duncan228
10-21-2009, 02:52 PM
A Look Into the Crystal Ball For 2009-10 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-alookintothecrystalb&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews
I can't explain to you what makes a man start ranking in the preseason. During the year, it's an expert's science, or at least a way to put your expertise out on the line. What guts that takes. But at this point in time, it's more about what you'd like to see, how you assume teams will respond once games start, how players will interact when things suddenly matter, how on-paper talent will flesh itself out.
I guess it's about power—not in any macho sense, but the right to say "hey, this is the season I'd like to see. To back it up, I know what I'm talking about." There has to be a delicate balance between surprises and orthodoxy, lest you either bore people to death or get laughed out of your own column space. Above all else, though, these things should put forth a version of the season that gets fan-blood flowing.
Anyone can stir up controversy or state the obvious. I'm more talking about taking some stands that show not just your ability to predict right and wrong, but a willingness to guess "what will 2009-10 look like?"
It's not just about winners and losers or money well spent, but our ability to imagine this season as something different than the last one, or the one that will follow. Each has a personality, a unique quality to it. This is where that "narrative" thing comes in, and it's not bull. After all, do you really see each season as the same old battleground, with the same pre-programmed actors going forth year after year?
If you don't, this one's for you.
Teams of Note, Large and Small: There's a reason why "middle of the pack" is about quality, not numbers. It's because in the middle, teams are interchangeable, everyone a combination of evenly matched and equally subject to things going unusually wrong or right. I feel like "standard deviation" has a lot to do with my feelings on this bloc. Instead, I deal only with the top and bottom, where teams claw to get to the summit or can't help but fall further and further down the mountain.
THE TEN BEST TEAMS, 2009-10:
1. Orlando Magic
2. Los Angeles Lakers
3. Cleveland Cavaliers
4. Boston Celtics
5. Denver Nuggets
6. San Antonio Spurs
7. Portland Trail Blazers
8. Washington Wizards
9. Dallas Mavericks
10. Utah Jazz
I'll still go with the Magic on top, but that's assuming the Lakers will have problems at some point. The West is obviously deeper to me, and I'm now forced to admit that the Clippers will probably make the playoffs (maybe that Griffin dunk swayed me). I think it was Kelly Dwyer who said it, but more than ever, the West is both the dominant conference and the one on the rise. The East, on the other hand, stakes it all on the Magic, Cavs and Celtics to deliver its message. Talk about top-heavy.
I like the augmented Wiz, at least in principle, but that could easily turn to mush fast. If this list had 11 slots, I'd put Toronto on here. The Raptors have their pieces in place, and while I see them more as the tip-tip of the second-tier, I think they've finally got their soldiers in place. Provided Bosh is happy or gone.
THE TEN WORST TEAMS, 2009-10, WITH "FIRST" BEING THE WORST:
1. Sacramento Kings
2. Golden State Warriors
3. Memphis Grizzlies
4. Milwaukee Bucks
5. Minnesota Timberwolves
6. Charlotte Bobcats
7. New Jersey Nets
8. Detroit Pistons
9. New York Knicks
10. Houston Rockets
This is the part where I wonder how many teams actually fall into the mythical "middle." That consideration aside, it's hard to gauge "bad" when some teams face a much higher level of competition. I guess I'm saying that, record aside, some teams will be demonstrably less able than others. I'm excited about a lot of these teams near the bottom; I just don't see them consistently showing up, or figuring out their feet from their socks. And that's taking into account which conference they must hack their way through. I know, some of you want to see the Thunder on here. Not going to happen. That team's young, but pretty well-stacked with players, well-coached and capable of great things when they jell. Try and make that stick—I mean, be willing to stand behind it for an entire year—for anyone else on that list.
TOP FIVE ROOKIES:
1. Tyreke Evans
2. Blake Griffin
3. Hasheem Thabeet
4. Brandon Jennings
5. James Harden
Really daring, I know. I put Harden on here just because there's a federal statute against showing him respect as an NBA prospect. So happy they didn't pass that law for Curry. I know Griffin will be very, very good, but that team's crowded, and we don't quite know yet if he's going to be dominant, eye-dropping impactful or more in the Emeka Okafor mold. Evans, on the other hand, looks like he's accepted the PG role while retaining his slasher's toolkit; he just doesn't get the two confused. Plus, that team belongs to him and Kevin Martin. Thabeet has a chance at being a defensive monster from Day One, Jennings is kind of a wild card but also has the skills to become a true rookie sensation (copyright someone).
TOP FIVE MVP CANDIDATES:
1. Dwyane Wade
2. LeBron James
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Chris Paul
5. Carmelo Anthony
It wasn't just that the Hornets were off last season. I think we all took Chris Paul a little for granted last year, after that absolutely ridiculous 2007-08 that should've won him the MVP. Provided the team can achieve some stability, and assuming he keeps being Chris Paul, we owe him at least a look. Wade was the dark horse candidate in 2008-09, especially after his run of utter dominance in the second half. The Heat will be a playoff team, which makes it totally legit.
LeBron, well, unless Shaq totally neuters him, he's LeBron. I think Kobe's more tethered to his team at this point, making him less of an OMG HE SHOCKED THE WORLD no-brainer, but if I don't include him there will be a riot somewhere. Melo over Howard because the Magic get no love, while Anthony's ready to deliver that all-around gem of season he's been building toward.
FIVE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYERS WHO AREN'T MVP CANDIDATES (OR MVP-ISH, LIKE DURANT):
1. Rajon Rondo
2. Emeka Okafor
3. Andre Miller
4. Danilo Gallinari
5. Baron Davis
Looking at this list makes me sort of uneasy, since three are PG's and two are possible All-Stars if healthy. But enough self-doubt, let me explain. Rondo looked like the future of the Celtics during the playoffs. What happens with Garnett back? I have no idea, but if there's some sort of trade-off/compromise involved, that team is wasting precious resources. David West is the second-best player on NOLA; however, it's replacing Tyson Chandler with Okafor that will either make or break the Hornets' overall credibility.
Andre Miller could either end up reprising his role as an ultra-productive leader that earned him acclaim in Philly or come off the bench in an effective, but limited, role. I honestly don't know which one's smarter, but the former seems like it could lead to greater results, even if it doesn't make as much basketball sense, and thus isn't that likely to happen.
Gallinari only played 28 games last season, but for better or worse, he's the Knicks' crown jewel. He needs to start showing the Garden faithful something of note, or else this team's really off wandering in the swamp. Oh, and this pick is so closely tied to D'Antoni (would be even if it weren't for the Italian league/heritage thing), that his performance might also hold in it the germ for the post-honeymoon phase of the city's relationship with the coach. When healthy and motivated, Davis is MVP-ish. But he wasn't last season, is getting older and has to pull together a Clippers team that perhaps has too many pieces and not enough underlying logic.
Other than that, I can only hope that the race for John Wall takes some of the heat off of the 2010 saga, but maybe that'll only happen in my brain.
SportingNews
I can't explain to you what makes a man start ranking in the preseason. During the year, it's an expert's science, or at least a way to put your expertise out on the line. What guts that takes. But at this point in time, it's more about what you'd like to see, how you assume teams will respond once games start, how players will interact when things suddenly matter, how on-paper talent will flesh itself out.
I guess it's about power—not in any macho sense, but the right to say "hey, this is the season I'd like to see. To back it up, I know what I'm talking about." There has to be a delicate balance between surprises and orthodoxy, lest you either bore people to death or get laughed out of your own column space. Above all else, though, these things should put forth a version of the season that gets fan-blood flowing.
Anyone can stir up controversy or state the obvious. I'm more talking about taking some stands that show not just your ability to predict right and wrong, but a willingness to guess "what will 2009-10 look like?"
It's not just about winners and losers or money well spent, but our ability to imagine this season as something different than the last one, or the one that will follow. Each has a personality, a unique quality to it. This is where that "narrative" thing comes in, and it's not bull. After all, do you really see each season as the same old battleground, with the same pre-programmed actors going forth year after year?
If you don't, this one's for you.
Teams of Note, Large and Small: There's a reason why "middle of the pack" is about quality, not numbers. It's because in the middle, teams are interchangeable, everyone a combination of evenly matched and equally subject to things going unusually wrong or right. I feel like "standard deviation" has a lot to do with my feelings on this bloc. Instead, I deal only with the top and bottom, where teams claw to get to the summit or can't help but fall further and further down the mountain.
THE TEN BEST TEAMS, 2009-10:
1. Orlando Magic
2. Los Angeles Lakers
3. Cleveland Cavaliers
4. Boston Celtics
5. Denver Nuggets
6. San Antonio Spurs
7. Portland Trail Blazers
8. Washington Wizards
9. Dallas Mavericks
10. Utah Jazz
I'll still go with the Magic on top, but that's assuming the Lakers will have problems at some point. The West is obviously deeper to me, and I'm now forced to admit that the Clippers will probably make the playoffs (maybe that Griffin dunk swayed me). I think it was Kelly Dwyer who said it, but more than ever, the West is both the dominant conference and the one on the rise. The East, on the other hand, stakes it all on the Magic, Cavs and Celtics to deliver its message. Talk about top-heavy.
I like the augmented Wiz, at least in principle, but that could easily turn to mush fast. If this list had 11 slots, I'd put Toronto on here. The Raptors have their pieces in place, and while I see them more as the tip-tip of the second-tier, I think they've finally got their soldiers in place. Provided Bosh is happy or gone.
THE TEN WORST TEAMS, 2009-10, WITH "FIRST" BEING THE WORST:
1. Sacramento Kings
2. Golden State Warriors
3. Memphis Grizzlies
4. Milwaukee Bucks
5. Minnesota Timberwolves
6. Charlotte Bobcats
7. New Jersey Nets
8. Detroit Pistons
9. New York Knicks
10. Houston Rockets
This is the part where I wonder how many teams actually fall into the mythical "middle." That consideration aside, it's hard to gauge "bad" when some teams face a much higher level of competition. I guess I'm saying that, record aside, some teams will be demonstrably less able than others. I'm excited about a lot of these teams near the bottom; I just don't see them consistently showing up, or figuring out their feet from their socks. And that's taking into account which conference they must hack their way through. I know, some of you want to see the Thunder on here. Not going to happen. That team's young, but pretty well-stacked with players, well-coached and capable of great things when they jell. Try and make that stick—I mean, be willing to stand behind it for an entire year—for anyone else on that list.
TOP FIVE ROOKIES:
1. Tyreke Evans
2. Blake Griffin
3. Hasheem Thabeet
4. Brandon Jennings
5. James Harden
Really daring, I know. I put Harden on here just because there's a federal statute against showing him respect as an NBA prospect. So happy they didn't pass that law for Curry. I know Griffin will be very, very good, but that team's crowded, and we don't quite know yet if he's going to be dominant, eye-dropping impactful or more in the Emeka Okafor mold. Evans, on the other hand, looks like he's accepted the PG role while retaining his slasher's toolkit; he just doesn't get the two confused. Plus, that team belongs to him and Kevin Martin. Thabeet has a chance at being a defensive monster from Day One, Jennings is kind of a wild card but also has the skills to become a true rookie sensation (copyright someone).
TOP FIVE MVP CANDIDATES:
1. Dwyane Wade
2. LeBron James
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Chris Paul
5. Carmelo Anthony
It wasn't just that the Hornets were off last season. I think we all took Chris Paul a little for granted last year, after that absolutely ridiculous 2007-08 that should've won him the MVP. Provided the team can achieve some stability, and assuming he keeps being Chris Paul, we owe him at least a look. Wade was the dark horse candidate in 2008-09, especially after his run of utter dominance in the second half. The Heat will be a playoff team, which makes it totally legit.
LeBron, well, unless Shaq totally neuters him, he's LeBron. I think Kobe's more tethered to his team at this point, making him less of an OMG HE SHOCKED THE WORLD no-brainer, but if I don't include him there will be a riot somewhere. Melo over Howard because the Magic get no love, while Anthony's ready to deliver that all-around gem of season he's been building toward.
FIVE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYERS WHO AREN'T MVP CANDIDATES (OR MVP-ISH, LIKE DURANT):
1. Rajon Rondo
2. Emeka Okafor
3. Andre Miller
4. Danilo Gallinari
5. Baron Davis
Looking at this list makes me sort of uneasy, since three are PG's and two are possible All-Stars if healthy. But enough self-doubt, let me explain. Rondo looked like the future of the Celtics during the playoffs. What happens with Garnett back? I have no idea, but if there's some sort of trade-off/compromise involved, that team is wasting precious resources. David West is the second-best player on NOLA; however, it's replacing Tyson Chandler with Okafor that will either make or break the Hornets' overall credibility.
Andre Miller could either end up reprising his role as an ultra-productive leader that earned him acclaim in Philly or come off the bench in an effective, but limited, role. I honestly don't know which one's smarter, but the former seems like it could lead to greater results, even if it doesn't make as much basketball sense, and thus isn't that likely to happen.
Gallinari only played 28 games last season, but for better or worse, he's the Knicks' crown jewel. He needs to start showing the Garden faithful something of note, or else this team's really off wandering in the swamp. Oh, and this pick is so closely tied to D'Antoni (would be even if it weren't for the Italian league/heritage thing), that his performance might also hold in it the germ for the post-honeymoon phase of the city's relationship with the coach. When healthy and motivated, Davis is MVP-ish. But he wasn't last season, is getting older and has to pull together a Clippers team that perhaps has too many pieces and not enough underlying logic.
Other than that, I can only hope that the race for John Wall takes some of the heat off of the 2010 saga, but maybe that'll only happen in my brain.