Lunchbox Links

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on May 19, 2010 12:49 PM EDT in Daily Links

Chad Ford's Mock Draft Version 2.0 pegs 19-year-old Avery Bradley — one of the five most underrated prospects in the 2010 NBA Draft, according to Dime Magazine — as the Raptors' selection. Meanwhile, Yahoo! Sports' mock draft makes me want to shoot myself.

The model of a superstar "Alpha Dog" plus another quasi-star and three role players seems to be the dominant usage pattern that differentiates NBA champs from teams that fall short.

The Toronto Star's Dave Feschuk talks with Stumbling on Wins author Dave Berri about the mostly pointless exercise of changing coaches in the NBA.

And thanks to last night’s Draft Lottery, we have broken the five-way tie from our NBA.com contest. Congrats to Zona, who picked two of the top three Lottery finishers correctly, including the eventual winner, Washington. Thanks to all who participated and we’ll likely be running a few more contests before the playoffs end!

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Wow, racist much?

But please do not let us stop you from shooting yourself, it think you would do the world and the basketball community a service with such an action.

by even flow on May 19, 2010 1:38 PM EDT reply actions

Because when I think of the Raptors’ draft needs, a “typical European big man” from Benetton Treviso is EXACTLY what comes to mind.

by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on May 19, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, let’s not remove it from the realm of possibility.

Best to be prepared for anything so that half of us don’t have heart attacks simultaneously on draft night.

by bigweeze on May 19, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions

How is that racist?

He was simply making a point that the raptors do not need another Bargnani, which is a statement that is very difficult to argue with. You sir, blow goats.

by PNUTZ on May 19, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Stumbling on Wins

I disagreed with most of that article. I didn’t read the book but the article didn’t mention anything about what a coach is actually supposed to do. Like run practices, prepare teams for specific opponents, make sure teams are conditioned enough to last 48 minutes. The things they were talking about were just the pointless motivational stuff coaches say during the games, which I agree is BS. Why is Phil Jackson so much better? Because he says nice things in the huddles? No, because he makes sure his teams are prepared and keeps guys in check. Like let’s fire Triano and let Bargnani run the practices.

by PNUTZ on May 19, 2010 3:07 PM EDT reply actions

Actually, I think Jackson is overrated. Show me one team he won a championship with that didn’t have the best player in the NBA on it or was so loaded down with stars to compensate for not having the best player on it. I could win an NBA championship coaching the lakers last year, Jackson gets too much hype.

by McGateway on May 20, 2010 7:25 AM EDT up reply actions

I somewhat subscribe to that. There are rumblings that the Lakers are looking to cut his pay despite the success. And Phil Jackson doesn’t make a moderately talented team into a championship team (see, pre-Gasol).

However, it’s difficult to argue with the results he’s gotten. I’m sure there are plenty of coaches that would mess things up, but many other coaches could have also won titles with his squads.

All in all, I’d say that his best attribute is having the full respect and cooperation of his players. And if you can afford it, pay the man and cross your fingers.

by bigweeze on May 20, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions

The model of a superstar “Alpha Dog” plus another quasi-star and three role players seems to be the dominant usage pattern that differentiates NBA champs from teams that fall short.

Well, that would probably be the simplest way to put together the best team in the NBA.

Of course it’s hard to grab a star, but let’s suppose there are 5 such players. Then, all those lucky teams need to do is grab that quasi-star and some other decent players, and will have the advantage of drawing the better role players who enjoy playing with the Alpha Dog.

Contrast the difficulty of that with getting 3+ lower-end all-stars while not overpaying them so that you are able to grab 2 more near all-stars. The Pistons did it in a perfect storm. The way the cap works makes it really tough. Not to say that teams shouldn’t stop trying if they only have a top 10-15 player leading the charge. But the reduced margin of error means that these GMs must be even more successful with the rest of their moves as they already start with inferior talent.

by bigweeze on May 19, 2010 3:57 PM EDT reply actions

Spot on.

Good roleplayers go chasing rings when they hit free agency, assuming that the difference in contracts offered isn’t too great. They are also willing to sacrifice term, which helps the teams with an “Alpha dog” reload on the fly without too many deadweight contracts.

But does that mean a team stays on the lottery carousal indefinitely until a franchise player comes along (and at the guard or wing positions no less)? Or do you start building towards playoffs once you’ve got a core of three good players, or a top fifteen player and a sidekick? A tough choice, one that doesn’t have a right answer.

You just decide whether you want to place your risk on winning out big in the draft lottery, or whether you want to start building and hope for a Pau Gasol or Ray Allen type trade somewhere down the line. The chances of either happening to YOUR team are watered down considerably when considering the 29 other teams that are hoping for either one or the other as well.

by Yardly on May 19, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions