Mitsy's NBA Bracket

Eastern Conference                                                                    Western Conference

               

First Round:                                                                                First Round:

Chicago beats Indiana 4-1                                                             San Antonio beats Memphis 4-3
Miami beats Philadelphia 4-2                                                         Lakers beat New Orleans 4-0
Atlanta beats Orlando 4-3                                                             Portland beats Dallas 4-2
New York over Boston 4-3                                                          Oklahoma City beats Denver 4-3

Second Round:                                                                           Second Round:
Chicago beats Atlanta 4-2                                                            OKC beats San Antonio 4-2
Miami beats New York 4-3                                                         Lakers beat Portland 4-3

Conference Finals:                                                                    Conference Finals:
Chicago beats Miami 4-2                                                             OKC beats Lakers 4-3

NBA Finals

Hate to say it but Bulls over Thunder 4-2

-Mikko

NBA Western Conference First Round Predictions

On Saturday, the NBA Playoffs begins. I am pretty excited to say the least. Someone who is not...my dad. He would probably make some snarky comment about the NBA like 'well now they will actually start to play.' I hope he watches in the upcoming months because I feel the playoffs will be very special. The worst thing about having a successful playoffs this year is there will be lockout for the upcoming season. Trust me, I have already ordered Fox Soccer Channel for next year to enjoy a new sport. Let's get it on with the picks.

1.) San Antonio v. 8.) Memphis- I believe the Grizzlies are going to give the Spurs some trouble in this series. Zach Randolph has played like an All-NBA player, and has the ability to wear down Tim Duncan throughout a seven game series. But the matchup between Mike Conley versus Tony Parker because the Frenchman can break him down and embarrass Conley. Also the Manu Ginobili injury could be the biggest unknown storyline if he is out for more than one game. Parker will be the difference maker for the Spurs.  San Antonio in five  

4.) Oklahoma City v. 5.) Denver- For me, this is the most exciting series of the first round.  Oklahoma City with the best young talent in the NBA mixed with the And-1 streetball feel of the Nuggets, consider me sold.  Kevin Durant came on strong in the final three weeks, and Kendrick Perkins added more than anyone of us really understand.  The Nuggets played tremendously after the Carmelo Anthony trade, and they have a new feel to their team. The Nuggs have a ton of difference makers, but do they have the one guy who can put the team on his back? I don't think so.  Close, fun series, the Thunder take in six.  

3.) Dallas v. 6.) Portland- This is the popular upset pick right now.  It is like an NCAA Tournament First Round game where everyone is riding the mid-major completely forgetting about the powerhouse. Dirk Nowitzki has played great all year, but we all know that one player cannot win a series. In my opinion, I would let Dirk go off for 40 a game, and cut off everyone else.  Tyson Chandler has been great for the Mavs, but Marcus Camby is like the older version of him therefore they cancel each other out.  Also  don't be surprised if Dirk's defense gets exposed once again by LaMarcus Aldridge.  Rip City in six.   

2.) Los Angeles Lakers v. 7.) New Orleans- See this what I hate about the NBA. We get these series with very public teams playing opponents that I could give two shits about meaning we have to endure all four or five games they play against each others. I am still wondering how the Hornets found themselves into the playoffs. With David West out, Pau Gasol will have a monster playoff series propelling them to an easy series. I will give the Hornets a pity win because I am nice. Lake Show in five. 

-Charlie. 

*

As Barry Bonds approaches the all-time home run record many people have argued that his exploits are invalid due to the steroid speculation swirling around him, and as such his exploits should have an asterisk affixed to them.

Sadly, the news of the past few days has revealed that there is an even greater need for an asterisk in the world of sports;

2007 NBA Champions: San Antonio Spurs*

Don't get me wrong, the Spurs had no control over the actions of rogue ref Tim Donaghy. Their entire playoff run is however, tainted by the fact that Donaghy was one of the officials in the notoriously poorly officiated Game 3 of the Spurs-Suns series. For those of you that would like to believe that Donaghy did not have an effect on the game, suit yourselves. At least watch the video at the end of this post though, and see if you still hold the same opinion. The video evidence clearly shows Donaghy standing directly in front of a number of obvious Spurs fouls and blatantly ignoring them. The video also shows this foul mentioned by Bill Simmons in his excellent column on the Donaghy situation;

Other than the latest call in NBA history (a shooting foul for Manu Ginobili whistled three seconds after the play, when everyone was already running in the other direction)...

I'll save you the suspense; it was indeed Donaghy that made that particular call.

When the news about Donaghy first broke the initial thought that ran through my mind was "Please, please, please don't let it be a playoff game". As important as the NBA regular season is, there is a sort of insulated illegitimacy involved with a random game in the middle of February. Theoretically the outcome of that game being altered by a crooked ref could have some ultimate bearing on playoff seedings and by extension the path of the playoffs, but such ripples are far offset from the epicenter of the incident in question.

A playoff game though? In a tied series? Between arguably the two best teams remaining in the playoffs at that point? Other than a pivotal Finals game, the fact that Donaghy was involved with Game 3 of the Spurs-Suns series is as big of a nightmare as could have come out of this mess. The saddest part is that the Spurs have no fault in the fact that some hack ref gave them a helping hand in Game 3. (Again, if you still don't believe it just watch the video) The dark legacy of this scandal will always come back to that Game 3 though, along with two words; "What if?" What if the Spurs hadn't shot 9 more free throws than the Suns in a 7 point game? What if Amare Stoudemire had been able to play more than 21 minutes due to foul trouble? What if the Suns had been up 2-1 after Game 3 instead of down 2-1? Would the Amare suspension have mattered after Game 4 if the Suns were up 3-1 instead of tied 2-2? The questions are endless, but the root always comes back to the fact that the Donaghy scandal has forever tainted the 2007 NBA Playoffs. Who knows, had the Suns been given a fair shake in Game 3 maybe they would have gone on to win the title. Or maybe they would have failed to match up well against Carlos Boozer and the Jazz, and the Jazz may have gone on to win the title. Or perhaps the Cavs would have defeated a weary Phoenix squad. Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered at all, and the Spurs would have still won the title. The sad truth is that the Suns, the NBA, and basketball fans everywhere will never get the chance to truly know what would have happened. All we do know is one thing;

2007 NBA Champions: San Antonio Spurs*


(And here is the video I kept referencing)

A Move Most Odd

Yesterday there was an NBA trade that was mostly lost in the midst of free agent signings and rumors. The Spurs traded Jackie Butler and Luis Scola to the Rockets for a 2nd Round pick and Vassilis Spanoulis . Yes, the same Vassilis Spanoulis declared that he would never play in the NBA again earlier this month. So in essentially the trade saw the Spurs give up two salaried players in exchange for a second round pick. To make things even more odd, Scola is actually quite a promising player. The 27 year old is looking to finally come over to the NBA, and scouts have lauded the 6-9 forward's game for years. So why give him up for essentially nothing? To a team in your own division no less?

The cold hard facts of this trade are that the Spurs were looking to dump salary. They knew that to bring Scola over from Europe that they would have to 1.) help buy out his contract and 2.) sign him to a contract that would make the move to America worth his while. So instead of doing so, they essentially gave Scola to the Rockets for free. What this deal reminds me of is a guy in fantasy football that trades to trade Tom Brady for Cleo Lemon. In your fantasy football league a commissioner would veto such a trade. In the NBA however, there are only trade restrictions concerning salary not equity of talent, so the Spurs are free to give the Rockets the gift of Scola as long as the contracts match up.

The Worst Of The Best

Even the greatest teams of all time are not completely compromised of Hall of Famers and All-Stars. In fact, if you look back at some of the starting rosters for NBA championship teams there are a few head scratchers among some of the lineups. "That guy was a starter for them?" kind of guys. So who were the worst of these, the worst starters on the best teams in NBA history? Well, no need for suspense, here they are:

James Posey, 2005-2006 Miami Heat
Posey started 63 of the 67 games he played for Miami in their championship season and his impact was...less than stellar. Posey only averaged 7.2 PPG, 4.8 RPG, and had a PER of 9.8. Say what you will about his three point shooting, but there is no denying that Posey was not holding his weight on the court and that Shaq and D-Wade won the title in spite of Posey rather than with his assistance.

Bruce Bowen, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, and 2006-2007 S.A. Spurs
Before anyone starts yelling, yes, I understand that Bruce Bowen is a cheap dirty overrated elite defender, but how does that excuse the fact the Bowen does nothing else on the court? It might just be me, but I don't see how a man that has career averages of 6.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.3 AST, and .9 SPG has such a great reputation. (No, that is not a misprint on the steals number. The mighty Bruce Bowen has indeed averaged less than a steal per game for his career, and in fact has never averaged more than 1.4 in any single season.) In the Spurs three championship years Bowen's PERs were 9.1, 9.5, and 7.1.

Lindsey Hunter, 2001-2002 L.A. Lakers
No, this is not a misprint. Hunter did indeed start well over half of the Lakers' games during the final leg of their three-peat. In his only season with the Lakers Hunter was used primarily for his defensive and three point prowess, but his overall averages of 5.8 PPG, 1.6 AST, 1.5 RPG, and a PER of 9.4 give him a worthy spot on this list.

Bill Cartwright, 1992-1993 Chicago Bulls
Michael Jordan's legacy is cemented by the fact that he was able to win a championship with the 35 year old Cartwright manning the pivot all season. Cartwright boasted a PER of 8.3 for the season, mainly due to his oddly low number of blocks, .2 BPG, and his awful FG% for such a big man, 41%.

Marc Iavaroni, 1982-1983 Philadelphia 76ers
Before Iavaroni was a hot head coaching candidate he was a terrible NBA player. In his rookie season with the 76ers Iavaroni started 77 games and posted averages of 5.1 PPG, 4.1 RPG, and 1 AST. His PER for the season was a lowly 7.3, but sadly for Iavaroni this season was not an abberation: Iavaroni never had a season with a double-digit PER and for his career had a 7.9 PER.

Chris Ford, 1980-1981 Boston Celtics
When you think of the great Celtics teams of the 80's famous names come to mind. Bird. Parrish. McHale. Ford? Indeed, Chris Ford started 75 games for the Celtics 1981 championship team, chipping in 10.7 PPG and 4.3 AST while playing over 33 MPG. For the season Ford had a PER of 8.8, and saw his minutes cut nearly in half the following season.

Slater Martin and Jack McMahon, 1957-1958 St. Louis Hawks
Oh yeah, it is old school time now. The fact that the Hawks were able to win the NBA championship starting these two guys only solidifies the fact that Bob Petit does not get nearly enough credit as an all-time great player. Martin posted averages of 12 PPG, 3.8 RPG, and 3.6 AST while only shooting 34% from the floor. The frightening part is that Martin actually looked like a stud when compared to McMahon. McMahon's numbers: 7.9 PPG, 2.7 RPG, 4.6 AST, and 30% shooting from the floor. Martin and McMahon posted PERs that season of 9.3 and 7.1 respectively.

(Hat tip to Basketball-Reference.com for all of the stats.)

Why The Spurs Are NOT A Dynasty

I'm sure if you watched Game 4 of the NBA Finals...or read a newspaper...or watched ESPN at all today...you were hit over the head with sportswriters and pundints telling you how the Spurs were on the verge of becoming a dynasty. Well, let me tell you the truth about that claim: it is false. Simply, truly, and completely false. There are a number of reasons why, and I am more than happy to share them with you.

1. The Spurs never won consecutive titles: Will Perdue said it best in an interview earlier today:

"(Consistency) carries a little bit more weight," said Perdue, now an NBA analyst for ESPN Radio. "Isn't repeating supposed to be the hardest thing to do for all the necessary factors?

Yes Will, it is. Repeating is what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to dynasty and greatest of all time talk. The Spurs being called a dynasty without ever repeating is like someone running for President without ever holding public office. The two just go hand in hand. That is why the phrase dynastic succession exists. A dynasty, by definition, implies succession, and the Spurs have never accomplished that. Case closed.

2. The Lakers 3-Peat: There is also the pesky little fact of, oh, the Lakers winning three titles in the midst of the Spurs run. Can you name any other run that is termed a dynasty that not only had a three year run without a title, much less a three year run where the same team won in each of those three years. Here is the real deal: The Lakers three peat was closer to a dynasty than the Spurs run, and only Kobe's force out of Shaq prevented two or three more Laker's titles. The three peat alone keeps the Spurs from being a dynasty.

3. 1999 doesn't really count: The first title in this run does not really fit in with the rest for two reasons. First, the season was tainted because of the strike, which made the season only 50 games long and cheapened the entire enterprise. Secondly, other than a very young Duncan, that team has no relation to the current squad that has won 3 titles in 4 years. That team was Duncan and David Robinson. This team is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and is an entirely different team that is three years detached from that '99 squad.

4. The regular season: I might, might, be willing to give the Spurs the dynasty nod if it was a situation where they were dominating in the regular season every year and then choking in the playoffs. But do you know how many years the Spurs stood alone atop the regular season standings during this 9 year stretch? Once. Next please.

5. Simple math: Name a single other run designated as a dynasty where the dynasty team won less than half of the championships during the dynasty period. Yup, that's right: it has never happened.

As much as the media wants to make this story, the point of a dynasty is that is both historic and difficult. That is why there has only ever been one team in baseball to have a true dynasty (Three different runs by the Yankees), only four teams to do it in hockey (Toronto 44-51, Montreal 65-79, New York 80-83, and Edmonton 84-90), and arguably one in the NFL (The Steelers 4 in 6 during the '70s). Now here is my one caveat: if the Spurs do repeat next season, all will be forgiven in the dynasty discussion. Winning 4 titles in 6 years, with the essential repeat present in this case, along with the same core of players present, would indeed make the Spurs a dynasty. Even in that scenario however, there is no way that the '99 title should be included in any dynasty discussion. Calling the Spurs current run a dynasty does nothing but fill newspaper copy and cheapen the term.

Beno Udrih Talkin Smack...About Chickens?

I'm not sure which part is more amusing: Beno Udrih's weird comments about chickens in Argentina, or Manu's face after Beno disses the homeland.

Clean Game or Payback? You Be the Judge

Remember Tim Duncan making the comment last week that he hoped that the Spurs would get "a fair shake" from the refs in the playoffs? Well, in the wake of the Spurs' Game 1 loss to the Nuggets, it would seem that the Spurs are going to get less of a fair shake and more of a pimp slap from the refs in the wake of the Joey Crawford incident. Consider:

-The Spurs averaged 24.1 FTA per game during the regular season.
-In Game 1, the Spurs shot only 10 FTs, including only 6 in the first 44 minutes of the contest
-The Spurs lowest number of FTAs during the regular season: 11
-The Spurs' opponents averaged 21.2 PFs during the regular season
-In Game 1, the Nuggets were called for 13 PFs
-In the two team's three regular season games the Spurs had 21,21, and 27 FTA respectively, and the Nuggets were called for 21,19, and 24 PFs respectively.

Now, this could be a one game abberation. That kind of thing happens. The playoffs are more physical than the regular season. Understood. I can't help but think there might just be a little something fishy though, when a team shoots fewer FTs than they did in any of the previous 82 games, in the wake of a high profile confrontation with a ref that might have resulted in that ref working his last NBA game. I'm just saying: beware the brotherhood of the whistle.