Shooting Guards are Overrated
I will try to keep this free of too much statistical modeling crap. But keep in mind that models are where a lot of my notions come from.
Shooting Guards:
Shooting guards are prima donnas in a league in which only bigs matter. Paul Pierce? Kobe Bryant? Vince Carter? Tracy McGrady? Effectively interchangable. Or at least the last 3.
Case in point. Of the last 35 years, over 72% of the finals MVPs have been bigs. Of the guards winning MVPs, 60% have been Michael Jordan. Adjusting for him, over 83% of finals MVPs have been bigs. Adjusting for PGs, we get over 90% of the Finals MVPs being bigs.
Related question: How many SG's have ever won the league MVP?
See, the question becomes - do A.I, Dr. J, a count as a SGs? And if so, Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, and Julius Erving is the answer. But I argue that A.I. historically compares better to a PG than a SG. So I say 2. (For the same reasons why I contend that despite that McGrady sometimes is listed as a 3, he is a SG effectively.)
Michael is Damn Good:
What of Michael Jordan? There are two types of people - those that understand how good Jordan was, and those who have no idea. In a nutshell, the latter seem to pine for the "next" great one. But there really wasn't a small player considered better than Wilt or Karee, for ages. In fact, the first one was Jordan - many decades after Wilt played. Still, instead of understanding the phenom as an anomoly, we began looking for the next Jordan almost immediately upon realizing that MJ would have to retire soon.
Version 1: Grant Hill. Wrong comparison. He was more akin to Scottie Pippen, Magic, or Oscar Robertson.
Version 2: Vince Carter. Probably the most talented of the bunch who have similar games to Jordan. But things never panned out. Carter never hit his potential.
Version 3: Kobe Bryant. The physical similarities - the position in the triangle - the media hype. All of this made him an appealing candidate. But even without going on the fact that MJ was just flat out better and even without going into any modeling theory - I can identify 3 fundamental differences. First, shot selection. While KB is a more talented raw shooter, he settles on outside shots a lot more than necessary. That's fine if it dropped as much as it would have closer to the rim. But it doesn't. So the problem is he goes for those 18 footers and doesn't get compensated by hitting 3's to getting a return on the lower percentage attempt. MJ had the capacity to break down any defense in the manner that Kobe hasn't shown. Even if Kobe has it, he certainly doesn't use it at the rate that MJ did. Perhaps this is just a muscular advantage that MJ had. D Wade seems to share it. Moreover, Kobe forces a lot of shots - MJ would elevate and dish quite frequently. Second, MJ could play fantastic defense. Contrary to whatever the general media has you convinced of - Kobe Bryant isn't a remarkable defender. Lane anticipation is decent. Help defense sucks. On the ball defense is decent. Isn't great with shot anticipation. He has the talent, sure. But he definitely takes plays off. MJ? MJ definitely was a damn good defender. Defensive player of the year, two 100 blocks/100 steals, kept his opponents horribly inefficient, etc. Third, intelligent ball management. Jordan rebounded like a small forward, rotated the ball like a point guard, and had a phenomenally low turnover rate. To put it into perspective, Tracy McGrady has led the league for several years in this for SGs/SFs, and yet Jordan's is some 15% less than T-Mac's. Kobe comes nowhere close to the top 20.
Version 4: Tracy McGrady. Statistically about as similar to MJ as Kobe. McGrady has more range on his shot and is a better defender, but still, for pretty much similar reasons as Kobe, no dice.
Version 5: LeBron James. King James is more like Larry Bird or Oscar Robertson than Jordan. He might have a similar potential. But let us wait and see on this. I don't know if James will dominate the league as did Jordan. It may be reasonable that the Spurs/Pistons dominate for a few more years. After that, perhaps another talented big enters the league or Amare becomes a crazy beast. And I am unconvinced that LeBron can own a godly big as did Jordan.
Version 6: Dwyane Wade. This might initially seem like a great comparison. Neither were great shooters entering the league. Both relied on athleticism and get to the rim. Both hit beautiful fades. Both were phenomenal defenders and could average over a block per game for a whole season. And the 25/6/7 style season seems very Jordan-esque. As much as I would like to say Wade is the next Jordan, I like Wade because he is Wade, not because he is MJ. For one thing, his management of the ball is quite different and he models a lot more closely to being a scoring 1 than a passing 2. Wade also doesn't seem to be that sort of a scoring machine. Perhaps he may develop into one, one day. But he certainly isn't now. He seems to be more of a Duncan (for his position) than a Shaq (implying that Jordan was the Shaq of his position). Get what I'm failing?
In sum, in little over a 6 year span since Jordan's retirement, there have been at least 6 versions of the "next Jordan". But not one even comes close to having the complete game that Jordan had. And we haven't even entered the issue of being able to consistently dominate with efficiency. Now I am not a PER-whore, but at least it is some indicator of how things stand. Shaq is #1 ranking all time with 28.01. Jordan is #2 all time with 27.91. (Without his years with the Wiz, he would have been #1.) Next guy? T-Mac. He ranks #10 all time with a PER of 24+. Kobe comes in at #21 and VC at #22, each with a PER of about 22. Grant Hill follows at #26 with 21.9. LeBron? Wade? They don't have enough games to qualify for rankings yet, but as an indicator - they had PERs of 25, 23 respectively last year.
More perspective? Kobe's highest PER ever has been 26. T-Mac? 30. He only crossed it once. MJ? 30~ 6 times, over 31 4 times. At the age of 39, 40 he had a PER of 21 and 20. His rookie season was PER 26, and every year after was over 26 until the age of 24 where it fell to 25. Yah, that is what I thought.
Bigs:
Since Jordan has departed, the best player in the league has unquestionably been Tim Duncan. If there is an argument for anyone else, it obviously is Shaq. I note this because people may mistakenly make the argument that the NBA has changed structurally - and that now, for some reason, SG play is more important. But I want to make it clear, without depending on models, that that is a stupid notion. See, before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. After Jordan, winning teams win with bigs. And before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Big Ben and Rasheed, Parish & Bird & McHale, Kareem & Magic, Russell, Wilt, etc. You get the picture.
In fact, generally models seem to tell us that it is essential to have a very good big and a solid ball handler. Most models also tell you that the SG is the least important position for winning teams, generally. So here is a contemporary example. The Wallaces seem to complement each other enough to make 1.5 fantastic bigs. And Chauncey is Chauncey. And Tayshaun seems to be the requisite Kirilenko/Pippen-esque versatile long-man. The weakest link? Rip Hamilton. Yes he can run curls and shoot really well. But shooters are also the most replacable.
Intuition:
Lastly, pretend you were to go up to a person who knew nothing about basketball. Once you explained the rules of the game, say you asked them for a strategy. If this person was reasonably intelligent, what would they suggest? Obviously, they would suggest just finding a very tall, strong person because then presumably it would become quite easy to win. I'm sure when you first learned about basketball - that is what you thought. Why not just hire a giant? Shouldn't you win everything then? And you know what - in general, the answer seems to be yes.
Thoughts?
Shooting Guards:
Shooting guards are prima donnas in a league in which only bigs matter. Paul Pierce? Kobe Bryant? Vince Carter? Tracy McGrady? Effectively interchangable. Or at least the last 3.
Case in point. Of the last 35 years, over 72% of the finals MVPs have been bigs. Of the guards winning MVPs, 60% have been Michael Jordan. Adjusting for him, over 83% of finals MVPs have been bigs. Adjusting for PGs, we get over 90% of the Finals MVPs being bigs.
Related question: How many SG's have ever won the league MVP?
See, the question becomes - do A.I, Dr. J, a count as a SGs? And if so, Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, and Julius Erving is the answer. But I argue that A.I. historically compares better to a PG than a SG. So I say 2. (For the same reasons why I contend that despite that McGrady sometimes is listed as a 3, he is a SG effectively.)
Michael is Damn Good:
What of Michael Jordan? There are two types of people - those that understand how good Jordan was, and those who have no idea. In a nutshell, the latter seem to pine for the "next" great one. But there really wasn't a small player considered better than Wilt or Karee, for ages. In fact, the first one was Jordan - many decades after Wilt played. Still, instead of understanding the phenom as an anomoly, we began looking for the next Jordan almost immediately upon realizing that MJ would have to retire soon.
Version 1: Grant Hill. Wrong comparison. He was more akin to Scottie Pippen, Magic, or Oscar Robertson.
Version 2: Vince Carter. Probably the most talented of the bunch who have similar games to Jordan. But things never panned out. Carter never hit his potential.
Version 3: Kobe Bryant. The physical similarities - the position in the triangle - the media hype. All of this made him an appealing candidate. But even without going on the fact that MJ was just flat out better and even without going into any modeling theory - I can identify 3 fundamental differences. First, shot selection. While KB is a more talented raw shooter, he settles on outside shots a lot more than necessary. That's fine if it dropped as much as it would have closer to the rim. But it doesn't. So the problem is he goes for those 18 footers and doesn't get compensated by hitting 3's to getting a return on the lower percentage attempt. MJ had the capacity to break down any defense in the manner that Kobe hasn't shown. Even if Kobe has it, he certainly doesn't use it at the rate that MJ did. Perhaps this is just a muscular advantage that MJ had. D Wade seems to share it. Moreover, Kobe forces a lot of shots - MJ would elevate and dish quite frequently. Second, MJ could play fantastic defense. Contrary to whatever the general media has you convinced of - Kobe Bryant isn't a remarkable defender. Lane anticipation is decent. Help defense sucks. On the ball defense is decent. Isn't great with shot anticipation. He has the talent, sure. But he definitely takes plays off. MJ? MJ definitely was a damn good defender. Defensive player of the year, two 100 blocks/100 steals, kept his opponents horribly inefficient, etc. Third, intelligent ball management. Jordan rebounded like a small forward, rotated the ball like a point guard, and had a phenomenally low turnover rate. To put it into perspective, Tracy McGrady has led the league for several years in this for SGs/SFs, and yet Jordan's is some 15% less than T-Mac's. Kobe comes nowhere close to the top 20.
Version 4: Tracy McGrady. Statistically about as similar to MJ as Kobe. McGrady has more range on his shot and is a better defender, but still, for pretty much similar reasons as Kobe, no dice.
Version 5: LeBron James. King James is more like Larry Bird or Oscar Robertson than Jordan. He might have a similar potential. But let us wait and see on this. I don't know if James will dominate the league as did Jordan. It may be reasonable that the Spurs/Pistons dominate for a few more years. After that, perhaps another talented big enters the league or Amare becomes a crazy beast. And I am unconvinced that LeBron can own a godly big as did Jordan.
Version 6: Dwyane Wade. This might initially seem like a great comparison. Neither were great shooters entering the league. Both relied on athleticism and get to the rim. Both hit beautiful fades. Both were phenomenal defenders and could average over a block per game for a whole season. And the 25/6/7 style season seems very Jordan-esque. As much as I would like to say Wade is the next Jordan, I like Wade because he is Wade, not because he is MJ. For one thing, his management of the ball is quite different and he models a lot more closely to being a scoring 1 than a passing 2. Wade also doesn't seem to be that sort of a scoring machine. Perhaps he may develop into one, one day. But he certainly isn't now. He seems to be more of a Duncan (for his position) than a Shaq (implying that Jordan was the Shaq of his position). Get what I'm failing?
In sum, in little over a 6 year span since Jordan's retirement, there have been at least 6 versions of the "next Jordan". But not one even comes close to having the complete game that Jordan had. And we haven't even entered the issue of being able to consistently dominate with efficiency. Now I am not a PER-whore, but at least it is some indicator of how things stand. Shaq is #1 ranking all time with 28.01. Jordan is #2 all time with 27.91. (Without his years with the Wiz, he would have been #1.) Next guy? T-Mac. He ranks #10 all time with a PER of 24+. Kobe comes in at #21 and VC at #22, each with a PER of about 22. Grant Hill follows at #26 with 21.9. LeBron? Wade? They don't have enough games to qualify for rankings yet, but as an indicator - they had PERs of 25, 23 respectively last year.
More perspective? Kobe's highest PER ever has been 26. T-Mac? 30. He only crossed it once. MJ? 30~ 6 times, over 31 4 times. At the age of 39, 40 he had a PER of 21 and 20. His rookie season was PER 26, and every year after was over 26 until the age of 24 where it fell to 25. Yah, that is what I thought.
Bigs:
Since Jordan has departed, the best player in the league has unquestionably been Tim Duncan. If there is an argument for anyone else, it obviously is Shaq. I note this because people may mistakenly make the argument that the NBA has changed structurally - and that now, for some reason, SG play is more important. But I want to make it clear, without depending on models, that that is a stupid notion. See, before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. After Jordan, winning teams win with bigs. And before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Big Ben and Rasheed, Parish & Bird & McHale, Kareem & Magic, Russell, Wilt, etc. You get the picture.
In fact, generally models seem to tell us that it is essential to have a very good big and a solid ball handler. Most models also tell you that the SG is the least important position for winning teams, generally. So here is a contemporary example. The Wallaces seem to complement each other enough to make 1.5 fantastic bigs. And Chauncey is Chauncey. And Tayshaun seems to be the requisite Kirilenko/Pippen-esque versatile long-man. The weakest link? Rip Hamilton. Yes he can run curls and shoot really well. But shooters are also the most replacable.
Intuition:
Lastly, pretend you were to go up to a person who knew nothing about basketball. Once you explained the rules of the game, say you asked them for a strategy. If this person was reasonably intelligent, what would they suggest? Obviously, they would suggest just finding a very tall, strong person because then presumably it would become quite easy to win. I'm sure when you first learned about basketball - that is what you thought. Why not just hire a giant? Shouldn't you win everything then? And you know what - in general, the answer seems to be yes.
Thoughts?
posted by arun at 7:00 AM
1 Comments:
yao ming needs to spontaneous combust into a wild, wild, very wild beast. ... regsdgin
Post a Comment
<< Home