This will be the last update until I do the draft previews. I doubt things will change much, but I’ll go much deeper with the analysis in those. Right now I’m just skimming the stats. Not a whole lot has changed in the past month. There are still 4 players who stand above the crowd. After that there are about 6 players who look like they’ll be decent rotation players. Finally there are about 15-20 who offer enough intrigue and potential that they’d be a worthwhile pick after about #20. That says the draft is thin after the top 10 and there is going to be some reaching. This follows 3 deep drafts, meaning some scouting time and resources should be spent looking at players who may have fallen through the cracks during the last few drafts. I doubt we’ll see as many 2nd round and undrafted surprises from this draft because it is so shallow. Forwards remain the strength of this draft, with the SFs being a particularly deep group. These rankings are based on everything else being equal, as always. That basically means the question I’m asking when ranking these players is: Which player would I select if I were starting an NBA team?
The DJ FAQ
This article was originally written in February 2007, right after Dennis Johnson passed away. It examined his career and Hall of Fame prospects. I was lukewarm on DJ as a Hall of Famer but have since embraced the idea, less because I think Johnson was better than I remembered and more because I frankly think a larger Hall of Fame is better policy. In any event, here’s a look at the DJ, an interesting person and a very good player…
Unfortunately, the impetus to look back at player’s career usually comes at a final point, retirement or death. In the case of Dennis Johnson, his untimely passing has inspired plenty of writers to eulogize a great NBA player. I thought I’d look back at his career and hopefully find a few more nuggets of information that haven’t been touched upon yet.
Quick Thoughts
1. Bulls/Raptors Race: As we mercifully close in on the playoffs, there are very few questions left to be answered. Except for seeding issues, the playoffs teams are virtually set. The only race is the not so close race between the Bulls and the Raptors for the eight seed in the East. The Raptors lead the race by 1.5 games (Toronto is 37-37 with 8 games left to play, while the Bulls are 36-39 with 7 games left). The Raptors hold the tie breaker and ESPN’s playoff odds give the Bulls roughly a 10% shot of catching Toronto.
The Bulls aren’t looking good but might their odds be a little better than 10%? The playoff odds machine looks at past history for calculating the likelihood of future outcomes. At this point in the season, however, the good teams may be resting the stars and the bad teams could be in outright tank mode. So, let’s look a little closer and see what the teams have going forward to see if there is more hope for the Bulls:
Quick Thoughts
1. Cinderella Can Do It?: With March Madness in full effect and the NBA in something of a slow wind down to the playoffs, I thought we’d take a step back and do a little more NCAA talk. Specifically, all of our fascination with the Cinderella Squads, i.e. the small fries who upset major programs and their potential to get to a Final Four. There are quite a few this year and I thought we could take a look at the true underdogs, the teams seeded 11 or higher, to track their history of success (technically the 9 and 10 seeds are also underdogs but the differences between them and their first round opponents are typically a coin flip). Since the tournament has gone to 64 teams in 1984-85, the low seeds have had varying success. Each year, the tournament has had 24 team in the 11-16 seed range. Here’s how many of these teams got past round one (we’ll also put any teams in parentheses that got past the second round):
1984-85: 2 (Kentucky made Sweet 16)
1985-86: 4 (DePaul, Cleveland State, and LSU made Sweet 16)
1986-87: 4 (Wyoming made Sweet 16)
1987-88: 3 (Richmond and Rhode Island made Sweet 16)
1988-89: 6 (Minnesota made Sweet 16)
1989-90: 4 (Ball State made Sweet 16; Loyola Marymount made the Elite Eight)
1990-91: 6 (Connecticut and Eastern Michigan made Sweet 16)
1991-92: 2 (No low seeds made the second round)
1992-93: 4 (George Washington made Sweet 16)
1993-94: 3 (Tulsa made Sweet 16)
1994-95: 5 (No low seeds made the second round)
1995-96: 4 (Arkansas made Sweet 16)
1996-97: 3 (Tennessee-Chattanooga made Sweet 16)
1997-98: 5 (Washington and Valparaiso made Sweet 16)
1998-99: 5 (Missouri State made Sweet 16)
1999-00: 1 (No low seeds made the second round)
2000-01: 7 (Gonzaga made Sweet 16; Temple made the Elite Eight)
2001-02: 6 (Southern Illinois made Sweet 16; Missouri made Elite Eight)
2002-03: 3 (Butler made Sweet 16)
2003-04: 2 (No low seeds made the second round)
2004-05: 4 (Wisconsin-Milwaukee made Sweet 16)
2005-06: 6 (Bradley made Sweet 16; George Mason made the Final Four)
2006-07: 2 (No low seeds made the second round)
2007-08: 5 (Villanova and Western Kentucky made Sweet 16)
2008-09: 5 (Arizona made Sweet 16)
NCAA Tournament Preview
I’ve been trying to get a handle on what wins the NCAA tournament and there seem to be 3 things that in recent years have been huge. The first is the team has to be one of the top teams in the country. Seriously. The 2nd factor is the team needs to have some quality big men. They don’t have to be great, but they should at the very least be good. At least one of the big men and preferably more, should be players that will be drafted. The higher they will be drafted, the better. The third factor is that the team is a veteran team that has had the core together for at least two years and preferably three. This last one is something I’m adding to the mix this year. Of teams that won championships in the aughts, the only one that did it with freshmen leading them was Syracuse in 2003.
So I have these three things to look for now.
Another thing about this tournament is I think it is going to be a little crazier than it has in recent years with the upsets. This is because talent seems more evenly dispersed this year. Duke and Kansas stand above the rest of the group, but after that the next 25 teams or so are fairly close. The next 25 aren’t bad either. That means some big upsets are going to happen in rounds 2 and 3 once the weaker teams from the smaller conferences have been kicked to the curb and the teams that remain are all pretty equal. That has often been the case, but this year more so than ever.
Quick Thoughts OKC Edition
1. OKC Soars: The Oklahoma City Thunder have officially entered some pretty unique territory. After beating Utah tonight, the Thunders are now 41-24 and project to win over 50 wins. That’s pretty impressive because OKC is quite a young team. But the surprising thing is exactly how young they are. The Thunder’s top three players in minutes played, Kevin Durant, Jeff Green, and Russell Westbrook are all under 24. In fact, the only player on the roster who plays regularly over 26 is Nick Collison (29). How are the Thunder doing it? Obviously, Durant is the driving force and Westbrook to a lesser extent. KD is scoring at an incredible rate and Westbrook is okay. But the Thunder are 18th in offensive efficiency, indicating that the offense is Durant and Westbrook or bust for the most part. No other regular player on the team has a PER of over 14.7 (Serge Ibaka is the highest).
But the team is really defending well. Amazingly, young players James Harden and Jeff Green have both been tough defensively, as have role players like Thabo Sefolosha and Nick Collison. The end result is that OKC has gone from 20th in defensive efficiency in 2008-09 to 6th this season. It’s not clear where exactly the extra defensive oomph is coming from. Delving into the numbers, OKC is up a block a game from last year. Statistically, the Thunder don’t have any incredible shot blockers but the rookie Ibaka is the best blocker and an improvement upon previous options. Throw in tough defense from Jeff Green and Harden and a full season of Sefolosha and it’s clear that the Thunder don’t really have many weak defensive players in the rotation, with the possible exception of Nenad Krstic (who is hardly a bad defender). Finally, a full season of coach Scott Brooks clearly helps. Defensive systems make a huge difference and Brooks gets a ton of credit for the Thunder’s improvement.