Hoop Dreams (NBA edition)

I think that in many ways, the internet has ruined the concept of being a fan. Go to any sports' message board and you're bound to see the following message somewhere: "[So and so team ] sucks!" That's it. That's the entirety of the message. That isht infuriates me. I mean it's one thing to make legitimate criticisms. When people say that the Dallas Mavericks choked in the Finals last year, I don't ever get defensive because it's true. My Mavs were in an unfamiliar locale and they allowed the situation to overwhelm them. (And by the way, saying that the Dallas gave away the series is not a diss to the Heat. I'm not sure how Dwyane got that interpretation. Does he really think that the Mavericks team that he played against is the same Mavs team that played the Spurs in the Western Conference semifinals? Take nothing away from the Heat, they won it fair and square. But the Mavs did choke.) What really irritates me are the nonsensical ramblings. It hurts my head to read some of the things people are emboldened to say due to their internet anonymity.

On the other hand, the internet also gives me an opportunity to send out my wisdom. I've been reading all the expert recaps on the season and their predictions for the playoffs and I have decided that it's my turn to chime in. And while no one has actually asked for my input, they should have. So I'm here to correct that.

First up, I'll handle the regular season awards. Not all of them, just the ones that have interested me this year. For example, I couldn't care less who wins Rookie of the Year this year. I have found myself caring less and less about that award since more and more high school and freshmen players have been coming into the League. Every once in a while there is an anomaly, like 2003-04 where there is actually an interesting group of rookies playing significantly. But more often than not it's more like the 2000-01 season. Do you realize that Mike Miller won Rookie of the Year by averaging 11.9 points per game? That alone should have caused fans to force their teams to not draft anyone who had not played college basketball for at least three years. I also don't care about the Most Improved Player award because it almost always goes to someone who has a career year and then proceeds to come back down to earth. That's nothing to get excited about. On to the awards...

(By the way, with one exception, not a single candidate comes from the Eastern Conference.)


SIXTH MAN OF THE YEAR
There are only three possible candidates for this award and they just happen to come from the teams with the three best records in the NBA. That's not a coincidence, I think. Leandro Barbosa for Phoenix, Manu Ginobili for San Antonio and Jerry Stackhouse for Dallas. All three of them could be starting for their teams and all three can take over games when necessary. However, my vote in this category goes to Barbosa. He's a truer sixth man than the other two (if that makes any sense) and he's more integral to Phoenix' gameplan than either Stackhouse or Ginobili is to their respective teams. And if you glance at his season stats, you would assume that he's a starter. Although he supposedly averages four assists per game. I question that because I really don't think I've ever seen him pass the ball.


DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
This award tends to go to pivotmen much more often than those who play on the wings and in the backcourt. I used to think that this was really unfair. After all, the further away from the basket you are, the more energy you have to expend on defense by chasing your man around the court. Plus it's harder for stats to quantify your defensive impact; a high number blocked shots obviously indicate a defensive presence, but a lot of steals might just mean you're a bad defender who gambles a lot. But then I realized that post men don't just have to play defense on the person they're guarding but they also have to clean up mistakes by their teammates. I figure that's probably a harder task.

There are a lot of worthy candidates for this award this year: Bruce Bowen, Marcus Camby, Tyson Chandler, Tim Duncan, Shawn Marion. Camby and Marion arguably have the most difficult tasks because they have to play defense for teams that aren't very good at it. However, if I had to pick between the two I would go with Camby because at least Marion has another great defender on his team in Raja Bell. Camby is pretty much the ONLY defender for the Nuggets. I also thought that Bowen and Duncan cancel out each other. Chandler is having his best season ever and maybe one day will become a healthy Marcus Camby. But I kept coming back to one thing: Tim Duncan sets the tone and anchors the best defensive unit in all of pro basketball. Yeah, Bowen is a pit bull but he can get away with being so tenacious because he knows that he still has someone who can clean up any miscues he has. Add to that the fact that even though Gregg Popovich has limited Duncan's minutes, he's actually given him more responsibility on defense than he ever has before. That was enough to convince me.


COACH OF THE YEAR
In the face of rumors about his job termination, Sam Mitchell guided his Toronto Raptors team to the Atlantic Division title, third place in the Eastern Conference and a playoff spot. Avery Johnson took a 60-win team that made it to the Finals and made them even better, with one of the best regular seasons in NBA history. Jerry Sloan molded a young group into a unit that looks like it might contend with the best years that Stockton and Malone ever had. But my vote for Coach of the Year goes to Jeff Van Gundy. In the toughest division in the NBA and without the services of the best center in basketball for 32 games, he coached the Rockets to 52 wins and homecourt advantage in the first round.


MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
Ah, now here's the big one. This category requires a little bit more discussion. First of all, the NBA is purposely ambiguous about what the award is exactly supposed to mean. They leave that decision up to the voters. That's intentional, of course. By leaving the criteria so indefinite, it causes more controversy, which begets more discussion, which in turn begets more attention for the League. That clever Stern. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to explain how I see the award.

First of all, it's a regular season award. There's a reason that the NBA names a Finals MVP. The NBA MVP award should only consist of what happens during the 82 game regular schedule. However, what that also means is that all 82 games are equal. If someone has a slow start to the year but then comes on stronger in the second half, that doesn't automatically bump them past someone who has had a strong season from the beginning. Secondly, it should not be judged in historical context. It's the MVP of this season and the season should be looked at in a vacuum. If winning a third straight MVP means that a certain player will join the ranks of a handful of Hall of Famers, so be it. If he earned it, he earned it. Third, the stupidest argument I can imagine is, "Well, if you took Player A off of his team they'd still make it to the playoffs but if you took Player B off of his team they wouldn't win 20 games." Look, if you took the best player off of any team that team would probably get worse (Ewing Theory notwithstanding). That's the reason he's the best player on the team, genius! And why should a player be docked for his owner/GM/coach being able to surround him with better talent than another team? That doesn't make any sense. Finally, what does "valuable" mean? In any kind of sport, the object is to beat your opponent. Thus, the most valuable commodity in sports are wins. I don't agree that the best player on the best team should necessarily be the front runner but I do think that candidates from the top five or six teams should get much stronger consideration.

In my mind, Kobe Bryant is solidly in fifth place. Halfway through the season, when the Lakers were one of the top four teams in the conference, he was neck and neck with the other front runners. However, since then his team went on to lose much more often than they won. At one point Kobe went on a scoring flurry that brought him back to the forefront of the MVP discussion but it wasn't enough to lift his team high enough. If the Lakers had somehow managed to finish in the top four it would have been difficult to argue against Kobe. But as late as the last day of the regular season they were in danger of falling to the eight seed.Yes, there were injuries to contend with, but you don't make excuses for that in MVP talk. By the way, post Shaq, what has Kobe Bryant done in the postseason that Tracy McGrady hasn't?

That brings us to the second tier of MVP talk. Both of these guys led their teams to 50+ wins. Both of these guys play in Texas. One of these guys had a solid, veteran team around him. The other had to deal with the loss of an All-NBA teammate and become the do-everything player for his team. When his career is over, no one will look be able to look at this season and say that it's one of Tim Duncan's best. But when you consider his more limited playing time, combined with his greater responsibilities on defense (and he was already a great defender), combined with San Antonio's strong finish (yet again) combined with the best seasons by his team's chief rivals (Dallas and Houston) since he entered the NBA, you have to give Duncan some credit. McGrady had his best ever all-around season. With Yao Ming being out for so many games, he was able to put the Rockets on his shoulders and lead them to homecourt advantage in the first round (the first time in his career). His scoring is down from three or four years ago but he had his best ever season in assists and bought into Coach Van Gundy's demand for defense.

The MVP award belongs to either Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki. Quite frankly, it's about as dead even as it can get. Nash had his best season ever: just off his career high in scoring, career bests in assists, field goal shooting, and three point shooting (but like I said, I'm not comparing his season to any of his pasts ones for purposes of MVP talk). He also led the most entertaining offense in the NBA and for the second time in three years his Suns won over 60 games. Like McGrady, Dirk sacrificed some of his scoring to become a better all around player. All of his shooting percentages are career highs (he joined Nash, Larry Bird and Reggie Miller as the only players to ever shoot 50% from the field, 40% from three point range and 90% from the free throw line); he also had his career best in assists (and one NBA analyst estimates that Dirk leads the league in passes that lead to assists).

Personally, I give the slightest edge to Dirk. Nash led the Suns to 61 wins but Dirk led the Mavericks to the sixth best record of all time. And while I've heard some people say that he doesn't make his teammates better, I disagree. In addition to his aforementioned increased passing, the Mavericks have become better because he allows Avery Johnson to treat him the same way that Gregg Popovich treats Duncan. That is, despite being the best player on the team and despite being the hardest working, he allows the coach to treat him the harshest. When the rest of the team sees this happening to their best player, that in turn causes them to work harder. That approach led the Spurs to three championships and the Mavericks hope it will lead them to their first.


There's no way I can objectively talk about the post-season. Once the games start I'll be bleeding Maverick blue, white and throwback green. But I can discuss a few things.

First of all, the East is weak. That has been discussed ad nauseum. If Chicago had won their last game and captured the two-seed, I would have picked them to win the conference. But since they lost and fell to the fifth-seed, I just don't see it. They would have to beat Shaq, Wade and Miami in the first round, then beat Detroit in the second before even making it to the conference Finals. I can see them beating one of those teams in a seven-game series but not both back to back. So I guess that Detroit will represent the East. Here's the problem: Flip Saunders seems like a nice enough guy, but does anyone trust him to be able to out-coach any of the guys leading the Western Conference playoff teams? And any team that is using Chris Webber in the clutch...well, his track record speaks for itself.

Hey, you know how everyone says the talent in the West is so superior to the talent in the East? That same principle applies to NBA broadcasts. The talent on TNT is ridiculously superior to ABC/ESPN. It's not even close. True enough, TNT has Ernie, Kenny and Charles. Those three alone would beat out any competition. But it's also play by play guys, color commentators and sideline reporters. The only time I can actually enjoy an ESPN broadcast is if it's being called by Mike Tirico and Greg Anthony and/or Tim Legler. Anyone else...not so much. Let's put it this way: if Cheryl Miller were to switch over to ESPN, she'd automatically become their best sideline reporter. Not a good look, dog. Especially for the "world wide leader in sports."

The three best teams in the NBA all reside in the West. People say that Phoenix' style cannot win in the playoffs. Considering that they've made it to the Conference Finals for two straight years while not being at full strength, I would have to disagree with that ideology. I think that they can win it all but I don't think that they will this year. And that's because I don't know if they have the depth to beat out the Lakers (who will give them everything that they have), the Spurs (most likely), the Mavericks (most likely, but even if the Rockets made it here, I'd worry some) and then the Pistons or whoever represented the East. That's asking a LOT from essentially seven players.

I'm predicting a Western Conference showdown between the I-35 rivals. They've played the best basketball over the second half of the season and they have the best combination of depth and playoff experience.

Guess who I'm rooting for.