OT: NBA Summer League
So the NBA Summer leagues are underway.
I know numerous posters have come to hate the NBA (understandable) and among those who don't, there are still some that hate the summer league (televised scrimmages), but among Pistons fans some are hoping they now have their potential Big 3 and while it might take time for the other megateams to age, the Pistons might shortly become relevant again.
With the Lakers, Heat, and apparently Nets becoming hated teams loading up on superstars, I prefer the way the Pistons are building, similar to the Thunder. Now I'm not saying anyone on the Pistons is Durant, and probably not even Westbrook or possibly even Harden, but this is a good chance for younger players to get some court time together against non-teammate, officiated competition.
So knowing that Knight will get time this week with Drummond is big to me. Knight, Monroe, Stuckey, and Drummond represent our current young core. While summer league all-stars sometimes make little regular season impact, I'm encouraged by the performance on Kim English in yesterday's opener.
The Pistons are playing in the Orlando league this year instead of Vegas. They took on the Jazz yesterday and won the game by dominating the 3rd quarter, 32-11.
The starting 5 was Knight, Drummond, English and Kyle Singler and Austin Daye. 4 of the 5 were in double figures in what was a more defensive game, ending 76-73. The team shot 40% from the field, but the starters were far better than the subs, shooting 52%. The biggest concerns were some sloppiness (17 turnovers with only 10 assists), fouls (no limit in these leagues, but 4 Pistons had 4 or more in a 40 minute game), and a Drummond air-ball free throw attempt.
Otherwise decent start for the squad, who plays the Magic today, which got 24 and 12 yesterday from Andrew Nicholson.
be considered hated for having superstars? I never understood that thought. For instance, I understand Cleveland fans feeling jilted by LeBron leaving for Miami but I don't understand all the hatred thrown his way.
Also, I don't understand your Thunder comparison at all, especially since you basically say that the Pistons aren't like the Thunder in the next sentence.
Building through the draft instead of FA? That's my best guess.
the distaste for these players who all combine together is that it appears to fly in the face of competition. The superstars of the golden years, it is argued, hated each other and wanted to beat the best, not play with the best. We all know the rivalry between guys like Bird, Magic, Jordan and Isiah. These dudes wanted not only to win, but to beat the crap out of each other, This generation's superstars seem to all be friends, and want to play together instead of winning on their own. Some critics have attributed this to the rise of AAU ball, where from a young age the best players know and play together, meaning that when they get to the league, they are already friends.
I don't know if I agree with it entirely, but I do think there is a measure of anger and passion that is missing form today's basketball that was present inthe 80's and early 90's.
I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, but want to expand on the part about the superstars playing together.
I get really sick of reading about Jordan, Magic, Bird, etc. not needing to play with each other to be great. There are also many memes out there confirming this feeling from fans. What I feel like people miss today is that it's easy to remember those guys as the main reason their teams won, but I'm not so sure that argument holds much water. Magic played with 2-4 other HOF players on his team AT ALL TIMES (Usually Worthy and Jabar), Bird played with so many HOF players in his career it's criminal (Tiny Archibald, Dennis Johnson, McHale, Walton, Parrish, Dave Cowens, Pete Maravich, Artis Gilmore), with 3-4 of them on the team most years they won anything, and then you have Jordan who played with Pippen, then Pippen and Rodman. I'm inclined to think Jordan had it the toughest, but I feel less bad for him when I realize his team without him won 55 games and finished 2nd in the Eastern Conference the year after he first retired (On the contrary, the Cavs had the #1 pick the year after Lebron first played in Miami). Secondly, all of these guys won a championship before their first contracts had run out. There was never any incentive for them to leave their teams; they came into great situations with great GMs and never had to fight for a decent roster. Putting them on some pedastal above Lebron and Wade is silly to me. Lebron would never win in Cleveland because nobody wants to play in Cleveland, and this was confirmed by their misses in free agency year after year. Then people love Durant and Westbrook for being drafted to the same team, but what in the world does that have to do with them? I just don't get it.
I was actually going to include a quick caveat that the idea that these guys didn't play with other great players is purely a myth. What I was focusing on, however, was the amount of vitriol between the major superstars. There is no doubt that the faces of the NBA in the 80's and 90's wanted to crush each other (Bird, Magic, Dom, MJ, Isiah), and were extremely competitive. I don't think you can say that now. Lebron, Wade, Howard, Chris Paul- these guys are all buddies and trying to play together, not compete against each other.
I think another point worth mentioning is how these teams are coming together. The Celtics and the Lakes of yesteryear would go out and buy the best players. It was the team that was evil. This generation the players have more control and are calling the shots. I think alot of pepople (fans, executives, critics) are intimidated by this development. They don't like that the players are creating these dynasties and not the organizations.
I totally agree with your sentiment that one of the biggest meme's about the previous era of basketball is that those guys 'did it all themselves'. Magic and Bird alone played on freaking dream teams. Good point.
You make a lot of good points, but I disagree a little on the perception of today's NBA stars. It takes years of playoff matchups to create that layer of distaste for opposing stars. Lakers-Celtics would never be a rivalry in any era unless those teams consistently made trips to the Finals. Tough playoff series are the only way those stars are going to dislike each other.
I would argue the Heat-Celtics have a solid little rivalry more in line with the mantra that stars shouldn't like each other. I would also say that the Heat-Pacers series was one of the most chippy I've seen in recent years. Is it like it was in the 80s? Probably not. But it takes meeting a couple times in the Conference Finals or Finals usually to create that rivalry feel.
The years of playoff rivalaries as a factor in creating these competitions is something I hadn't thought about. I dig it.
I think the Cavs own pick was No. 4
He signed his second with the Bulls in '88. And really, at the time, I don't think anyone thought Pippen was 3 years away from being a #2. Pippen wasn't a star on some other squad who said "I want to go piggy back on Jordan." He was a draft pick who far exceeded his draft level. (And if you want to include him in your "etc.", neither did Isiah.)
But no one has said one guy could do it all. Just that most teams a Batman paired with a Robin. Not Batman and Superman teaming up. Magic is the exception with Kareem, but they drafted Magic (and much like how the Celtics got the picks for McHale and Bird, fleeced teams to do it). But back then pretty much everyone hated the Celtics and Lakers too if you weren't fans of one of those teams. Maybe you liked one more than the other vs. each other, but "Beat LA" and "Celtics Suck" were pretty common around the league.
And was pleasently suprised by the team. Granted it's summer league, but there was some definite flashes of excitement. I thought Drummond played really solid- his defense and footwork were especially good. He held his own against Kanter, a top 5 pick, 7 footer from last year. English can flat out shoot. He's quick, and appeared to be a good on ball defender. HIs quote after the game was something about how he prides himself on shutting down his man, and when he does that his shots will come.
I agree, the core of this team is really exciting. Add to that the 7 foot over seas player (its 8:45, I will not Google his name) who is supposed to have an NBA ready body and defensive game, and we are looking good. I also agree on the thunder analogy. Grab a couple really talented youngsters (Westbrook, Harden, Durant), throw in a couple big guys who can defend (Perkins, Ebaka) and some role players and you are looking good.
I've refused to watch much of the last 2 years because, well, because we sucked. I am looking forward to having something to cheer about. Go Stones.
To be sure, the "Thunder model" seems to require higher picks than the Pistons have had as well as excellent drafting and quite a bit of good fortune. The Sonics/Thunder were fortunate that the Blazers took Oden instead of Durant so the Sonics could draft him @ 2, made a great pick of Westbrook (@ 4) who was just beginning to harness his incredible athleticism, and took Harden (@ 3) after Memphis whiffed on their Hasheem Thabeet pick. Ibaka was a great pick later in the draft (@ 24 in 2008, the same draft class as Westbrook), but they had the patience to leave him in Europe to develop.
I can't remember any team built almost entirely through the draft that's risen as quickly as they have, and that's because they've managed to pick the 2nd best player in the league, plus guys who are all-NBA 2nd team in his 4th year, 6th man of the year in his 3rd, and first team all-defense in his 3rd year.
The Pistons do appear to have a good young core, and Drummond can potentially give them a rare commodity in a true center if he can develop his offensive game (which will likely begin to pay dividends 3 or so years into his career given Roy Hibbert as a developmental model) but I don't think they've hit on anyone with the superstar potential of the Thunder's big 3, largely because of where they've been drafting.
I love the NBA Summer League - some of the best young players in the world, just playing, in a semi-structured environment, playing hard motivated by the fact that most of them still need to make it in the NBA. No game day fluff like cheerleaders, halftime shows, annoying PA's, just hoops.
Love watching Summer League. I miss the days of it being on ESPN. No I have to stream.. But still fun. I remember watching Rose and Lebron do whatever they wanted in their summer leagues.
To address the hatred for mega-teams, I'll post this from an article on ESPN about the potential Dwight Howard trade -
"Being the cog in creating another super team in Brooklyn, with Deron Williams and Joe Johnson already in the mix, is not palatable to some teams concerned about competitive balance.
"You can talk about the new [luxury] tax all you want, but if the Lakers get Nash and the Nets get Howard, then what did the new CBA accomplish?" one GM said. "You have to realize part of long-term planning is making sure you don't help create teams you can't beat."
People are hating the NBA more and more because it's a 4-6 team league that happens to have another 20+ teams of little-to-no consequence. Sure, it was cute when the Pacers won a couple against the Heat, but I don't think anyone in Indiana had realistic championship expectations. The league is already bad, but now the precident is set that most free agents will look to jump onto a superteam and competitive balance will fall apart, ticket sales at the 20 also-rans will plummet, and the league won't have sufficient revenue to support the few teams that matter.
As for the Thunder comparison, I was eluding to the fact that the Pistons are building their team, albeit with different parts, in the same way the Thunder did. I just calrified before everyone jumped on me suggesting I was comparing any Piston to Durant. No, we currently don't have any top 5 players like the Thunder, but we're building a young nucleus that, if they can stay together, might become competitive if the superteam thing doesn't ruin the league any further.
People hated the NBA so much that everyone and their mother watched the Finals.
Also on today!
This afternoon, Chauncey Billups & Michael Rapaport are streaming LIVE and talking USA Basketball from training camp in Las Vegas!
Tune in 4pm/et as part of American Express ‘Inside the Dream’ Extraordinary Moments in USA Basketball. http://bit.ly/K7Ey5N
The superteams are good for ratings. And that's what really matters. It's not good for competitive balance and parity, but the league could care less about that as long as it's making $$$
Also, if you think about it, the NBA's almost always had superteams - and it's very attributable to the more pronounced impact that one great player can have on the court in basketball as opposed to other pro sports that have 6, 9 or 11 guys on the field. Pretty much the only difference between superteams then and now is that now you have LeBron and Howard* orchestrating them instead of Red Auerbach and Jerry West. Aside from the bruised egos of owners, are things really that different? The common factor here - and one that isn't going away - is bad GMs of have-not teams who put themselves in a position to get rogered by the haves. (Otis Smith, meet Ted Stepien. Ted, meet Otis)
It's easy to say that it's bad for the league and I'll admit that this stratified success gap probably isn't sustainable and it is going to kill off a few small market teams when it's all said and done. But the ugly truth, as bacon1431 points out, is that the NBA needs a pantheon of superstar teams** to boost ratings and in its heart of hearts it is well aware of that fact.
There was a time when the NBA enjoyed a sustained period of competitive parity. It was the mid-70's. From 1973-79 you had six different teams win the title with only the remnants of the Auerbach-era Celtics claiming multiples. No one knew it at the time, but that era ended in 1980 with the emergence of Magic and Bird. You know why no one knew it at the time? Because by then the NBA brand was so insignificant that Magic's now-legendary game 6 clincher vs. Philly was shown on tape-delay. That's what an era of parity meant for the NBA.
* - firmly insert disclaimer about lolol @ Nets here.
** - disclaimer: I'm a lifelong Laker fan, so I am not 100% objective here since they're pretty much the Yankees/Cowboys of the NBA.
That cherry pickin' Gretzky...
Few things.
-The mid-70s also had the ABA, which created even more parity as big time stars (or as big as NBA players got pre-Bird/Magic) weren't even in the NBA: Dr. J, Malone, Gervin, Artis Gilmore, David Thompson.
-Superstars have always leveraged their way onto teams they want to play for, the best example being Kareem forcing a trade to the Lakers, but Wilt also did it, Oscar Robertson, Malone, etc. The NBA's CBA allows them more leverage now, but it's not exactly a new thing.
-If the Nets pull off this Howard trade, they suddenly have the second best team in the east, right? Who else is up there? The Bulls won't have Rose until late in the year. The Knicks are still the same set of mismatched parts. The Celtics are creaky. I guess the Pacers. And Howard will at least give them a reasonable chance against the Heat, as he provides the one thing they can't match up with defensively. Add in what's going to be a very different atmosphere playing in an arena in Brooklyn that's very easy to get to and they could be a very good team.
- good point about the ABA; I'd forgotten about them.
- I think the Nets will be a force in the east IF Howard can regain his pre-injury form. There's also the minor red flag that he's already held Orlando hostage for the last year and iirc it's not guaranteed that he'd sign on with the Nets after this season. I mean, sure you still try to swing the deal with you're Brooklyn because you can't afford not to try, but we're still talking about a demonstratably flightly guy whose injury may hamper his 2013 game in ways we haven't yet seen. Like Miami, they will need a year to gel and we'll have to see what they're like in 2014 (with D12, of course) The Bulls are one piece away even with Rose back. The Celtics will be in the mix; I hate them as much as I hate Ohio State but they're uber-resilient cockroaches who will be hanging on come hell or highwater and I don't count them out even after I see their corpse and the credits finish rolling.
I meant to add in a bit about Howard being a risk both via injury and via emotional stability. Has anyone handled impending free agency worse, including LeBron? He's totally held the Magic hostage for two years, agreed to resign after people criticized him on Twitter, got the Magic to fire their coach, and now he's going to leave anyway.
He has said that the Nets are the only team he'll agree to a sign and trade with, however, which provides them with security. Now, I'd be surprised to see him turn down a sign and trade with the Lakers, and the Lakers can offer better pieces in either Bynum or Gasol. I mean, in the present iteration of the trade, its Brook Lopez (via sign-and-trade), Luke Walton, Damion James, Shelden Williams, Armon Johnson and three first-round picks to the Magic for Howard and a massive salary dump involving Jason Richardson (who has 3 years/$18 million left) and Chris Duhon (@2 yrs/$8 mil).
There are some other pieces involving Humphries and some other players to Cleveland for a lottery protected pick to send to Orlando, but that's really giving Howard away at .25 on the dollar just to protect themselves from getting nothing. It might be the most apparently lopsided trade at the time it was made as when the Bucks traded Kareem (receiving Junior Bridgeman, Brian Winters, Elmore Smith and Dave Myers in return... yes, I had to look that up).
It would, however, give the Nets a very good core of an elite point and center, a couple great wing scorers (Joe Johnson and Wallace), and a good, extremely annoying glue guy (Reggie Evans), with Richardson coming off the bench to head their second unit. They'll be paying luxury tax like crazy, but they'll actually sell tickets so it won't be coming straight out of the Russian guy's pockets, too.
Also, since I assume many of you are Pistons fans, what's the general feeling about Joe Dumars, specifically his job security? Growing up in Michigan (was born in L.A.) he was always one of my favorite non-Laker players and I was happy to see him do well with the Pistons after his playing career with them. Wasn't happy at the time to see him assemble the 2004 squad that dropkicked the Lakers in the Finals, though I've since come around to believe that they actually did us a favor by beating us in 2004.
Since then, the 'Stons have been Darko'ed into oblivion. Does Dumars have enough goodwill left over from 2004 and his HoFame career or are the natives getting restless?
But he's got a lot of goodwill, so he gets time. I think having a few successful drafts and weeding out the problems gives him a little more time, because the team is likable and bordering watchable again (even if I doubt people will buy tickets for it), so with new ownership there will be time to see how it all plays out. But one giant bungled trade, or Gordon/Charlie V. type signing, and it might be the last straw. He's still got major problems because he's slowly building a potential championship team to put around a superstar, but has almost no way to get that superstar to win a championship.
It's hard to know how hot Joe D's seat is, because there's a new owner. Gores and his people are learning about owning an NBA team, so Joe D has a little time. Also since Gores grew up in Michigan, there's the fan factor of having an NBA champion running your team.
There are those on the board who want Joe D fired yesterday. I'd say his seat is warming up. I think he'll have some time to see how his draft picks turn out. Ben Gordon is gone, and Charlie V should be next. Gores has said he wants to see results, and of course it's up to him to turn up the heat if things don't look like they're working out.
For the Pistons, it was one game in the Summer League (FWIW), but seemed to go well for Detroit. Seems like the fighting is over, and there's a camaraderie that hasn't been around for awhile. Drummond seemed to show good effort even if his free throws continued to be ugly as all get out. He outplayed last year's #3 pick Kanter. The guy I'm liking is English, and it's not even his 18 points; he seems to have a maturity about him that's rare. I'd hate to lose him to not having enough roster spots because we've got a few older guys with bad contracts around, and then see him succeed in the NBA. He just seems like the kind of guy who would never start a game in the League but play ten years coming off the bench draining 3's for some team. Just hope we don't pull an Afflalo and it's with some other team. I still think I'll believe Singler is going to contribute when I see it I guess.
This is only a roster that dreams of someday being the current Indiana Pacers in a few years, and needs a LOT of work with the current guys to be good, and even more help to ever be great. But they might be watchable for the first time in awhile. Because you're not looking at every slot on the court and saying "GOD, why did we sign him?!?!"
Speaking of the Nets, how do people in NYC regard that franchise now? Have they gained a lot of street cred by moving back into the city, or are they still kind of an outsider franchise?
I imagine they'll gain popularity with those that just want to go against the grain, and be different. Young people might adopt them. But I'm also curious how people in Jersey feel about them now....particularly when they host some football teams that play in their state but are called "New York".
The Nets, and the Barclay's Center, are very much portraying themselves as representing Brooklyn rather than the city at large, and it's a pretty keen move, given the size of Brooklyn (would be, I think, about the 4th or 5th largest city in the country as a free standing city) and the amount of wealth that's moved into the borough over the past 15 years.
They've done a nice job creating local enthusiasm and rebranding themselves as the Brooklyn Nets and the arena as a Brooklyn thing, (this after a huge amount of initial opposition having to do with the use of eminent domain in construction of the arena and the way it promises to affect nearby residential neighborhoods). There's going to be lingering local resentment, but walking around Brooklyn, I've seen a lot of Brooklyn Nets stuff, where I can't ever recall seeing anything having to do with the NJ Nets. They rolled out their new logo, got Jay-Z and then Barbara Streisand to open the new arena with a series of concerts (this combo strangely fits the demographics of the neighborhood quite well), and their recent moves that make them seem like a potential contender. They've already sold out a good deal of the season tickets in the lower bowl, they probably already have more season tix sold than they did in New Jersey.
The location of the arena (which was also the source of a lot of the opposition to its construction) will also help to create a good deal of buzz. It's centrally located amidst brownstone Brooklyn and is walkable from Fort Greene, Park Slope, Cobble and Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights, Carroll Gardens and even Brooklyn Heights (meaning its in the midst of the majority of the wave of gentrification that's transformed Brooklyn over the past 15 years). It's also almost on top of the biggest transit hub in Brooklyn, the Atlantic-Pacific terminal where the LIRR meets the subway system. (It's ironically the same place that Walter O'Malley wanted to locate his proposed replacement for Ebbets Field). People in Brooklyn are going to encounter it far more than they do MSG.
What about people from Queens, the Bronx, etc.? Is the "Brooklyn" label possibly a turnoff to them?
Potentially, I guess. If they pick up Howard and are successful, I'd imagine they'll pick up fans from all over the city, given how long it's been since the Knicks were good. But given the location of the arena, I'd expect the fanbase to be mainly Brooklyn, as it's going to be a relatively long schlep from Queens or the Bronx to the arena since all the trains, except for the G, go through Manhattan on their way between the outer boroughs.
New York's been a one-team town for so long (even though the Nets played 10 miles from MSG, they had virtually no fans in the city, which is true of the Devils as well). Most Knicks fans in Brooklyn won't change their alligence (there's a recent Spike Lee interview in NY Mag where he laughs away the idea of rooting for the Nets, even though he's so associated with Brooklyn and grew up in Cobble Hill and lived for a long time as an adult in Fort Greene, both within walking distance of the arena). But the arena's going to be so centrally located within Brooklyn that I don't think they'll have any problem selling out and will quickly built a pretty substantial following. The first Knicks-Nets game in Brooklyn will be a lot of fun.