyrone Corbin has done a nice job using the talent he has and focusing on Al Jefferson and Paul Millsap in the post, even if they don’t guard much.  Squeezing a playoff appearance out of this core is a nice short term reward for fans but long term the Jazz plan may not contain either Jefferson or Millsap.  In fact, the Jazz have no contracts committed after next season to any vets.  Derrick Favors, Enes Kanter, Gordon Hayward, and Alec Burks are the only players likely to be on the roster, as they will still be on their rookie contracts and Jefferson, Millsap, and Devin Harris are free agents after next season.  With Favors developing as a player, it doesn’t make sense to commit to both Jefferson and Millsap and one of them will have to be traded.  Harris also might be a goner, as he has established himself as a nice guard but not a star.  Add this all together and the Jazz’s 2012-13 season is in flux.  They could make the playoffs and be competitive if they keep the core together and Favors and Hayward improve but if Jefferson/Millsap and Harris are traded the Jazz could fall back into the lottery.  That’s okay, though, because the Jazz have some nice young talent and myriads of cap room.  The future should be bright.

While the playoffs rage on, it is still a fine time to stop for a minute and consider those who have already been knocked out.  So we begin our annual Fall Out series, in which we assess the departed and their future prospects.  The losers have been gone for at least a week and this gives us a little more perspective and avoids quickly pronouncing failure and success.  Today, we look at the Eastern Conference:

1. Chicago Bulls:  Losing in the first round as one seed really hurts.  In the case of Chicago, the hurt is slightly different than those of past one seeds to be knocked out.  There was no shocking upset here but rather a loss off Derrick Rose, which made an upset much more likely.  One could imagine that the loss still was a bit surprising because even without Rose the Bulls were a very good team this year.  Even so, the Bulls were going win a title without Rose.  Instead, the Bulls are left with losing a shot at a title and spending next season without their best player, as well as a possibility that Rose won’t be the same player when he comes back.  In short, the whole situation sucks.  Going forward, the Bulls will probably be in the playoffs in 2012-13 but the gaping hole at the point will prevent any meaningful contention.

At the moment, the team is pretty much locked into the roster it has.  Carlos Boozer, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng have contracts for at least three more seasons, all at pretty big money.  While all three could be traded, only Noah has both the youth and reasonable salary to command actual good value in return.  Noah my actually be worth trading too since his strengths (defense/rebounding) can possibly be replaced by Taj Gibson on the cheap.  Noah, in turn, could fetch a scoring guard that the team needed before Rose got hurt and even more so.  We aren’t saying Noah should definitely be traded for a shooting guard but he is the prime candidate if the right opportunity presents itself.

As for Boozer, he is destined to be considered another Bulls big ticket free agent bust a la Ron Mercer and Ben Wallace.  But Boozer is nowhere near so disappointing a bust.  His raw numbers look down because he played his fewest minutes per game since his rookie year (29.5).  In reality, he improved upon his 2010-11 numbers and his PER shows him as an asset at 19.7.   Yes, Boozer has his downsides: he won’t ever reach his career highs of five years ago and his lack of defense is notable on the Bulls and, at 30, he isn’t going to be getting any better.  Nor is any team going to assume the three years and $46 million without sending back a bad contract.   The only way to clear Boozer from the cap is to amnesty him and the production right now justifies his roster spot.

Chicago should hover at the 45-win mark next year but all eyes will be on Rose’s return.  That is a bit of limbo for fans but it is more hope than most NBA teams have.

2.  New York Knicks:  Weird season for the Knicks.  It was several seasons in one really.  We won’t recap the rollercoaster events but, at the end of the day, the Knicks are Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, Jeremy Lin and some role players.  The first test of the off-season will be to see whether the NBPA’s challenge of the restricted free agency rules for waiver wire picks ups (Lin and Steve Novak) will be left intact.  If so, the Knicks can basically offer Lin and Novak more cash than anyone else.  If not, both players will hit the open market and the Knicks could be outbid by teams with cap room.  The reports indicate that the NBPA challenge is a longshot because the CBA did not specifically provide for unrestricted free agency for such players.  Hopefully, these sources are correct because the Knicks will be totally screwed if they lose Lin, the only above-average NBA point on the roster.

Assuming Lin does return, the other issue is that Knicks are locked into a roster that is not a title contender.  Carmelo should be the same really good scoring forward for the next three years but Amare is a problem.  His numbers were down markedly this season and he looked a lot less athletic.  A look at Amare’s similarity scores at Basketball-Reference show a few players that fell off to a lower level for a variety of reasons (Elton Brand, Marques Johnson, Grant Hill).  Hopefully, Amare’s explosiveness returns but it’s safe to say that most GMs would greatly prefer having Booze and his contract going forward than Stoudemire and his contract.

At best, we are looking at the Knicks staying on the 45-win treadmill next year unless they keep Lin and Lin turns into Steve Nash and Amare gets back some of his mojo.  This won’t be a boring team.  The team they have is entertaining and far preferable to the crap that had been at MSG the last decade but the realistic ceiling is low.

3.  Orlando Magic:  The Magic finally got around to firing Otis Smith and Stan Van Gundy this week but the flux continues.  It seems that it is probably still too late to keep Dwight Howard.  The Magic are capped out with all sorts of middling talent and hard feelings are sure to remain even if the Magic could make an impact move to convince Howard to stay.  On top of this, Howard’s back may make him a bad bet for a team that isn’t great anyway.  Bringing Howard back entails too much risk.  If Howard is still injured, his value will tank and Magic won’t be able to trade or keep him.  If Howard is healthy, the media circus continues on a team that still isn’t a title contender.  Orlando should avoid the circus and just trade Howard now and get the best possible return it can (some young talent and cap relief) as the Nets will surely overpay because they need the hope of Howard now to build the Brooklyn buzz.

Van Gundy deserved a better fate, as his coaching was consistent and strong.  Alas, he got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and he didn’t exactly manage the PR aspects of this pressure cooker well.  We are sure to see him coach again somewhere soon.  As for Smith, his tenure looks much worse in retrospect than it did at the time.  Remember, Smith didn’t actually draft Howard, he was inherited from previous GM John Weisbrod (who missed spectacularly on all non-Howard related decisions).  So, Smith came to the GM slot with Howard to build around.  Here are Smith’s major decisions as GM since his hiring in the spring of 2005:

-2004-05 Season: Drafted Fran Vazquez at the 11th pick in the 2005 draft.  Vazquez never came to the United States. The draft was thin at that point but Danny Granger and local product David Lee were available.

-2005-06:  Smith’s did a nice job clearing out the waste, dumping Steve Francis’ contract on Isaiah Thomas and the Knicks in 2005-06.  The Magic had the 11th pick again and took J.J. Redick, who has been a decent pro and not a terrible pick (Rajon Rondo and Kyle Lowry were available but were not really hot prospects).

-2006-07:  Smith didn’t do much but fire Brian Hill as coach and replaced him with Van Gundy, which worked out pretty well.

-2007-08:  Smith brought in big ticket free agent Rashard Lewis.  This was an obvious overpay for a good player but Smith wanted to put some talent around Howard to make him happy.  An overpay was acceptable but $118 million for six years was a bit more than necessary to lock up Lewis.  Smith also brought over Marcin Gortat after drafting him back in 2005 in the second-round.

-2008-09:  The Magic were now pretty good and Smith tried to add some useful talent to push the team over the top.  Their draft pick (22nd pick) Courtney Lee was solid and Rafer Alston played some surprisingly nice ball in the playoffs for a retread.  Orlando upsets Cleveland but loses to Los Angeles in the NBA Finals.  This is the apex of Smith’s tenure in Orlando.

-2009-10:  Magic trade Alston and Lee for Vince Carter and Ryan Anderson and let Toronto overpay for Hedo Turkoglu.  Smith also nabs the useful Matt Barnes and Brandon Bass.  The Magic win 59 games again and put up a better SRS rating than in 2008-09.  The team still loses to a very good Boston team in the second round.

-2010-11: Panic time.  Smith sign Chris Duhon to an offer sheet and crap out.  Mid-way through the season, Smith bites the bullet and trades Carter, Gortat, Mickael Pietrus, and a first-rounder for Jason Richardson, Earl Clark, and Turkoglu.  Smith overrated Richardson, thinking he was way better than V.C., though there was little evidence of this on paper.  Throwing in Gortat and taking Turkoglu’s bad contract only made the deal worse.  Smith also trades Lewis, who had declined in Orlando for Gilbert Arenas, who was beyond decline.  Orlando loses in the first round to Atlanta and the chaos we referenced above begin and continues until Smith was fired.

In retrospect, Smith’s time in Orlando was decent until he felt forced to make moves.  Lewis was a mistake but losing a very good center like Gortat without upgrading two-guard was a forgotten but pretty terrible move.  The Arenas trade had no shot of working and smacked of true desperation.  If Smith had hit on one of his early draft picks and kept Gortat, he might’ve avoided the nightmare 2011-12.  Smith isn’t really an awful GM but it was time to blow this up and start over with someone new.

4.  Atlanta Hawks:  A familiar theme of the first round losers is being stuck on the treadmill of good but not great.  This is the first time since 2007-08 that Atlanta didn’t win its first round series but the team was still pretty good.  Without Al Horford most of the year, the Hawks were quite competitive.  Atlanta is a thin team with a few great talents (Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, and Horford) and one potentially good player (Jeff Teague).  But the Hawks are totally capped out and owe Johnson about $100 million over the next four seasons.  This will eventually require Atlanta to eat the contract but, for now, the Hawks will be satisfied with another mid-level seed and a shot at the second round.

Another big decision looming is Josh Smith.  He has one year left on his contract and is rumored to prefer to leave Atlanta.  Last time he was a free agent, Smith signed an offer sheet with Memphis and forced Atlanta to match it to keep him.  Smith is unrestricted this time and he is probably the Hawks’ best player.  Atlanta isn’t too excited but having a big payroll and the Johnson contract probably precludes a big payday for Smith as well.  If so, Atlanta needs to trade Smith, who has a ton of value and could swing the right team to title contender.  Since Smith isn’t as big a name as Howard, the Hawks could enter next year with Smith on the team if no great offers fly in the door.  Trading Smith (if he is a goner) will have to happen though as it is the only way to add some talent to a team that would look pretty bad if his lost for nothing as a free agent.

2.  Least Dramatic First Round Ever?: As noted, no series in the First Round has gone to 2-2 and we are looking at possibly no Game 7s and only a few Game 6s.    Is this atypical?  Well, since 2002-03 (when the NBA first made the First Round best-of-seven) getting Game 7s in the First Round is far from a foregone conclusion but the NBA usually delivered at least one Game 7 a year but never more than two in season.  In fact, last year was the first time there was no Game 7 in the First Round (though there were four Game 6s).  The most boring First Round of the seven-game era was 2003-04 when four series were sweeps and three series went only five games.  The lone outlier was Heat-Hornets, which went seven but was not particularly exciting with the exception of a game winner hit by some rookie named Dwyane Wade.  The most Game 6s and Game 7s in one year came the year before in 2002-03, when five series went six games and two went seven and the one other series went five games.

3.  Age Limit Again: Turning away from the playoffs for a second, I couldn’t help but notice the concerted push by both the NCAA and NBA to try to raise the age limit to enter the NBA draft from 19 to 20, effectively forcing most players to spend two years in college and not one.  David Stern has avoided any moral judgments in taking this stance and called this a financial issue:  ”Our rule is that they won’t be eligible for the draft until they’re 19. They can play in Europe, they can play in the D-League, they can go to college. This is a not a social program, this is a business rule for us. The NFL has a rule which requires three years of college. So the focus is often on ours, but it’s really not what we require in college. It’s that we say we would like a year to look at them and I think it’s been interesting to see how the players do against first-class competition in the NCAAs and then teams have the ability to judge and make judgments, because high-ranking draft picks are very, very valuable.”

Mark Cuban is also on board but frames this as a moral issue, where the limit would benefit those barred from coming to the NBA:  ”It’s not even so much about lottery busts, it’s about kids’ lives that we’re ruining. Even if you’re a first-round pick and you have three years of guaranteed money, or two years now of guaranteed money, then what? Because if you’re a bust and it turns out you just can’t play in the NBA, your ‘rocks for jocks’ one year of schooling isn’t going to get you far.  I just don’t think it takes into consideration the kids enough. Obviously, I think there’s significant benefit for the NBA. It’s not my decision to make, but that’s my opinion on it.”

Most recently, Steve Kerr wrote a piece in Grantland.com, outlining all sorts of reasons why the age limit helps.  Kerr is a thoughtful guy and touches on both financial and moral reasons why forcing the athletes to get some college experience benefits everyone.  His arguments overlap with both the comments of Stern and Cuban.  Let’s review Kerr’s six identified arguments and see if they hold muster:

1.  High school players aren’t mature enough to be ready to play in the NBA:  Kerr argues that the transition to the NBA is so hard that teenagers need at least two years to adjust to all aspects of the NBA and being adults.  As a consequence, the NBA risks having a choppier product than if the players have spent a few years in college.  It is true that most high schoolers are not ready to play immediately in the NBA (in fact, most college seniors aren’t ready).  No evidence is presented, however, to support that having a few teenagers on the roster drags down quality of play.  The fact is that number of high schoolers to be drafted were very low and consisted mostly of players so gifted that they were quite good by their second seasons (and LeBron James and Dwight Howard were really good as 18-year old rookies).  So, while in the abstract this argument has merit, I don’t think this holds muster.   Good players are good players and good coaches teach players, no matter the league they play/coach in.  Sure, some players could be missing out on basic life experience by going to college for two or three years but the alarming rate of post-career bankruptcies of players in all sports doesn’t support the theory that coping is a skill necessarily learned in college.

2.  The NBA has a financial interest in seeing young players compete so that they can avoid costly speculation in the uncertain high school/teenage athlete market:  This is the core of Stern’s statement but is actually Kerr’s weakest argument by far.  The history of high schoolers in the NBA draft shows a much high success rate than most other pools of tools.  It is almost prosaic to go over this but here is the rundown of United States high schoolers (with no college or juco experience at all) taken in the NBA draft since 1995:

1995: Kevin Garnett (4th)

1996: Kobe Bryant (13), Jermaine O’Neal (17)

1997:  Tracy McGray (9)

1998:  Al Harrington (25), Rashard Lewis (32), Korleone Young (40)

1999:  Jonathan Bender (5), Leon Smith (29)

2000: Darius Miles (3), DeShawn Stevenson (23)

20001: Kwame Brown (1), Tyson Chandler (2), Eddy Curry (4), DeSagana Diop (8)

2002: Amare Stoudemire (9)

2003: LeBron James (1), Travis Outlaw (23), Ndudi Ebi (26), Kendrick Perkins (27)

2004: Dwight Howard (1), Shaun Livingston (4), Robert Swift (12), Sebastian Telfair (13), Al Jefferson (15), Josh Smith (17), J.R. Smith (18), Dorell Wright (19)

2005: Martell Webster (6), Andrew Bynum (10), Gerald Green (18), C.J. Miles (34), Monta Ellis (40),  Louis Williams (45), Andray Blatche (49), Amir Johnson (56)

I don’t see too many busts here.  In fact, I see many more Hall of Famers than busts, as well as some really good value picks late in the first round and in the second round.  If anything, the high schoolers have usually been undervalued with only a few notable exceptions.  In 2005, the last year of high schoolers, every second rounder from high school was, at least, a useful pro.  If this financial uncertainty is the main argument for a draft limit, we have to call BS on this.  The argument seemed thin in the article and non-existent when the actual lists are reviewed.  If high schoolers were crapping out to often, they would just not be drafted high.  No need to “save” GMs from themselves on this issue.

Kerr doubles down on this argument, stating that he doubted it made any difference to any player that any great player that he got his max contract at 24 as opposed to 22.   College is great if you want it but I don’t know a single player who would sneeze at losing out on $4-10 million those extra two years in college would cost him.  Even more telling, ask Rashard Lewis whether he would give back those two years.   Had Rashard Lewis been two years older when he came to the NBA, he would’ve hit the free agent market for his big contract at 29 and not 27, which could’ve cost him the max contract he did get from Orlando.

3.  Player development is hurt by not going to college: Kerr states that the NCAA prepared players for the pros and demonstrates this by showing that Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan had much better numbers as rookies than even the best high schoolers like LeBron and Dwight Howard.  This is true but does not prove the the better numbers resulted from the older players having played in college.  Most players consistently improve from ages 18 to 27 and so the older you are when you enter the league, the better you will probably be.  LeBron improved quite nicely from age 18 to age 23 without college tutorials.  It is definitely true that some players could use the college environment but I, as a fan, would hate to miss out on two years of LeBron or Howard just to make sure that some more marginal players stay in school.

4.  College stars create fan interest for the pros:  Kerr notes that college stars like Patrick Ewing were hugely anticipated coming into the NBA and that this helps fan interest.  This is true on some level but college stardom only matters if the player is actually good as pro.  Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, and Tyler Hansbrough were huge college stars.  Conversely, no one knew who Karl Malone or John Stockton were in college and they became NBA legends.  but Any NCAA fanfare quickly burns away if the player doesn’t dominate as a pro.  Laettner was a solid pro but was almost totally forgotten one it was clear that he was not going to be great.   A great college player will have a certain aura about him if he is also great as a pro but do you really think anyone cares that Kobe Bryant didn’t go to Duke now?

5.  College fosters a sense of team that high schoolers don’t get through the whole crazy AAU process: Maybe this is true to some extent but why can’t this same sense of “team” be found in the pros?

6.  College provides mentors in coaches that are key to development: This argument sort of overlaps with some of the other arguments but a great coach can really help a player develop.  But not every college player gets to play with Dean Smith or Lute Olson.  A great coach can help but this is a very minor subsidiary point.

Overall, I think most of the reasons given for limiting high school player access to the NBA are strawmen arguments.  Baseball forces players to declare after high school or wait three years because they have an anti-trust exception and can do whatever they want.  The NFL limits access on the more compelling pretense that 18 and 19 year olds are not physically as strong and could get really hurt in the violent NFL.  I see Stern’s position as illusory.  He doesn’t want his league to get bad press for having too many young players and thus will support an age limit to make the NBA look more socially responsible.  I can understand why he does this and can’t say this is a bad business move but the pretenses for the rule are thin at best.  In an ideal world, the NBA would come up with a rule to let the best players (like LeBron) come out early but I guess we don’t live in an ideal world.

2.  Thunder-Mavs: Glass half full or half empty?  The Mavs have given the OKC basically all they can handle on the road but have come up empty both times.  The old saying is that the a series hasn’t started until the home team loses a game so, technically, the Mavs can hold serve in Dallas and still have two more shots at winning a road game.  In reality, this is still very tough.  The key to Dallas’ success has been holding down Kevin Durant, who is a collective 15-44 from the field (thanks mostly to Shawn Marion).   As great as Dallas has done on Durant, you have to think it can’t last.  KD has shot under 40% in three consecutive games only once all year.  Dallas might be able to hold serve and keep this series going but Durant will get hot and end this thing.

3.  Lakers-Nuggets:   Remember how Kobe Bryant got quite mad at the Lakers from refusing to trade a young Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd in 2007?  Kidd was still solid player at that point but since that time, Bynum has never had a PER under 20 and it’s pretty likely that Kobe would’ve gotten no more titles if the deal had been cut as he wanted.  This is not to disparage Kidd but he’s older and the fact is point guards have a very subsidiary role in the Phil Jackson triangle.   Getting back to the present, Bynum has looked like the best player in this series and he has totally prevented Javale McGee from any offensive opportunities.  The Lakers are plus 17.5 when Bynum plays (according to NBA.com).  In Denver, the Nuggets may have to go with Ty Lawson and Andre Miller back court more often, as Corey Brewer can’t stop Kobe or score enough on offense, while Miller and Lawson will give Kobe some problems on the defensive end.  Denver has historically had a huge home court advantage but have been a little weaker than usual this year (20-13).  They look overwhelmed so far this series and will need Lawson to go crazy to win both games in Denver.

4.  Clippers-Grizzlies: The only really compelling series out West so far.  L.A. and Memphis look really well matched.   We have had a ridiculous comeback and then Memphis immediately answer a crushing loss and winning Game 2, which should help debunk any talk of “momentum.”  Even still, the Clipps look to be in a good spot going back to Los Angeles.  Memphis is a weak road team and the Clipps have been really good at home so far at 24-9.   A cause for concern, though, is Vinny Del Negro’s use of Bobby Simmons in place of the injured Caron Butler.  Simmons actually shot really well, atypical for him, but this probably won’t happen again and might only encourage Del Negro to ignore the last five years of bad shooting and try to ride a hand that isn’t actually that hot.  The Clipps will have to find another scorer behind Chris Paul and Blake Griffin but that is much more likely to be Randy Foye or Nick Young and not Simmons.  As for Memphis, they obviously can take a game back in L.A. but are looking at an uphill battle.   As a side note, Game 2 also had a nice illustration of the limits of plus/minus when Quincy Pondexter led the team at +12 in his 15 minutes of mostly not doing much but being fortunate enough to play while Memphis made its best run.

-2010-11 Miami Heat, Most Hated Team Ever?: Unlike any team in recent memory, the Heat really were fun to root against.  They didn’t embrace the traditional gritty villain role.  They didn’t kicks foes when they were down as much as they seemed to embody the cocky, elitist, as though they were basketball version of the villain from some 1980s movie who assaulted you with snide comments.  Very few teams/players have occupied this exact sphere in any sports, let alone the NBA.  There were plenty who hated the 1980s Celtics and/or Lakers (depending upon where you lived).  The late 1980s Pistons were hated because of their chippy play.  In addition, all these teams were multi-title winners and had , in the eyes of all fans, earned their status.  The only other NBA situation that was remotely similar to the negative feeling evoked by this Heat team was the legitimate dislike most people/players had for Rick Barry in the 1970s for his tendency to complain and be unapologetically obnoxious.

Miami (mostly LeBron), on the other hand, seem care deeply about their reputations and winning but have senses of entitlement and self-worth that are instantly repellent when you hear them talk.  You wanted to see Bill Laimbeer get clocked in the face or to see Isiah bawling in disappointment (as opposed to bawling with happiness, which he also did on occasion).  You don’t want to see LeBron or Wade get nailed, you just want to see them lose and slink off the court.

I understand the antipathy to the Heat but I, personally, am a little more sympathetic.  Sure, the Heat’s lack of perspective is annoying but they probably deserve something of a break.  Catching LeBron and Wade making fun of Dirk Nowitzki in private is exactly the type of thing anyone might do and doesn’t make them big douches everyone perceives them to be.  LeBron’s post-game comments about the “haters” was a much more in the douchey category but it only shows that he totally egotistical but is hardly hateful.  I didn’t feel any satisfaction in their losing this tough series (though I could understand why so many did).  The bottom line is Miami will be around to watch and root against for years to come.  LeBron and Dwyane Wade seemed blissfully unaware of the fact that someone might dislike them for their decisions over the last year but they are sure to make peace with this and watching this team will only get even more interesting for all of us to watch in the future and that is something for all fans to be happy about. 

-Did LeBron Choke/Shirk? As great as Dallas played, the big takeaway most observers made was that LeBron was oddly unaggressive in the last few games of the series, as he sat on the perimeter too often and watched Wade try to create shots.  I absolutely hate dime store psychological observations but it certainly did seem that James was less confident in this series than we have ever seen him before.  I don’t know the reason and I don’t expect it to last but this palpable sense of failing to take (much less make) the big shots will be a big part of the LeBron narrative until he wins a title.  This narrative will be overblown too (LeBron is still the best player in the NBA) but it is fair to say that we have never seen Michael Jordan ever not go down firing like that.

-Why didn’t anyone make fun of LeBron via State Farm? I thought the most obvious joke in the world would be to run a clip of LeBron complaining about the “hater” after the series and then add in his annoying commercial for State Farm where he asks for “the world smallest violin” to mock someone he was in a traffic dispute with.  I guess it’ll come soon enough.

-Heat Help? As an offshoot of the LeBron problem was the general failure of the Heat to create against the Mavs’ zone defense.  For whatever reason, the Heat chose to constantly jump in the air, as if they were going to shoot and then pass the ball at the last second around the perimeter, which either created a turnover or put the recipient of the pass in a poor position to shoot or pass.  Was this a failure of the coach to adjust?  Not so much.  The fact was that after James Jones went down, the only reliable scorer besides the Big Three was Mario Chalmers (7.8 ppg in the playoffs).  The other Heat rotation players (Mike Bibby, Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem, Juwan Howard, and Joel Anthony) were so offensively inept that that if the Big Three weren’t ripping it up, they could not win.

On top of that, Pat Riley’s tendency to throw long contracts at reserves (see, e.g., Walker, Antoine) is already biting Miami in the ass yet again.  Miller and Anthony have four more years left on their deals, when they should’ve been working on year-to-year contracts.  Anthony might be tradeable but neither contract is particularly fungible.  In order to improve, the Heat will have to entice veterans to take below-market deals to pair up in a star situation.  The Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls all did this effectively over the years and there is no reason to think Miami can’t do it too.  The real trick will be finding the right vets to fill the holes.

-Dallas Wins! In victory or defeat, Miami was the main story but the Mavs great run deserves attention too.  This wasn’t the best Dallas team of the last decade on paper, nor was this Dirk’s best playoff showing either but they had no great weaknesses and got hot at the right time.  How did it happen?  Dallas’ ability to make three-pointers was particularly evident during that whole run.  As a team, the Mavs shot an excellent .394% from three, which was quite an improvement from the regular seaosn.  In fact, here is how the Mavs’ shot from three in the playoffs versus the regular season:

Dallas shot much better from three in the playoffs.  Dirk and Terry were incredible from three and Jason Kidd and Deshawn Stevenson moved up from decent to good.  Only J.J.Barea and Peja Stojakovic declined and the declines were modest.  (As an interesting side note, Marion has basically stopped shooting threes.  He has hit eight in the last two regular seasons for Dallas and only 26 since leaving Phoenix in mid-2007-08).  Clearly, Dallas’ proficiency from three in the playoffs was a huge factor in getting this title.  Was this improvement luck or skill?  Dallas, as a team, hadn’t shot better than .372% in a regular season since 2006-07.  So, we’ll chalk this up to a very well-timed hot streak.

-Dirk’s Legacy: The perception of Nowitzki has now changed around the league.  He now officially has that “winner” stamp for all-time.  This is silly.   Dirk has been a Hall of Famer for years.  As we noted in our Finals preview, Dirk’s offensive stats in this year’s playoffs aren’t significantly better than past playoffs (he was even better in 2005-06).  He’s been remarkably consistent, as a great player the whole time.  The fact that the players around him delivered shouldn’t change any of this.  Even so, this does seem like an appropriate time to take stock of Dirk’s place amongst the power forwards.  Here goes:

5.  Bob Pettit

4.  Charles Barkley

3.  Dirk Nowitzki

2.  Kevin Garnett

1.  Karl Malone

First off, had we considered Tim Duncan a power forward, I would have him first as power forward but, let’s be honest, he’s really a center.  As for the rest, Malone’s incredibly longevity makes him still the clear number one.  I think KG versus Dirk is a near dead heat.  I went with Garnett over Dirk only because, in their primes, KG was such a great defender/rebounder that he could fit well seamlessly into any team building effort  (you can’t blame KG for the crappy roster filler he was stuck with during much of his time in Minnesota).  Dirk passed Barkley a year or two ago and, if he continues to age well, he will pass KG with an outside shot at Mailman.

-Dirk vs. Bird: Bird wasn’t quite a power forward (they he could play the position) but many have wondered how he stacks up with Dirk.  The comparisons are natural.  Two big white guys who could/can really shoot.  Intuitively, however, Bird would still seem like the better player.  Both could/can score and both are solid rebounders but Bird passed like a guard while Dirk is a good passer for a big man.  Add in Bird’s legendary playoff performances and has an aura that might push him ahead of the Dirk (though Dirk’s captured some aura this post-season).  Looking at the cold numbers, though, Dirk has a pretty good case.  Here are each player’s number per 36 minutes for their regular season careers:

On these numbers, it is close to a dead heat.  Dirk also has already played about 100 more games than Bird did his whole career and Nowitzki is still going strong. The playoffs, though, change the analysis a little. Bird has played many more playoff games (164 to 124) and though his PER in the playoffs is actually lower than Dirk’s so far (21.7 versus 24.7 for Dirk so far), it is close enough that that extra 40 games are enough to give him the overall edge in value over Dirk.  Still, it seems likely that if Dirk can keep this up for another few years and continue to play well in the playoffs, he will clearly be more valuable than Bird was.  For all the Boston fans, I realize that Bird’s career was shortened by injuries but that is the record we have to work with.

Did the title change Jason Kidd’s historical ranking? I frankly don’t see this.  J-Kidd is still a pretty good player but is a slightly above average point.  He helped the Mavs win the title but he was far from irreplaceable.  There is a plausible argument that the Mavs would’ve won this title had they kept Devin Harris instead of trading him for Kidd (Harris stagnated this year but was still a much better offensive player than Kidd at this stage of their careers).  But let’s not be too negative about a great pro like Kidd.  This ring obviously means a lot to Kidd and it is a crowning achievement for a great career.  Objectively, though, he was a helpful cog and not the key player, very much like Gary Payton’s ring with the 2005-06 Heat.  It is more apt to describe Kidd’s 2010-11 season as a cherry on the sundae but not an event that he should get too much credit for.  In any event, Kidd ranks in the upper tier of points All-Time and this title doesn’t hurt (I have him behind Magic Johnson, John Stockton, and Gary Payton and very close with Steve Nash for the post-1980 set).

-Who is going to win?

I guess we should start with the most important question.  At first glance, the Heat seem to be serious favorites.  Maim has so much star power that it is hard to imagine how Dallas can keep up.  Forgetting this superficial analysis, a deeper look doesn’t change much.  We all understand the Heat: an excellent, albeit slow paced team (20th in pace), that needs the three stars to score.  If a secondary player gets hot, the opposition is probably can’t win.

Even without the stars, Dallas plays at a fairly similar pace to Miami but are just a little worse offensively and defensively.  Dallas still gets its point from the three-point line and accurate shooting overall.  They were able to score despite being only 27th in free throws.  Defensively, the Mavs only have two legit shot blockers (Brendan Haywood and Tyson Chandler).  What you have then is a slow team that plays tough man defense and avoids giving up free throws but can’t really stop shot blockers and relies on jump shots offensively.  This has worked very well in the playoffs, since Dirk, Jason Terry, and Peja Stojakovic are shooting great from three and most of the team has outperformed their regular season numbers.

In contrast, Miami lives at the line offensively (Miami’s Big Three all had more free throw attempts than anyone on Dallas) and the Heat don’t have any superlative shot blocking big men but are effective (Dwyane Wade actually has more blocks than anyone on the Mavs).  On paper, this looks like a mismatch in the Heat’s favor.  But the Mavs have been a different team in the playoffs and no one has been able to stop Dirk.  Miami will have to do something different than OKC and Los Angeles tried.  I suspect this means, that we’ll get to see some fun match ups where LeBron is guarding Dirk.  Most of the time, though, we’ll see a lot of Chris Bosh and Udonis Haslem on Nowitzki.  Not sure that Bosh/Haslem can stop Dirk but you would have to figure that Dirk will slowdown a little from his torrid series against the Thunder (who were more loose defensively than Miami).

For Dallas to win this they have to hope Dirk can continue his amazing run (which is definitely possible) and that the secondary players who killed L.A. and OKC (Terry and J.J. Barea) continue to play well.  Miami will probably avoid doubling Dirk to leave Terry free since Pat Riley teams usually hate to double and Terry has been really effective in that role.  As for Barea, he is a key player, who brings a scoring ability to the floor that Jason Kidd doesn’t have.  J.J. turned around both of the previous playoff series with huge scoring off the bench and Mike Bibby clearly can’t guard him either.  As for defense, Dallas has some issues.  They will put Shawn Marion on LBJ and hope that that this works and Kidd will have to guard Wade.  J-Kidd is still an effective defender (he did good work on Kobe last month) but that is a tough cover for a 38-year old after a long season. Dallas will probably put Tyson Chandler on Chris Bosh to let Dirk rest defensively against whomever is playing center for Miami (Joel Anthony doesn’t really make much sense against Dallas, so Haslem may play more center in the Finals).

I see LBJ and Wade running all over the Mavs and Miami doing enough to slow down Dirk defensively to pull this series out.  Prediction:  Miami wins 4-2.

-Is this anything like the 2005-06 Finals?

No!  The fact that Miami and Dallas met several years ago has no bearing.  The only Miami players left from that team are Wade and Haslem and the only Mavs are Dirk and Terry.  Back then, Dallas was the offensively efficient team we remember from the Don Nelson Years, with a little twist….they didn’t run.  Coach Avery Johnson had held back the reins and this yielded an efficient team (1st in the NBA) but did so a ridiculously slow pace (27th in the NBA).  As for Miami, they were patchwork team trying to squeeze one more title out of Shaq (several teams have tried that formula with Shaq since, to less effect) and were lucky enough to have found Wade to make sure it happened.

It is true that teams tends to meet in the Finals on more than one occasion but this feels like a different world from 2006.  Rather, this is very similar to the Celtics-Rockets meetings in the 1980s.  Boston and Houston first met in 1980-81 when a young Larry Bird led his team over a .500ish Rockets team that rode a short playoff format and a hot Moses Malone to the Finals.  Randomly, the teams met again in the 1985-86 Finals.  Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish were the only players left from the first match up and Houston’s only holdover was Robert Reid.

-Is Dirk Better Than Ever?

This is a serious misconception.  As great as Dirk has played at certain times in the playoffs, his clear peak was from 2004-05 to 2006-07.  Dirk was not far off of that level in the regular season but his game is off by a few percentage points in most areas (his PER in the peak years was in the 27 range but has been 22-24 range since 2007).  As great as Dirk has been in the playoffs, he has put up a 27.1 PER, which is about at the level of his peak seasons, no better.  Oddly, Dirk actually put up better PERs in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 playoffs (28.4 each year) but no one noticed since his team didn’t get to the Finals.  So, Dirk is a player who is aging very well and can still match his prime numbers in spurts but, overall, he’s about 85-90% the player he was in the mid-2000s.

-Is LBJ Better Than MJ?

Scottie Pippen implied this might be the case.  Obviously, it’s impossible to truly ever answer such a question but there are certainly reasons to examine the question.  On James’ side, he has now put up offensive numbers for the past six years that only MJ has matched since the 1960s.  Also, for all of LeBron’s tribulations he is still only 26.   At 26, Jordan hadn’t yet won a title either.   On the other side of the ledger, it seems hard to compare anyone with MJ, who objectively looked like the best while he was playing.  James is supremely talented and wants to win but it’s hard to envision anyone imposing his will on a game like Jordan did.  While I often believe that titles won (or not won) is unfairly used as a criteria for assessing a player’s historical worth, MJ’s six rings are a unique feat in modern times and James hasn’t gotten close to that level yet.  In all, it seems premature to compare James to Jordan but LBJ is certainly in the conversation, which is the most you could say about any player at age-26.  Let’s check back in eight to ten years on this question.

2.    Conference Finals Fallout: Having dealt with what’s coming, let’s stop for a second and assess who we’ve left behind.  Normally, when we look at playoff losses, we are contemplating veteran teams who will have to re-tool and might not expect to be back so deep into the playoffs.  But the Conference Finals losers, Chicago and Oklahoma City, are both very young and expect only minor tweaks for next season.  Let’s take a quick look:

-Chicago Bulls: We all expected the Bulls to take the division but level of domination was more of a surprise.  As we all have been told, Derrick Rose helped lift this team to the next level and the coaching change helped a bit too.  The team is set at most positions for next season but shooting guard remains a gaping hole.  With Rose at point, the Bulls don’t need a traditional two guard who creates tons of shots but they still need someone who can score a bit when Rose gets cold.  The Keith Bogans/Ronnie Brewer duo just doesn’t fit the bill.  Bogans did shoot well from three but he drew an absurdly low 32 foul shots all season and Brewer drew some fouls but couldn’t hit an outside shot (only 6-27 from three for the season).  Brewer works as a bench player but the Bulls must find a Kerry Kittles-type multi-purpose guard, who has few glaring holes in his game, to work with Rose. Should the young players continue to develop and two-guard issue be fixed, the Bulls should be the Heat’s main rival in the East for the next five years.

-Oklahoma City Thunder: Unlike the Bulls, OKC’s loss to Dallas was met with a little more pessimism by the masses.  The main issue that concerned most was whether Kevin Durant could co-exist with a shoot-first point like Russell Westbrook.  This question seems awfully silly on a team that has continued to grow and improve steadily and where the best players were only 22 this season.  It may be that Westbrook is not the ideal point guard but he is plenty productive and it’s not like KD had problems getting points this year.  OKC needs to sit back and let these two (as well as Serge Ibaka and James Harden) develop.  In reality, the more significant problem was not offense (5th in the NBA) but defense, where the Thunder slipped.  Scottie Brooks’ homework for the off-season is to figure out why OKC’s defense went from 9th in 2009-10 to 15th this season.  I’m not sure if a change in personnel is needed (probably not since the starting lineup is locked in) or whether an adjustment has to be made to the scheme.  In either case, the most room for improvement on OKC is on defense and Durant/Westbrook concerns are just a sideshow.

1.  Boston Celtics: Assessing the Celtics’ last few years really depends on whether you are an optimist of pessimist.  Here’s how the KG Era has gone:

-2007-08: Everything comes together and the Celts get stronger with every round of the playoffs and win the title.

-2008-09: Kevin Garnett is injured and the Celts struggle until the playoffs.  In the playoffs they have problems beating a young Bulls team in the first round but take a very good Magic team seven games before losing.  One could easily envision Boston beating Orlando (who later would beat Cleveland) and going to the Finals again if KG was healthy.

-2009-10: Celts stall out in the last few months of the season before an almost unprecedented run in the playoffs and nearly win it all before losing to the Lakers in a tight Game 7.

-2010-11: Celts stall out again in the last few months and struggle against the Heat in the playoffs (though they played better than a team that lost 4-1).

Now Boston is a year older and they are still taking another crack at a title (Doc Rivers will be back for five more years).  An optimist could view Boston as a team that easily could’ve won three straight titles before this one weaker season.  The pessimist sees Boston as a team that made a nice run last year that was kind of an aberration (few teams have ever made this kind of playoff run after a decent regular season) but was on its way out.  I think the answer is closer to the optimistic point of view.  The Celts were a serious contender for three years and only injuries kept them from looking even more serious.  The problem is now that the Celts probably are no longer the same team they were the last few years.

I don’t know what it is but it seems that most serious contenders who have an older core do not remain serious contenders after they are dispatched from the playoffs early.  This may not be entirely true but take a look at some of the contenders of the last few decades after they are knocked out early:

-1980s Celtics: In 1988-89, Larry Bird missed nearly all the seasons and Boston was swept out in the first round.  Bird came back the next year at 33 and was still a very good player and Boston won 52, 56, and 51 the next three seasons with him but could never get past the second round again.  Bird retired after those three seasons and the team fell into mediocrity for a decade.

-1980s Pistons: In 1990-91, the Pistons were swept in the Conference Finals by the Bulls.  They went 48-34 in 1991-92 but lost a tough first rounder to the Knicks in five games.  The Isiah Thomas core never made the playoffs again and fell apart due to age and dissension in 1993-94.

-1980s Lakers: Unlike the Pistons and Celtics, the Lakers were still dominant in the regular season when they were knocked out of the playoffs early in 1989-90.  The Lakers went 63-19 but lost 4-1 to a young Suns team in the second round.  Kevin Johnson ran circles around an older Magic Johnson and the Suns just generally played better.  The Lakers regrouped in 1990-91 by signing Sam Perkins and moving Magic away from guarding little point guards.  The Lakers won 58 games in 1990-91 and went to the NBA Finals.  We don’t know if they could’ve kept it up, however, as Johnson was forced to retire the next fall and the Lakers were a .500 team without him.

-1980s 76ers: After winning the title in 1982-83, Philly lost in the first round in 1983-84 to the Nets and the 76ers looked old and slow despite winning 52 games.  Philly bounced backed to 58 wins in 1984-85 (with a young Charles Barkley added to the core) and lost to the Celts in Conference Finals.   The 76ers were good in 1985-86 (54-28) but lost a tough seven-game series to the Bucks in the second round.  That off-season, Philly gave up Moses Malone and the first pick overall (which ended up being Brad Daugherty), for Jeff Ruland and Roy Hinson.  Philly then fell off the map as a contender for a few years.

-1990s Rockets: The Rockets lost 4-0 to a younger Sonics team in the 1995-96 in the second round.  Houston doubled down with vets, trading younger players Robert Horry and Sam Cassell for Barkley (who was not young any longer).  The Rockets nearly went to the Finals in 1996-97 but age/injury caught up with the team in 1997-98 and though they were dangerous, they didn’t get out of the first round again.

-Early 2000s Lakers: The Kobe/Shaq Lakers were beat up by the Spurs in 2002-03 in the second round.  L.A., like Houston, decided to flood the core with vets (Gary Payton and Karl Malone) and go for one more ring.  The plan worked pretty well until Malone hurt his knee and Kobe and Shaq began feuding.  The Lakers made the Finals but were beat 4-1 by the Pistons.  After the season, Shaq and Payton were traded (the Celts got the pick that turned into Rajon Rondo in the Payton trade) and Malone retired.  The Lakers missed the playoffs in 2004-05.

So, there is some precedent for being competitive after playoff disappointment but there quite a few teams that didn’t really contend again.  Fortunately, there is some young talent on hand (Rondo) to help offset the age issues.  But 2011-12 could be last call.  KG and Ray Allen are free agents after the season and looking at pay cuts if they want to stay in Boston.  The Celtics are in the position to take another shot if they can find some vets on short term deals (the payroll is quite low for 2012-13) and if there is a lockout, Boston maybe able to parlay a helter skelter free agent pool into some nice short term bargain deals that would facilitate contention again. It is impossible, however, to know what will happen.  What is clear that Boston lacks young athletes (outside of Rondo) to compete with Miami and Chicago and will have to find some youth at all positions to fill in some weak depth.

2.  Atlanta Hawks: Every year, Atlanta improves a little more but ever year, there are reasons to question where the team is headed.  While the Hawks have never been so competitive in the playoffs, the team was only 44-38 and were actually outscored in the regular season (expected record was 39-43).  Throw in an anemic offensive output (20th in efficiency) and the future indicators are not great.  Moreover, the Hawks have invested way too much in Joe Johnson and should never have paid Marvin Williams to begin with.  Now, this will probably cost them Jamal Crawford, one of their only perimeter scorers.

On the brighter side, the Hawks still have a great front court and Jeff Teague looks like he can step and either start at the point or replace some of Crawford’s points off the bench.  If the CBA isn’t changed, the Hawks have a payroll of $64 million with only seven players under contract (JJ, Josh Smith, Kirk Hinrich, Williams, Zaza Pachulia, Al Horford, and Teague).  In short, depth will be a series problem and regression looks likely.   Given how weak the East is, the Hawks should still be a team with a shot at making the second round but without some creativity in adding to this roster (or subtracting Williams) Atlanta could backslide.

3.    Los Angeles Lakers: Much of what was said about Boston can be said about the Lakers.  This is not a young team and depth and athleticism seemed like huge issues in the postseason.  It is now obvious that Derek Fisher is not a starting level point guard anymore, even in the triangle.  But the rest of the core is not that old.  Here’s a look at the core players, their current ages, and their PERs from the last three years (the most recent PER is the last number in the list):

-Kobe Bryant (age 32): 24.4, 21.9, 23.9

-Ron Artest (age 31): 15.6, 12.1, 11.2

-Lamar Odom (31): 16.6, 15.9, 19.4

-Pau Gasol (30): 22.2, 22.9, 23.3

-Andrew Bynum (23): 20.0, 20.2, 21.1

While age is an issue, this doesn’t look at a team in imminent collapse and is much younger than what Boston has.  If Kobe is healthy, most of the rest of the horses are ready to contribute at the same level for at least another year.  The only real problem looks like Artest, who is not a good offensive player any longer.  Some of that is the system (Artest put up the 15.6 in Houston where they needed scorers but dropped down as role player in L.A.).  So, the Lakers should be good if they can add a point guard and some more decent young players.

The larger issue is that Phil Jackson will likely be gone and coaching can really matter with some teams, particularly on defense and with the cast of characters on the team.  Any coach must have a real defensive system and the ability to command the respect of Kobe.  That means no no-name hires unless Kobe accepts them.  In other words, Brian Shaw will only get the job if Bryant wants him to.  The Lakers are also supposedly looking at Mike Dunleavy, who did a nice job replacing Pat Riley on the Lakers in 1990-91 in a very similar situation.  I frankly think the clear choice is Rick Adelman, who is precisely the type of coach who has succeeded in almost every situation he was put in and is a perfect short term fix.  So, the coach choice will really matter here but no matter who is chosen, the Lakers should stay the course with only minor tweaks.  There is no reason this team can’t contend again in 2011-12 if they stay healthy, hire the right coach, and make the right roster tweaks.

4.    Memphis Grizzlies: Sure they lost to the Thunder but the enthusiasm in Memphis is palpable.  The Grizz have a nice core and it’s locked in contractually for several more years.  Zach Randolph and Rudy Gay both will make big money through 2014-15 and Mike Conley has relatively big deal through 2015-16.  The Grizz also have to deal with Marc Gasol’s impending free agency.  Gasol is 26 and has established himself as an important cog in the team, as a rebounder and defensive presence, who can score a bit too.  Above average centers merit pretty large contracts in the NBA and Memphis will have to keep him.  This means that Memphis is gambling that this core can continue to compete for the next five years and that they may have to let some expensive talent go.  The obvious cast off will be O.J. Mayo, who has one year left on his deal and can probably get a sizeable deal on the open market. In a perfect world, Memphis would keep Mayo but, instead, they’ll have to trade him and left Sam Young and Tony Allen divvy up his minutes.  There will be a loss of depth but keeping Gasol is clearly the better move.

Can Memphis improve on its dream run of this year?  Frankly, I’m not sure.  Memphis looked good but they have relied on Randolph continuing to be a force.  While I applaud how well and seriously he has played in Memphis, investing on him for another four years is hardly riskless given his past issues staying in shape and engaged.  Hopefully, he stays on the right path and Memphis will stay a tough team.  Also, Memphis will need Tony Allen to continue to play as well as he did this year.  Allen has always been a great defender but he has never come close to putting up a the 18.4 PER as he did this year at age-29.  On the other side of the ledger, Young, Darrell Arthur, and Mike Conley are all very young and are all candidates to potentially improve.  In short, a lot is up in the air here.  The Grizz are as likely to slip as they are to build on their success but this is not a bad thing for a franchise that has been in limbo for so many years.

Just for fun, here’s how the other eight seeds followed up after knocking off one seeds:

-1993-94 Nuggets: This was a very talented and young Denver team with Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Robert Pack, Bryant Stith, Laphonso Ellis, Rodney Rogers, and Dikembe Mutombo.  They knocked off a 63-win Sonics team in 1993-94 and took Utah seven games before losing.  In 1994-95, the Nuggets did not improve primarily because Ellis missed the season with injuries.  They were the eight seed again but were swept out by the Spurs.  The Nuggets never got it together and lost Pack in 1995 and Mutombo in 1996 as free agents.  They didn’t make the playoffs again until Carmelo Anthony came to town.

-1998-99 Knicks: These Knicks beat the one-seed Heat on Allan Houston’s buzzer beater.  This was the lockout season and the Knicks were not a true eight seed in the classic sense (they were 28-22 and just peaking and would’ve likely moved up in the seeds in a regular 82-game season).  After beating Miami, they made a run to the NBA Finals, fueled by Marcus Camby’s defense and energy and some crazy plays (LJ’s four-point play against the Pacers).  In 1999-00, they followed up by going to the Conference Finals before losing to Indiana.  In 2000-01, the Knicks lost in the first round and they haven’t won a playoff game since.

-2006-07 Warriors: Somehow, Don Nelson engineered an upset over a heavily favored Dallas team by shooting tons of threes, using Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes to defend seven-foot Dirk Nowitzki, and because Baron Davis played like a Hall of Famer in April and May 2007.  People forget this but the Warriors built on the success, improving from 42-40 to 48-34 in 2007-08.  Alas, the West was so good, the Warriors improvement still wasn’t enough to get them in the playoffs again.  After that, Nellie lost interest and made a series of odd trades and created a front office civil war that knocked Chris Mullin out of town.  With Nelson in full control and too content, things got bad.  The Warriors fell to 29-53 in 2008-09 and have been struggling ever since.

Outside of the Knicks, the eight seeds have stalled out after the playoff success.  The Grizz look like they are in better shape of continuing their success than Denver or Golden State but we the ending in Memphis remains to be seen.

1.    San Antonio Spurs: That definitely smarts.  The Spurs managed a last gasp heroic regular season only to be beaten soundly in the playoffs.  The loss to the Grizz wasn’t just a random upset either.  It took about half of one game to realize that Memphis was at least the equal of the Spurs talent-wise.  The real pain though was watching Tim Duncan, who just isn’t the player he was.  TD is still very good but he showed a total inability to hit his old step back jumper or to create much offensively outside of point blank put backs.  Without the old Duncan on offense, the Spurs are just not a real threat.

So, do the Spurs blow it out or double down with more vets?  A double down with more vets will be more fun but is unlikely to end with a title, unless the vets that are imported are really good.  Essentially, the Spurs are now where the Rockets were back in 1996, when they had some good but declining stars and were at a the same crossroads.  The Rockets took a shot at another title, trading young Sam Cassell and Robert Horry for an old Charles Barkley and it failed because the vets (Hakeem Olajuwon and Barkley) couldn’t stay healthy anymore.  The Spurs are in a slightly different situation because some of the core is younger (Tony Parker) but they will take the same shot the Rockets did.  I’m not sure how San Antonio will do this but clearly a real small forward and power forward are key elements to taking that shot (Richard Jefferson looks done as a starter).  It’s sad to see the Spurs in decline phase but basketball mortality is a fact of life.  Hopefully, the Spurs get one or two more runs in the playoffs before the wheels fall off but the odds are against them.

As an aside, did you notice that none of the first round series went seven games?  I wondered how unusual this was.  In my own memory,  I don’t remember too many seventh games in the first round but I thought I’d check it out and see the actual numbers since the NBA went to a seven game series in the first round in 2002-03.  Here are the year-by-year results of seven game series in the first round:

2002-03: 2 (Detroit over Orlando, Dallas over Portland)

2003-04: 1 (Miami over New Orleans)

2004-05: 2 (Indiana over Boston, Dallas over Houston)

2005-06: 1 (Phoenix over L.A. Lakers)

2006-07: 1 (Utah over Houston, 4-3)

2007-08: 1 (Boston over Atlanta, 4-3)

2008-09: 2 (Atlanta over Miami, 4-3 and Boston over Chicago, 4-3)

2009-10: 1 (Atlanta over Milwaukee, 4-3)

2010-11: None

This is actually the first year that we haven’t gotten a seventh game in the first round.  Many of these seven games series aren’t particularly memorable of late.  Both of the 2002-03 series are remembered because Detroit came back from 3-1 down and for Portland rallying from 3-0 down before losing.  Similarly Miami-New Orleans was Dwyane Wade’s coming out party.  As for the rest, only Kobe’s battle with Phoenix in 2005-06 created much stir.

2.    New Orleans Hornets: The Hornets had reason to be proud in forcing the Lakers to a sixth game in their series.  The Hornets’ entire effectiveness, though, came from the amazing Chris Paul.  The rest of the team is less impressive.  What’s worse, the Hornets are pretty much locked into the rest of the lineup.  Emeka Okafor was solid at center but not worth the cash he makes (which makes him untradeable).  Trevor Ariza just can’t score at small forward and neither Marco Belinelli or Willie Green are starting material.  David West is coming off of a knee injury and can be a free agent but is unlikely to opt out because he probably will want another year to re-establish his value before embarking on free agency.

On top of all this, the Hornets are owned by the NBA, which is looking for a buyer.  Any new buyer will have to deal with with upgrading a static starting lineup, declining attendance in New Orleans (this was their third straight season with a decline in attendance), and with Paul (who will be a free agent after next season and can hold the franchise hostage unless the new CBA changes team rights).  So, unfortunately, making the Lakers struggle may be the Hornets’ swansong with Paul before the franchise hits another dark period.

3.    Portland Trailblazers: Despite the Blazers’ ability to amass talent and compete, they still have not won a playoff series since 1999-00.  There is core talent here with LaMarcus Aldridge, Gerald Wallace, and Nicolas Batum.  The rest of the lineup raises questions.  At point, Andre Miller has been surprisingly good since signing but he is 35 and has a team option at $7.8 million.  The option is below market value for an above-average point but the Blazers have been non-committal so far on what they will do.  I think it is a no-risk proposition and that it is a little early to hand the job to Patty Mills but clearly Portland wants to think about it.  The Blazers do want Greg Oden (a restricted free agent) back, if only because of the time and money invested.  Oden hasn’t been healthy but his numbers have been great when he has played and he’s still only 23.  If Oden can come back and play, it totally changes the Blazers’ outlook from good playoff team to possible contender but I’m sure Blazers fans are not holding their breath on that score.

Finally, Brandon Roy is the elephant in the room.  His heroic playoff performance in Game 4 won’t be forgotten but that one brief moment flies in the face of the rest of the season, which has shown him to be hampered by knee problems.  The Blazers should not be relying on Roy to be their starting two guard going forward, even though he is due almost $50 million over the next three seasons.  How do balance Roy’s expectations and salary with his likely production won’t be easy.

4.    Denver Nuggets: Denver is stacked with players but have many decision to make.  Nene, J.R. Smith, Kenyon Martin, and Wilson Chandler are all free agents.  Denver has stated it wants to keep Nene, who is the building block for the future, and probably will.  The other three are less clear.  Smith can score but has quite a few moments where he takes bad shots or does something dumb off the court.  I don’t think Denver knows what they want to do with Smith but I imagine they will let the market develop and keep him if the bidding is favorable to them.  Chandler is an extra trinket because the Nuggets already have Danilo Gallinari but, like Smith, they will keep him if the price is right.  Finally, I think Martin is gone.  Martin plays hard and is a good defender still but he has played more then 66 games in only three of his seven seasons in Denver and has only been okay when he did play.  In retrospect, it wasn’t a great signing.

enver must also balance the rest of the roster.  They have two good points in Ty Lawson and Raymond Felton, a few good small forwards (Gallinari, Al Harrington, and Chandler, if he is re-signed).  The only two guard here is Smith, so it seems clear that a trade should be in the offing from the glut positions.