Good article rippin on jackass d’antoni… about time he gets more criticism
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/knicks/2010/02/dantoni-gets-snippy-says-media.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fblogs%2Fknicks+(Blogs%2FKnicks+Knation)

His desire to score a high number of points + need to play on the inside more than the perimeter due to his declining quickness/athleticism like Michael Jordan needed to during the second three-peat + the Lakers other top scoring threats are interior players (Gasol, Bynum … to a lesser degree Odom, Artest).

The combination of those three factors has led Kobe Bryant scoring a good chunk of his points at the expense of his teammates. Their interior players need Bryant to play more on the perimeter and be more of a facilitator. To allow them to blossom offensively. To run the offense inside-out. To have Kobe at 24ppg, Gasol at 20/21ppg, and Bynum at 20ppg instead of Kobe at 30ppg, Gasol at 17/18ppg and Bynum at 14/15ppg.

That giving up those touches, those possessions, those shot attempts would help facilitate ball + player movement. To aid the Lakers spacing offensively and provide a more well-rounded offense instead of this post-heavy unit that is vulnerable to anyone with strong post defense (why Cleveland beat them twice).

Anyway, I think a good chunk of Kobe’s offensive play has come at the expense of his teammates. That is why I do not consider him an MVP candidate this season.

My top five would be:

(1) LeBron James — way ahead of the pack
(2) Dwyane Wade
(3) Dwight Howard
(4) Kevin Durant
(5) Chris Bosh

I think LeBron is better at everything else and by a large margin. Better rebounder + defender + passer/playmaker + general team offensive play + penetrator + pick and roll play + finisher on the drive + better at getting into the paint + gets to the line more often + is more efficient with his scoring + is the more reliable player in clutch situations + is a better leader.

All of those superior abilities for LeBron are far more meaningful than Kobe Bryant’s advantages.

About the difference between Michael Jordan (LeBron and Clyde Drexler (Kobe).

I can see that argument. But I think it’s short sighted. I mean I think the Grizz should have taken Evans (but also Rubio), but I also think that in 3 years if the Grizz have a nice Tyson Chandler level defensive center and Steph Curry is a scrawny combo-guard… none of their fans will care that they got swept in the 1st round a few years back. Not saying that’s how it will be, just saying I would look long-term.

“And didn’t mean to implicitly suggested that he would be a complete bust”

I was more just commenting on the general media reaction to Thabeet getting “demoted” as if it were some white flag being raised by Memphis that Thabeet is a bust.

“but I doubt he will be worth it, especially in comparison to the other players in the draft.”

Hard to say. If there were a redraft: Tyreke Evans I would easily take ahead of him (again, kudos to Walsh for calling him the 2nd best player in the draft). Griffin and Rubio I would take ahead of him despite not having played yet in the NBA. Lawson and Blair have good cases, but you could honestly maybe say the upside is not there (more on that in a second). Also, Chris Wallace would have been laughed out of existence if he took either player #2 (which probably means he should have traded down and gotten both… but tough to criticize for not taking them there… I mean not that tough since people on this very site might have advocated it).

Who else? Harden has been solid for OKC, but hardly amazing. Curry? Based on their play so far he might be every bit as much a specialist as Thabeet, and at a far less valuable position. He’s not even a high volume or very efficient scorer, and his defense is a joke. Jennings has a lot of potential, but that .469 TS% is atrocious. Casspi looks like a steal, but in my opinion his upside is limited. Flynn has toughed it out in Minnesota, but hardly wows me.
Big men outside of Blair and Griffin? Taj Gibson and Tyler Hansbrough probably lead the pack. Jordan Hill? Mullens?
Of course, that’s all based on their rookie numbers. Some of those guys will make huge strides, and some will never improve at all.

Back to the upside thing. It’s just not that easy to get a good defensive center. Not one who can score efficiently, redound, and play both help and man defense very well. Those guys constantly seem to be overpaid, but that’s because lots of teams are willing to pay a premium for that. A 6-0 PG is just not as rare. So, Thabeet’s still got that going for him.
Plus in a league that stacks the deck so that teams can retain their own players, I would rather draft the guy who will have the better career than the better first couple of seasons. I’m not saying Thabeet’s career will turn out better than anyone above’s, just that I wouldn’t mind taking a project if I thought it was the best move. In hindsight I would much rather Isiah have drafted Bynum than Frye, for example.

“But you are so much better off drafting a player for what they are, especially when they are defense-only centers, than hoping they will develop an offensive game.”

That was sort of my point before: what he is isn’t bad. Defense is fully 1/2 the game and center is the most valuable defensive position. He’s already getting 10 reb/36, 4 blk/36, and putting up a TS% of .600. You don’t have to wait for that, it’s already there. His TOs and fouls are the huge problem… and maybe general rawness (being out of position, doing the wrong thing, etc. He may never improve, but all 3 of those are things that tend to improve with NBA experience.

“Brawny players of Dejuar Blair’s ilk would still seem to be a big problem down the line.”

Blair is scoring 15.4 pts/36 on a contender with a HOFer, an All-NBA type, and an All-Star at a TS% of .566 and putting up a reb% over 20… he’s a problem for a lot of teams/players. Carl Landry and David Lee might also be a problem for him, but they’re generally problems.
I haven’t seen nearly enough of Thabeet in the NBA to say whether he’s getting man handled by more physical players or not.

“For a mid-to-late 1st round pick he would make more sense, especially on a team with a good chance to contend for the playoffs for the time being”

I’m just not sure how many guys you would have drafted that would have been a ton better. He was a bad pick at #2, maybe, and Memphis has more pressing needs than a back-up C (where both Gasol and Randolph can play), but I don’t think top 5 is unreasonable. We’ll see in a few years (I certainly agree that he might not end up being a top 20 player in this draft if he doesn’t lock-it-up). I think his rebounding, shot blocking, and efficient scoring could be the start of something… a sign of things to come… but who knows. It’s not like I’ve seen him play much–maybe at all?… maybe once or twice–since leaving UConn. Not like he even has played much.
I should mention that I don’t believe in drafting for need, and I believe that the whole career is more important than the immediate impact (in most cases).

“especially when they are defense-only centers”

If the guy is really good at what he does, I feel like that can be the most important skill in basketball. So, that also influences my opinion.

Great work on the all comparisons. And I don’t disagree with your contentions at all about Thabeet. In fact, I’d agree that I think teams should use the D-League more often. The fact that they expanded the NBA rosters to include players that aren’t on the active roster and aren’t hurt, doesn’t bode well for the NBDL being used properly.

And didn’t mean to implicitly suggested that he would be a complete bust, but I doubt he will be worth it, especially in comparison to the other players in the draft. It just seems for a #2 pick, Thabeet, and that salary guarantee early on, his value is quite low.

It is just extremely dangerous to reach on drafting a player like that, unless you have luxury of waiting, which in some ways the Grizzlies do with Marc Gasol holding down the fort. But you are so much better off drafting a player for what they are, especially when they are defense-only centers, than hoping they will develop an offensive game. For a mid-to-late 1st round pick he would make more sense, especially on a team with a good chance to contend for the playoffs for the time being (for the fans and press to stay off their backs).

Plus, waiting for a 23 year old to fill out, often doesn’t happen as much as one would like. I imagine his true defensive prowess will be seen as a help defender. Brawny players of Dejuar Blair’s ilk would still seem to be a big problem down the line.

DS, great link on David Lee and his gramps.

Carmelo Anthony is having a better year than Kobe. And Durant is having a better offensive year (TS and eFG) than Kobe also.
And in both cases, Denver and Oklahoma city, would be lost without their guys…

I suspect the Lakers would still be winning without Kobe…

But I’d give it to Walsh simply for putting the Knicks in a position to do something next year…:)

“The only scenario in which the Knicks (or anyone) could get 3 guys is if it were 3 Nike guys. For instance, Bosh-LeBron-Joe Johnson could work – they’d take less money but Nike could agree to build a $100 million compaign around ‘The New Big Three’ and make up the difference that way. Yes, that would be legal.”

I don’t see that “compaign” happening.