More Clipper-Bashing from the Evil Four-Letter
This time, it is Chad Ford. In his article titled Winners and losers of the NBA's offseason (so far), Ford describes the Clippers as offseason losers:
Los Angeles Clippers
The Clippers once held the coveted title of most dysfunctional franchise in the league and they made a lot of strides toward reclaiming it this summer.
Everything started off so well. They shocked many by quickly coming to terms with Warriors free agent Baron Davis -- filling a big need at the point. Pairing Davis with Elton Brand was supposed to put the Clippers on a course back to the playoffs in the West. Unfortunately, the team then inexplicably lost Brand to the Sixers a week later. Brand's people say the Clippers mishandled the negotiations. The Clippers point the finger at Brand's agent, David Falk.
Suddenly, the Clippers' dream team was a nightmare. At this point in his career, Davis making $65 million stretches credulity, even if he's motivated. An unmotivated Davis playing on a cellar dweller? Ugh.
The Clippers also lost Corey Maggette and tried to minimize all the damage by bringing in Marcus Camby and Ricky Davis. But I don't think they're a playoff team in the West with that crew.
I find nothing wrong with his stating that the Clippers are probably not a playoff team. I have my own doubts. But to bash the team, and, oddly, bash Baron Davis exactly one paragraph after praising him, is flawed analysis, and a bit absurd.
Is Ford saying that the value of the Davis signing was contingent on whether Brand remained a Clipper? If looked at in terms of a trade, I can't imagine too many people would regard the Brand for Davis "swap" as being a bad deal for the Clippers.
Would the Clippers have made his latest column's winner's column had they simply held on to Brand and Maggette, sans Davis, fielding the essentially the same team of the past three seasons, minus Sam Cassell, Shaun Livingston or anything else resembling a PG? That is doubtful.
Here is what Ford wrote about the team atop his Winners column:
Philadelphia 76ers
The Sixers landed the biggest free-agent coup of the summer when they stole Elton Brand from the Clippers. Brand fills the biggest need of a team that played solid basketball in the second half of last season.
Now the team has two veterans at key positions -- Brand anchoring the paint and Andre Miller running the point -- and a slew of talented young studs like Thaddeus Young, Louis Williams, Samuel Dalembert and first-round pick Marreese Speights.
If the Sixers get Andre Iguodala locked up in the next few weeks, they should be one of the top three of four teams in the East.
So there you have it. The team that loses Brand is the loser, while the team that signs him is the big winner. High praise for a player who has been to the playoffs exactly one time in his 9 year career.
Signing Brand was obviously a great move for the Sixers. But was it any better than the Clippers signing Davis? According to Chad Ford, it was much better.
By the way, Ford contradicts himself once more when he calls the Warriors losers for signing Maggette:
After trying and failing to lure Elton Brand and Gilbert Arenas to Golden State, the Warriors spent way too much on Corey Maggette, a guy who duplicates many of their strengths and addresses none of their weaknesses.
I think I'm starting to catch on. You are a loser if you sign Maggette, as did the Warriors, and a loser if you don't sign him, as the Clippers did not. Got it. No matter though. The Warriors were doomed to be offseason losers in Ford's eyes from the start, for they, too, like the Clippers, failed to sign Elton Brand, the true measure of a winning offseason.
Overall, this was a poor piece of work by Chad Ford, and I regret that I spent any time trying to navigate thru all of the drivel. Can't wait until Hollinger's pre-season report. Should be Clipper-bashing at it's finest.
UPDATE: Here is what ClipShow said perfectly in the comments section below.
I love how Ford calls Thad Young, Lou Williams and Sam D “talented young studs”...but when it comes to the Clips, apparently Al Thorton (better than either Thad or Lou) and Chris Kaman (>>> Sam D.) are chopped liver. No mention that the last time FElton played with AMiller, they failed miserably. No mention that FElton is coming back from a major injury. No mention that the Sixers has a LOSING record last year. And no mention that FElton has been in the playoffs a grand total of ONCE in his career.
0 recs |
50
comments
Comments
Chad Ford
Lakers in 6.
You don’t have to know anything to work for the WWL. All you have to do is be willing and able to repeat the same old stuff, regardless of evidence. Cliche’s aren’t just for the players anymore.
Their agenda isn’t to analyze or report. Its to push the storyline.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on Aug 4, 2008 11:40 AM PDT 0 recs
Yup
Brett Favre, Roger Clemens, Steroids, Yanks/Sox…I’m sure there are other examples of things that they shove down our throats.
F-Elton!
by mikey p on
Aug 4, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Give him some credit, most people had Lakers in 5
by ghost_ride on
Aug 4, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I would, if he would explain how he came to his conclusion
And that explanation didn’t reek of magical spells and fairy dust.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 4, 2008 12:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Wow, John R
You sound so cynical! Like one of those pajamas-wearing bloggers in the basement!
by pipedreams on Aug 4, 2008 11:46 AM PDT 0 recs
I prefer some Nike hoops shorts around the house
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 4, 2008 11:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Doesn't bother me at all...
Now that we have our guys, let the bad press roll. It will be a lot more fun having these critics eat their words if the Clippers can come together. And to that end, the more bad press the better, hard to find better motivator and something to build team chemistry on.
by ghost_ride on Aug 4, 2008 11:58 AM PDT 0 recs
To be expected.....
You had to sort of see this coming, I guess. The FElton stealing/signing has been widely panned as a coup by the Sixers….the aquisition of their “final piece” to becoming a title contender. Meanwhile, in Clipper land, it’s business as usual. Surely Ford should know better.
This is a classic case of East coast biased, sensational journalism, with no regard to facts….essentially typical ESPN drivel.
I love how Ford calls Thad Young, Lou Williams and Sam D “talented young studs”...but when it comes to the Clips, apparently Al Thorton (better than either Thad or Lou) and Chris Kaman (>>> Sam D.) are chopped liver. No mention that the last time FElton played with AMiller, they failed miserably. No mention that FElton is coming back from a major injury. No mention that the Sixers has a LOSING record last year. And no mention that FElton has been in the playoffs a grand total of ONCE in his career.
I am sure we are going to see more and more of this crap as training camp approaches. So, I for one am ready for it, and actually expect it. I would expect nothing less…
by Clip Show on Aug 4, 2008 11:58 AM PDT 0 recs
Exactly
We went down the rosters and had it close.
PG Clips
SG Sixers
SF Clips
PF Sixers
C Clips
Bench: who knows, can’t name anybody on the Sixers bench
Coaching: edge to Sixers, maybe, although he did less with the Blazers than MDSr.
F-Elton!
by mikey p on
Aug 4, 2008 12:14 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Totally
I’d actually be irritated if the press started patting our backs.
by ghost_ride on Aug 4, 2008 12:02 PM PDT 0 recs
reminds me of the 05-06 season
I remember reading that year that we were supposed to finish 3rd in our division and well out of the playoffs. Guess they were wrong lol.
by bestclipfan on Aug 4, 2008 12:05 PM PDT 0 recs
One positive review
Hoopsworld gave us a B+ for our offseason and says it would have been an A had we gotten Brand.
by bestclipfan on Aug 4, 2008 12:08 PM PDT 0 recs
Rockets bit
The Rockets pulled off the most controversial move of the summer when they agreed to acquire Ron Artest from the Kings. This is one of those all-or-nothing moves whose effect is impossible to forecast.If Artest is on his best behavior, the Rockets are a serious force to be reckoned with in the West. If he’s on his worst behavior, he could cause this team to implode the way he did with an elite Pacers team a few years ago.
The Rockets were winners based on a move that may work or not, and if not he feels it could put the very franchise at risk.
And most controversial? I don’t know I mostly yawned when I heard about this trade. Artest might make your team better, if you are weak at SF, which the Rockets aren’t. As it stands, the Artest trade will have less of an effect than team health, but I’m sure at the end of the season Ford will have some magical reason why it worked or it didn’t, even if there isn’t a blow up.
The Rockets already have Battier, how does adding a volatile, more selfish Battier improve them? Clearly even Ford doesn’t know and that’s why he won’t commit to a prediction beyond putting them in the winners column.
I guess I am sour on this.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on Aug 4, 2008 1:08 PM PDT 0 recs
Artest
To me Artest would be the third consistent scorer they need. Battier’s a nice defensive presence but he brings little offense to the table (beyond the occasional three). And Artest is a good defender. Scoring = selfish? Ok.
I’d be more concerned about the fact that Ron Ron is obviously bipolar.
by Jax on
Aug 4, 2008 1:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Scoring isn't inherently selfish
It becomes selfish when you take bad shots and break out of the offense to do it. I’d consider both Artest staples. 42.5% career FG% isn’t exactly elite.
Artest is a poor rebounder so he’d be a disaster at the 4. Hmm, I wonder if Battier is available what with him no better than 3rd on the SF chart.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 4, 2008 1:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I need to check his stats
Artest commands a double-team on the offensive end. He can post up, shoot threes, drive. I need to check his shooting stats. He does have a tendency to dominate the ball, but who knows whether the coaching staffs allowed that.
I don’t think he’s a poor rebounder for an SF (withouth checking stats). And on that team you have an SG who is a good rebounder and a 7’6” center, so not sure he needs to be a great rebounder on that team.
by Jax on
Aug 4, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree with Jax
My sentiments exactly. Tmac is a very good rebounder for a SF or SG. They have Scola at PF as well, plus they can play Tmac less which should increase the odds of him staying healthy for once.
Oh no! We suck again - Idiot from The Waterboy
http://ohnowesuckagain.ytmnd.com/
by ClipperChuck on
Aug 4, 2008 6:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Rockets too smart to trade Battier
Their front office is way ahead of the curve. Mark my words, in 5 years every front office will have a stats geek crunching PER. Anyways, Tmac, Ron and Shane are all capable of playing the 2, 3 and 4 depending on matchups. Artest isn’t a phenomenal rebounder but 6 rebounds a game is pretty strong for a SF. If they have him playing closer to the basket he should grab even 7 to 8 rebounds a game. He has 3 point range, is much stronger than the 3s guarding him or much quicker than the 4s trying to muscle him up. Best of all he’s on his walk year so they have alot less to risk. This is team that is old in basketball years and is taking one last calculated gamble. If it falls apart I see them blowing up the team and starting from scratch.
Oh no! We suck again - Idiot from The Waterboy
http://ohnowesuckagain.ytmnd.com/
by ClipperChuck on
Aug 4, 2008 6:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Six boards a game from the SF position
That can’t be “poor.” Average perhaps but not poor.
by Jax on
Aug 4, 2008 9:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Boards per game is an almost meaningless stat
Since players play so many varying minutes.
The fact is playing Artest minutes at the 4 will hurt them on the glass. The Kings played him at the 4 almost as much as the 3 last season. So now that less than 6 rebounds per game looks pretty poor. And now its your PF that is shooting 42.5% from the field, which is also pretty awful.
But the main point is, Chad Ford wouldn’t even take a stand on how acquiring him would affect the team. The results ranged from serious force to be reckoned with to total rebuild soon. Then he declares them winners.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 5, 2008 7:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Sure - boards per game are meaningless
The argument makes no sense. Artest is a good rebounder. If they want to put him at the 4 I suspect Adelman will recognize that he’s not a true PF and sacrifice a couple of boards for spreading the offense, etc.
The reason Ford won’t take a stand is that Artest is so unpredictable because he’s manic. Come on.
by Jax on
Aug 5, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It does make sense
The merits of per minute versus per game stats are so obvious I’m not even going to go into it.
Every board sacrificed is the equivalent of a point for the other team. Sacrificing rebounding in the name of increasing offensive efficiency is a dicey proposition, at best. Especially when the guy being sacrificed for is going to shoot his shots at 42.5%. Look at the heydey Suns. They made just that bargain. They were incredibly efficient offensively, but in the end were never able to overcome their rebounding deficiency.
Is manic a medical diagnosis? Ford does take a stand. He called the Rockets winners. Then he fails to clearly define how they won.
I think a betting man would say the Clippers win total will increase more than the Rockets win total next season, wouldn’t they? And yet the Clippers were losers and the Rockets were winners. I guess that makes sense in bizarro world.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 5, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Board per minute has no relevance unless
you are looking at someone who doesn’t play very much. Artest plays 35 mins a game. Thus, look at per game stats to see what’s more likely. And since he’s with a new team with different teammates around him you have to factor that in as well.
“Every board sacrificed is the equivalent of a point for the other team . . .” Really, John R? Maybe if you are playing one on one. The Rockets with Yao and Tracy and a couple of fair boarding PFs are not the Suns. The fact that the SF on that team doesn’t get a board doesn’t automatically mean that the other team gets the board.
I’m very surprised that John R has no idea that Artest is generally thought to be bipolar and on medication. Yes, I’m leery of pop psychology but I think we’re beyond that were Artest is concerned.
I see what you’re driving at. Yes, that would be a good bet because EB was hurt and they had no pg last year. However, Ford is probably looking at this from an different perspective – the Clippers shouldn’t have lost EB. It’s on them. Given that they’ve only been in the playoffs a couple of times in the past 20 years, yes he’s predisposed to think that this failure makes them losers. Did they rebound from that? Yes, as best as they could. Was he too harsh? Perhaps, particularly where BD is concerned (although he is historically an injury risk). And then they signed Camby (another historical injury risk) and Ricky Davis (a crapshoot at this point).
My advice – stop worrying about what Chad Ford says and start winning. Winning cures everything.
by Jax on
Aug 5, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Sure I'll get right on winning
More of these fantasies Jax? I mean, if you weren’t interested in what he had to say, why did you comment in this space? Other than the fact that I commented, which you feel requires you to comment.
Here is Artest’s numbers by position. Note the numbers for when he played PF. We see that this was for 23% of the Kings minutes last season. Note the bottom table which compares Artest’s output versus opposition. You will see that when playing PF, he gets destroyed on the boards.
Yes, Jax. Every board sacrificed is the equivalent of a point for the other team. No, not just if you are playing one on one. I know this stuff consistantly goes over your head, so I don’t know why I continue to try to help you understand, but I’ll try once more. If the defense doesn’t get the rebound, the offense gets another chance. In the NBA, every chance the offense gets, they score on average a little over a point. When a team is deficient in rebounding, over the course of a game the other team will get a few more chances than you. When you understand that each chance the other team is likely to score one or more points, the importance of rebounding will become clear. So over the course of a game, you are spotting the team a few points. When the difference in points per 100 possessions between the best and worst teams in the NBA is likewise just a few points, it should be clear why putting even an average rebounding SF and asking him to play PF will greatly hurt a team.
Replacing the 14.5% rebound rate of Scola with the 8.6% rebound rate of Artest is going to cost the Rockets. That’s such a huge difference that it will result in a few extra offensive rebounds per game for the other team, if Artest gets significant minutes at the 4. Scola shoots 51.5% from the field versus Artests 42.5% So the Rockets will become BOTH a worse rebounding team and a less efficient offensive team.
Again Jax, I don’t suspect you will ever get this, but I’ll leave it here for others if they would like to learn more.
We can go on with this lame condescending tone as long as you want. An advanced stat I would like to see is what percentage of Jax comments are replies to me or references (oblique or otherwise) to my comments, and which are completely original and independent Jax thoughts. Its that fact, not what you have to say, that consistantly leads me to call you a troll. Sometimes I share the opinions of many others on this board and sometimes I don’t, but its only to you that I attach bad intentions.
My advice – learn more.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 5, 2008 11:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
John R, I feel sorry for you that you always have to denigrate others
particularly where the basis of your “argument” is flawed. You do love to argue though.
Let’s review. Just because Artest doesn’t get a board for his team doesn’t automatically mean that someone on the opposing team got the board. I understand your rudimentary arithmetric, but I think you’ve missed the forest for the trees. No one has said that rebounding isn’t important.
They are not likely to replace Scola with Artest. Perhaps for some of the game. But he’s primarily an SF. “If Artest gets significant minutes at the 4 . . .” you say. Will he start at the 4? How many minutes will he get? Who knows. Wasted conversation.
With all due respect, I doubt you have ever played the game of basketball on a regular basis. Have you? If not, this could explain why you become so defensive when someone questions you on your total reliance on statistics to make your point.
Condescending tone? Pot kettle black. Just read your own post. You are incapable of engaging in a discussion with anyone who disagrees with you.
Troll? You seem so quick to pull the trigger on that thar word. I find people who call others out as trolls (you are the only one on this board thankfully) spend way too much time on the internet and have little in the way of social skills. Which is not surprising in your case.
by Jax on
Aug 5, 2008 11:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
And as an SF, which is Artest's primary position
I see he’d be an improvement over Battier in the rebounding department. So your entire argument is premised on the belief that he will be replacing Scola. Why do you believe that he will? Because he played some PF in Sactown? There he played PF because they didn’t have a good PF, not because he’s the ideal PF.
I take it even you'd agree that Artest is a good rebounding SF.
by Jax on
Aug 5, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I disagree about Artest's rebounding
You can read for yourself what someone who watched him everyday had to say.
He was a poor rebounder on a poor rebounding team. With no dominant rebounder around him, according you your theory, it should have been even easier to grab boards.
And the post nicely illustrates why rebounds per game is, well, ignorant.
Artest is worse than the average small forward at rebounding (as of those statistics—I don’t recall Ron getting better as the season moved along).
Again, worse than average, on an a team that rebounded poorly overall.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 6, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The namecalling
really has to stop, John R. It just makes you look worse.
by Jax on
Aug 6, 2008 1:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
LOL
“Condescending tone? Pot kettle black. Just read your own post.”
Yes this was my point. We can go there as fast as you want, though I typically wait for you, unlike vice versa.
“They are not likely to replace Scola with Artest.”
Yes, they are, if we are to believe Hollinger, et al. This is why I am speaking on it.
“Just because Artest doesn’t get a board for his team doesn’t automatically mean that someone on the opposing team got the board.”
Again, a really dumb point and dumb point of view. If you replace a good rebounder with a poor rebounder, all else being equal, your team will get less defensive rebounds. Seems obvious to most of us.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 6, 2008 1:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Sorry Jax
But John R is 100% correct here. The argument pretty much started and ended when you took the position that rebounds per game was more important than rebounds per minute. That is so 90s.
Don’t underestimate RonRon’s offensive inefficiency either. I’m sure pokey can chime in on that as well. Which is why I’m only cautiously optimistic about BDiddy (and completely pessimistic about EG).
by supac on
Aug 5, 2008 5:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I thought we were weary of crack psychology
As it were, I do think Artest is either bipolar, or, at the least, DD.
F-Elton!
by mikey p on
Aug 5, 2008 11:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Look everyone....
Our own Clip Show is famous, Ford updated his article, YOU GO CLIP SHOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Lets get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because I don't feel like carrying you." - Jack Bauer
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." - Daffy Duck
by Badd on Aug 4, 2008 1:35 PM PDT 0 recs
:P
"Lets get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because I don't feel like carrying you." - Jack Bauer
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." - Daffy Duck
by Badd on Aug 4, 2008 1:37 PM PDT 0 recs
I know, just wanted Clip Show to feel.....
Special :D
"Lets get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because I don't feel like carrying you." - Jack Bauer
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." - Daffy Duck
by Badd on
Aug 4, 2008 3:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
What.....
Baron cannot be praised and villiied 2 paragraphs apart?
But EB can be a very productive 20/10, injury prone P.O.S. in the same sentance?
Baron is one of the best PGs in the league. And, for the short term, it was a good, sign….....er ,coup by the Clips.
But there was a reason the Dubs didn’t, and wouldn’t offer Baron the deal you gave him, and that deserves being mentioned, even if it is a paragraph after praising his game.
YTou think EB is injury prone. Well, at least he cannot get labelled as unmotivated, and you guys better hope Baron doesn’t get re-labelled that.
by Dubs Dima on Aug 4, 2008 4:00 PM PDT 0 recs
Glad Baron is here
Baron Davis seems like an awesome guy, I just hope he can beat Chauncey Billups in the matchup at NBA Gauntlet. He’s losing by a bit now, and no one’s argued why he should win.
by mindfeck on
Aug 6, 2008 2:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Gilbert thinks we are a contender for the playoffs
I don’t know if that means anything but that is one more person who believes in us.
by bestclipfan on Aug 4, 2008 6:09 PM PDT 0 recs
I was surprised to see that article too
While I’m used to seeing Losers and Clippers used within the same sentence I was surprised to see it in an article about this off-season. I thought teams like the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics and Suns should be viewed as the off-season losers. They’ve either standed pat (Spurs, Suns) or watch some bench guys leave (Lakers lose Turiaf, Celtics will lose Sam I Am, PJ and Posey). We are definitely better off than we were a year ago when we lost FElton before the season started, we lost our PG of the future (Livingston). We essentially traded FElton and Maggs for B Diddy, Ricky D and Gumby plus we added a couple of talented young guys (EG and Big D). Any off season where we don’t get drastically worse is a win by Clipper standards.
Oh no! We suck again - Idiot from The Waterboy
http://ohnowesuckagain.ytmnd.com/
by ClipperChuck on Aug 4, 2008 6:51 PM PDT 0 recs
You are so right the dot, ClipperChuck. Great Analysis
by Qlippers on
Aug 4, 2008 7:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
clippersteve=good mahn
i read that chad ford article, sadly, and its complete garbage. how does that guy have a job… i mean aside from the clippers losing thing, how did he have the pacers and bucks as winners??? the pacers adding hibbert to replace oneal who didnt even average double figures in points or rebounds in his senior year at georgetown, and they got tj ford who is just as injury prone, and they lost kareem rush by far their best bench player… that guy is just dumb, hes almost as bad as ric bucher and steven A.
by althornton4president on Aug 4, 2008 11:22 PM PDT 0 recs
Another example...
of Ford’s idiocy was when he traded projections before the draft for the lottery with Bill Simmons. Outside of the top 8 (which were pretty easy to call ) he projected Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, and DeAndre Jordan as the remaining lottery choices… 2 of them didn’t go till the second round and the other barely made it in the first. Way to know your league Ford….
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624
by blowbyability on Aug 5, 2008 11:33 AM PDT 0 recs
Seemed too easy to pick on his draft skillz
Noone hyped Darko more than Ford.
Get me BD and 75 and I'm in
by John R on
Aug 5, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
up
0 recs




