This past offseason, the Sonics had a decision to make with Chris Wilcox: sign him to a deal, or let him walk and pick up somebody else.
The most obvious choice was Cleveland’s Drew Gooden, who, like Wilcox, was a free agent. And to me, Gooden made more sense. I argued that Wilcox’ nice run in March and April of 2006 was a fluke, that he was more likely to be the guy he had been for the first 3 ½ years than he was to be the guy who threw up a 20-20 game against Houston and averaged close to a double-double while in the Sonic uni. Gooden, on the other hand, while not an all-star by any stretch, had proven capable of posting decent numbers on more than a two-month basis. Throw in Mike Dunleavy’s eagerness to shed Wilcox from the Clippers’ roster, and, well, it seemed to me that going for Gooden was the smartest move, and I said so here on this website.
Watching Gooden during the playoffs, though, and I’m beginning to see why the Sonics picked up Wilcox. Maybe it’s me, but it seems as though Gooden makes more bad plays per 40 minutes than anybody in the league, with the possible exception of Nene, who, in fairness, is from another solar system.
An example: In game 2, Gooden blocked a Tony Parker fast break runner in the lane, then stood and watched as Parker scrambled for the loose ball and put it back in. It seems like Gooden does this sort of thing all the time, not to mention getting left out of position on pick and rolls, failing to box out his man, well, I could on but you get the drift.
That’s the trouble with most statistics, they don’t tell you what you see from watching the games. You look at Gooden’s raw numbers, and you see a guy who averaged 11 points and 8.5 boards this year, right alongside his career numbers. You look at Wilcox and you see 13.5 points and 7.7 boards. Both seem to reflect more than adequate play for $6 million a year, right?
But then you look more closely, and you see that Gooden’s +/- numbers are atrocious. On a team that is competing for the NBA title right now, Gooden’s team was better off with him on the bench. And it’s not by a hair, either. When Drew sat this season, the Cavs allowed 6.5 fewer points per 48 minutes, and they scored more points (1.5) per 48 with him on the bench as well.
To put it another way, if the Cavs played 48 minutes with Drew Gooden, they won 106 to 105.6. If they played 48 minutes with him sitting at the barber shop getting his neck patch adjusted, they won 107.6 to 99. That’s huge, especially for a guy who is nominally their best power forward.
Wilcox, on the other hand, helped the Sonics on offense more than he hurt them on defense, netting them a positive result on-court (although his defense, as any Sonic fan will tell you, definitely needs a dose of improvement).
Where am I going with all of this? I guess I’m angling to admit that I was totally wrong about the Gooden v. Wilcox decision. Not Bowie v. Jordan wrong, but wrong nonetheless. Were the Sonics really ever in the position to take either of these two? I don’t know for sure, but if they were, it’s good they didn’t listen to me.
Monday, June 11
Friday, June 8
Stern Loves Seattle
Do Clay Bennett and David Stern ever talk to one another?
I wondered that when I read an AP story (found on SI.com) quoting Stern, in regard to the Seattle arena situation, as saying:
I wondered that when I read an AP story (found on SI.com) quoting Stern, in regard to the Seattle arena situation, as saying:
"I think it's just going to work itself out and I hope it does."Contrast that to Bennett's comments at the Sam Presti press conference (or as they call it in Canada, 'presser'):
"So we’re without a process that I’m aware of relative to public participation in a building."Add this into the whole Las Vegas debacle, when Bennett was called out on national television by Stern, and it leads you to believe that the commish may be slowly coming to the side of Seattle, leaving Bennett even more alone than he was before.
Culture Club
I’m hearing a lot about culture lately. From David Locke, who obviously believes it’s the right way to build a successful team, to Sam Presti, who didn’t use the word specifically, but you get the impression he’d go along with it, it’s become the mantra of the Sonics this summer.
But what is culture? There is much discussion of the Spurs’ “culture” and how it has spread to Cleveland, or the Jazz’ “culture”, or the Mavericks’ “culture,” but just what the heck is it? As Frank Hughes pointed out at the News Tribune, it’s all well and good to say you’re going to have a winning culture, but is there any substance to it?
Well, when I watch the Spurs and Cavs, it’s not “culture” that I think, it’s Tim Duncan and LeBron James. Fine, Mike Brown brought a culture from San Antonio to Cleveland, but it helps just a bit to have the most physically intimidating non-center in NBA history lining up for you every night.
The press can drone on all day about Popovich’s “family,” but if the Spurs had drafted Keith Van Horn with the third pick rather than Duncan with the first, would anybody even be talking about this? (By the way, how sickening was that piece at halftime for Bob Hill? I’m guessing the Hills are shopping for a new set today after Bob put his shoe through the old one last night.)
Likewise with Cleveland. Let’s say the Cavs get Chris Bosh or Darko rather than LeBron, are we still falling over ourselves about how beautiful the San Antonio system is? After all, the Heat don’t have a former Spurs assistant running their team, and somehow they managed to win a title last year. Sure, the Jazz are flying high right now, but their “culture” hadn’t managed a win in the playoffs since Karl Malone left. What was wrong with their culture the last four years? Did they lose the recipe somewhere at Temple?
And what kind of “culture” did the Lakers have when they won three straight? Presti talked a lot about “selflessness” in his press conference, but can you recall a more selfish team than those Lakers? LA was a family alright, but it was more like the Manson Family than the Waltons.
To be honest, I’d wager that Presti and the rest of the NBA knows that culture can only take you so far. Chemistry, family, and culture are all byproducts of winners. No one ever talks about the A’s culture, because they don’t have one. Their culture is winning, and finding the best players they can afford. In the end, it takes a superstar player who is committed to playing basketball on both ends of the court. MJ, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem ... there’s a thread common to all of those guys – they all played hard all the time (well, at least in the playoffs), they were obsessed with winning, and they were good on both sides of the court (which makes you wonder whether Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis will be getting their mail forwarded any time soon, but that’s another story).
A very wise man once said that talent wins games in the NBA, not coaches. The organization, the coaching staff, the “culture” if you will, all sounds great at press conferences and in power point presentations, but I’ll take a 6’10” small forward who can dunk with one hand and shoot 3’s with another, thank you very much.
But what is culture? There is much discussion of the Spurs’ “culture” and how it has spread to Cleveland, or the Jazz’ “culture”, or the Mavericks’ “culture,” but just what the heck is it? As Frank Hughes pointed out at the News Tribune, it’s all well and good to say you’re going to have a winning culture, but is there any substance to it?
Well, when I watch the Spurs and Cavs, it’s not “culture” that I think, it’s Tim Duncan and LeBron James. Fine, Mike Brown brought a culture from San Antonio to Cleveland, but it helps just a bit to have the most physically intimidating non-center in NBA history lining up for you every night.
The press can drone on all day about Popovich’s “family,” but if the Spurs had drafted Keith Van Horn with the third pick rather than Duncan with the first, would anybody even be talking about this? (By the way, how sickening was that piece at halftime for Bob Hill? I’m guessing the Hills are shopping for a new set today after Bob put his shoe through the old one last night.)
Likewise with Cleveland. Let’s say the Cavs get Chris Bosh or Darko rather than LeBron, are we still falling over ourselves about how beautiful the San Antonio system is? After all, the Heat don’t have a former Spurs assistant running their team, and somehow they managed to win a title last year. Sure, the Jazz are flying high right now, but their “culture” hadn’t managed a win in the playoffs since Karl Malone left. What was wrong with their culture the last four years? Did they lose the recipe somewhere at Temple?
And what kind of “culture” did the Lakers have when they won three straight? Presti talked a lot about “selflessness” in his press conference, but can you recall a more selfish team than those Lakers? LA was a family alright, but it was more like the Manson Family than the Waltons.
To be honest, I’d wager that Presti and the rest of the NBA knows that culture can only take you so far. Chemistry, family, and culture are all byproducts of winners. No one ever talks about the A’s culture, because they don’t have one. Their culture is winning, and finding the best players they can afford. In the end, it takes a superstar player who is committed to playing basketball on both ends of the court. MJ, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem ... there’s a thread common to all of those guys – they all played hard all the time (well, at least in the playoffs), they were obsessed with winning, and they were good on both sides of the court (which makes you wonder whether Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis will be getting their mail forwarded any time soon, but that’s another story).
A very wise man once said that talent wins games in the NBA, not coaches. The organization, the coaching staff, the “culture” if you will, all sounds great at press conferences and in power point presentations, but I’ll take a 6’10” small forward who can dunk with one hand and shoot 3’s with another, thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)