The SB Nation NBA Playoff Hub
by Steve Perrin on Apr 20, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintEven though the Clippers aren't in the playoffs, you can still get your blog fix. Of course, we'll be discussing relevant issues here at Clips Nation throughout the off-season (the off-season is really the bread and butter of a blog, when the rest of the media ceases covering the team completely, although in the Clippers case it's a minor distinction). But beyond Clipper minutia, if you prefer your NBA playoffs served with lots of bloggy freshness, there's also the SB Nation Playoff hub.
The SB Nation NBA coverage has been steadily increasing all season, and with the additions of Motown String Music (the Pistons) and Silver Screen and Roll (the Lakers) just prior to the beginning of the post-season, all 16 NBA playoff teams have an SB Nation team blog at this point. If you're looking for an alternative to the same-old wire story recaps at ESPN.com or Sportsline, the Playoff hub is the place to go. There's a sidebar widget on the right of Clips Nation, so it's easy to get to the Playoff hub and even to individual posts from here.
Unfortunately, it seems that perhaps the Clipper curse is attached to the fans and not just the franchise. Just look at what happened to the Blazers in Game One after we adopted them as our playoff team. Sorry about that, Blazer's Edge. We'll start rooting for the Rockets and see if we can even out the curse effect.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
yeah...
But you can see why SBN would want to play that game. I was not familiar with the predecessor blog (not in my nature to frequent a site names RespectKobe.com) but SSR seems to be off to a strong start. It helps that Bruin/Trojan/Dodger blogs gave them a nice SBNation launch. At first I felt a little guilty about not doing a welcome post right away while I was on vacation, but realistically, how many citizens of Clips Nation are going to be regulars at SSR?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Apr 20, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Joined
it’ll be fun come GameThread time…
Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.
i think I'll take a vacation
from CN as well…I’ll browse your posts, but not read many replies, and not post much…This season just dissappointed beyond belief…i may be back by draft time (unless something BIG happens, like mdsr getting fired).
Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.
Re: the Lakers game, what a poorly called game. In the first half, everytime
the Jazz got (relatively) close to the Lakers the refs made a phantom call. I mean every time Harpring looked at Kobe they called a foul. Look, if those are fouls then Kobe commits 50 a game. And Harpring wasn’t the only one.
Here’s the problem, the Lakers are good enough to beat any team anywhere in the world on any given night. It doesn’t matter where or when. They are that good. So, what pisses me off so much, and The Reason I’m not a Laker fan, is why does the league favor them so much? They are good enough all ready to win the championship, so why all the biased calls?
No one from the West is beating the Lakers, Bank on it. Stern won’t let it happen. As for the east, it should be Cleveland. Which is exactly what the league wants.
It is a strange phenomenon...
Why the most supremely talented players should also get the benefit of officials calls has always baffled me. Wouldn’t the human tendency be to try to level the playing field some, to make the super-duper-stars work for everything they get? The NBA insists until they are blue in the face that there is no preferential treatment for superstars… but if that’s the case, why does everyone accept it as true? Every color analyst ever refers to this preferential treatment (“if you’re (insist scrub name here) you’re not going to get that call against (Kobe/LeBron/DWade, etc)”) and these are people who played in the league and coached in the league.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Apr 20, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Phenomenon not limited to NBA
Look at baseball and the differences in the strike zone. Just last year Greg Maddux (the 40+ year old former Cy Young winner) gets the call on the outside corner while Clayton Kershaw (the 20 year old) doesn’t.
by Michael White on Apr 20, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Part of it...
is that David Stern started out as league counsel in the NBA back in the bad old days…pre Magic & Bird…when NBA Finals games were tape delayed and shown at midnight and the league was seen by many main stream Americans as too black, too urban, and too out of control. Back then, fears about the league shrinking due to financial hardship was a dire possiblity.
Magic, Bird, & Jordan changed that dynamics forever, but you get the sense that to someone like Stern, who has presided over the extraordinary rise of the NBA from its near death, the success of the league still seems fragile and fleeting. More so than any other sports, the league seems anxious about its marquee markets and players (particularly after Jordan’s retirement and the Nielsen numbers plummeted before the rise of Kobe& Shaq, Wade and Lebron). Hence, rumors of the chilled Knicks envelope for Patrick Ewing and the allegations of referees being pressured to favor certain marquee teams are given some credence and not dismissed outright as loony conspiracies as in other major professional sports.
Moreover, there is alot of subjectiviy with NBA referees and double standards with regards to star players, crunch time at the end of ball games and during the playoffs that even ardent fans have a hard time figuring out why a similar transgression in the first quarter is not called in the fourth. This, and the latent suspicions about the league wanting to protect the superstars for ratings/entertainment purposes have led many announcers and fans to roll their eyes at make-up calls and even outright bias by NBA referees.
David Stern’s fierce defense of his league and his referees probably stems from his long tenure from the league’s early days. He reminds me of those millionaires who grew up during the Great Depression who scrimps and saves as if everything can be lost in an instant. Despite his successful stewardship of the league, Stern’s increasingly imperial tenure as NBA commissioner is now doing more harm than good. He should probably retire, but knowing Stern, he would rather die in that office than give up all that he has built. Part of him probably believes that the league would die with him.
by MichaelCage on Apr 20, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
+1
tim donaghy did point out that the refs are too chumy with the superstar players and it does make a difference during the game.
I guess David Stern didn’t care to look into it this past season.
Our luck the draft will be in sealed envelopes and the Clippers envelop will be marked “DO NOT PICK” a la Ewing
For the league, it would be an absolute nightmare for the Lakers to bow in the first round
A national sports radio host pointed that out this morning. Its completely taboo, but its absolutely obvious and absolutely true. Is it healthy for competition that this is true?
Why does it seem like the Yankees play the Red Sox everyday? I mean I know same division baseball teams play alot, but even when they aren’t playing the TV promos in every market are about the NEXT Yankees/Sox series, regardless of who is playing today. Is that healthy for competition?
How could anyone operate under the assumption, that at the very minimum subconsciously, people whose paychecks depend on the monolith franchises (league management, officials, refs, hell even small market GM’s) wouldn’t do anything to keep that paycheck growing?
But hasn't the nonstop Yankees/Red Sox pimping backfired?
Many of us come from a different background and for me, as a West Coast Dodger fan, I’m pretty sensitive to the East Coast bias (as I’m sure many on this board are as well.) But with ESPN constantly offering up Yankees/Red Sox (as though we all care) it has opened the door for blogs and fueled the growth of the MLB and NFL networks respectively. Of the baseball blogs I visit, most can’t stomach ESPN and the addition of the MLB Network for me has led me to consider Baseball Tonight obsolete. I think Michael Cage is right above, and its more the league’s insecurity (rather than necessity) which causes it to promote individual matchups (Kobe vs. Lebron) rather than Lakers vs. Cavs, etc.
Also, I can barely stomach the talking heads discussing which matchup is best for X league (be it NBA, MLB, or NFL.) Unless we actually believe these leagues are fixed (and if we did I don’t see the point of watching it as opposed to WWE) those types of discussions are utterly meaningless. I don’t care if the NBA takes in less money because it gets a certain matchup as opposed to a “more favorable” one. None of these leagues are going to fold as evidenced by the NBA enduring matchups of Detroit vs. San Antonio, MLB enduring White Sox vs. Astros, etc. And none of these leagues are going to stop televising the games due to poor ratings.
by Michael White on Apr 20, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Has it?
Then why haven’t they stopped?
Did the NBA stop during the two seasons the Clippers finished ahead of the Lakers in the standings?
No, because they will correct it soon enough.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
I hear your point
One would assume that the ad nauseum focus at the Worldwide Leader on all things Lakers, Yankees, Duke, Brett Farve, etc. cause the consumers to vote with their eyeballs and ESPN would be forced to respond by dropping their coverage. I believe this has happened WRT the written word. Yahoo has passed ESPN on unique web hits (though much of this has to do with the superior Yahoo Fantasy sports to be sure) and the proliferation of reactionary blogs from Kissing Suzy Kolber, to Fire Joe Morgan et. al. In addition, blogs (like this one) which are not intended on being satirical, but rather fill the void of mainstream media’s lack of coverage of certain teams (which in reality is almost all teams.) Television though hadn’t been affected yet. I’m excited by the new outlets on TV such as the NFL Network and the MLB Network which allow me to turn off the screamers over at ESPN. Also, I think TNT’s basketball coverage had already been drubbing ESPN. I think (or perhaps I just hope) we are on the brink.
by Michael White on Apr 20, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
They don't need to correct it
The Clippers do it to themselves.
Baseball is a completely different animal
What national radio host said that?
It is? I completely disagree. Entertainment is entertainment is optional.
Daniel Theodore Patrick is the answer to your question.
Sports is converging right now, just like everything else, to the lowest common denominator. Short term its a brilliant strategy, but the spoils will go to those who can survive.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
Before you disagree, you should ask why I believe the two are different
As relevant here, they are different because there is no revenue sharing in baseball. Only a few baseball teams can realistically win the championship every year.. Everyone knows it. Yes, teams with lower payrolls win once in a while, but the Yanks and Red Sox are always good. Which is why they are on TV all the time.
Last I checked...
15 different teams have won the world series in the last 20 years (well, last 20 world series since there was none in 94)…8 different teams have won the world series in the last 9 years. Maybe “everyone knows only a few teams can win” because thats what ESPN suggests with their coverage. .
Yes, that's true
Several teams with lower payrolls than the Yankees and the Red Sox have gotten to the World Series. However, only very few teams are consistently good, year after year, and that’s because only those few teams can consistently buy proven talent. Look at the Brewers last year – there was no way they could resign Sabathia.
If I were ESPN, I’d televise whatever games are guaranteed to get the highest ratings, which is apparently what it does. Hyping bad teams would make no sense.
Contrast the MLB situation with the NBA salary cap and revenue sharing. All teams, including the Clippers, and small market teams such as the Blazers, have a reasonable chance to be successful. Of course, ownership and management are still required to make good personnel and coaching decisions for the teams to be successful, and there has to be some luck in the draft. If they do not, the teams will not win (see Clippers).
Yes, the perennial champions have a built in advantage, but in the NBA that advantage is not insurmountable IMO.
An interesting topic...
Although the NBA salary cap in theory should create a more competitive environment for all teams, in practice (at least as measured by championships) MLB has more balance. A lot more, even with the Yankees.
The Portland small market example is dubious however. Yes, Portland is a small market, but their owner has deep pockets and this is one of three teams that has been willing to work above the luxury tax consistently for years (Dallas and New York being the other two). So from a $$ standpoint, Portland is much closer to the Yankees than the Brewers. The Spurs are the small market team that has won rings AND kept the payroll down over time.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Apr 21, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
As noted below, I'm not measuring success by championships
Rather by competitive record year after year.
Good point about the Blazers.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 21, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay
Basically in terms of a cost per win ratio, the Blazers have the best ratio (defined as lowest cost per win.) Not too suprising since they are getting production from players still under their rookie contracts. But the pendulum will swing on that.
And IIRC Sabonis, when I challenged you before that the Blazers window would be closing sooner than later since guys like Roy and LMA are due for considerable raises in the near future, you responsed that Paul Allen is a zillionaire and is committed to fielding the best team possible regardless of the costs involved. Therefore, SP’s original point stands. The Blazers are more like the Yankees than the Brewers.
by Michael White on Apr 21, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't arguing your point.
Just saying that they are doing it without spending money right now.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 21, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
your the point
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 21, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps you could argue that the NBA has more of a middle class structure, whereas baseball has a great disparity between the rich and the poor. That being said, the richest team in baseball has not won in 8 years, and like I said previously, 8 different champions in 9 years. The NBA on the opther hand is consistently dominated by a handful of teams. The lakers and Spurs have dominated the last decade. The Chicago Bulls dominated the 90’s. The Lakers and Celtics dominated the 80’s. Only 10 teams have won an NBA championship in the last 30 years. Going into this NBA season, I think most knowledgeable basketball fans would have said that the Lakers, Cavs and Celtics were the only real contenders for a title. The Magic, the Spurs and maybe 1 or two other teams had a shot if they could get lucky. In baseball on the other hand, The dodgers, Red sox, yankees, marlins, rays, angels cubs, philies…no teams really stand out above the others. Pitching is the great equalizer in baseball, and there are always young kids coming up that even smaller market teams can get their hands on.
Maybe we're arguing two different things
I’m not basing my opinion on which teams actually win the championships, but rather on which teams are consistently competitive. I think that the teams that are able to land the true superstar will likely win it all (I think Detroit would be the only modern example of a team without a superstar winning it all in the last two decades). Because you generally cannot control who gets the superstars, you really have to do what you can to be competitive. And that the individual teams can control.
Of the baseball teams you mentioned, five or six of the eight are from large markets and have lots of money at their disposal. The others have done well based primarily on good management and luck. Their stars were not proven vets like the players bought by the big market teams.
But the "proven vet" model
You mention regarding the Yankees has been a disaster. They won in the late 90’s with role players sprinkled in with superstars who came up through their system (like Jeter.) SInce they decided to try and “buy” championships they have brought in Gary Sheffield, Alex Rodriguez, Hideki Matsui, Jason Giambi, Mike Mussina and that has bought them exactly 0 championships. Most notably this offseason they brought in CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett and Mark Texiera—- and I still think the Rays are the better team.
I think we are getting off topic probably at this point, but I do think it is an interesting conversation (even though this post did not even reference basketball at all—my bad.)
by Michael White on Apr 21, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
lololol
ur thinking too much just watch da fucking game and quit complaining… u also forgot to mention 2nd half when da lakers were in penalty like early in da quarter… gasol/bynum/odom/fisher were in foul trouble…. nobody is favoring anybody… they are arguably da best team… n they get all da attention… n thats just how it is
Hey no problem, I appreciate a homer as much as the next guy,
but to say the league doesn’t favor the Lakers is rediculous. I’d have to look up the stats and can if you like, but didn’t Fischer basically tackle Parker last year? Didn’t the Lakers get some huge favoritism in 2001 game 7 vs. Portland ? What happened in Sacramento in 2002? Oh yeah, that was 27 free throws in the 4th quarter. What a crime.
Then Kobe handchecks and fouls (if he really has to guard someone) dozens of times a game. It’s like watching a boxer throw forearms and slaps. I know that’s just good defense. But the Jazz look at Kobe wrong – foul.
O.k. homer, keep believing the Lakers don’t get favored, hang out with your buddies that agree with you. Everyone else in the league disagrees.
Perhaps we are arguing different points...
And we have definitley gotten off topic, but its one I am enjoying lol. I agree that teams with deeper pockets have a competitive advantage, but I think good management trumps deep pockets. The dodgers certainly had deep pockets when they were owned by Murdoch, but nothing came of it. When you have both, you are going to be hard to beat. The Lakers certainly have deep pockets, but they didnt buy Kobe Bryant (at least not initially), they made a smart move on draft day when they traded Vlade to the hornets for the 13 pick. Keeping good players around long term is where smaller market teams (particularly in baseball) have a problem. To Jax point, I would argue that bigger market teams typically have an advantage in luring free agents (many players would rather play in New York or Los Angeles vs Utah). But again, teams still ahve to make good investments that make sense for their team or it is a waste of time (as was the case with the Knciks during Isiahs tenure).
To Clarify...
The Lakers did not necessarily make that trade on draft day themselves…rather it was Kobe telling the Charlotte that he was only going to play for the Lakers, and that was it. There was no way he was going to play for Charlotte (ala John Elway and more recently Eli Manning). Kobe forced that trade, plain and simple. If memory serves, Kobe even said so BEFORE the draft. So in essence, the Lakers did buy Kobe. I just wanted to clarify that point. In essence, the Lakers were handed Kobe, almost in the same manner that they were given Pau.
Do or do not. There is no try.
See the post
below by johnnyoc21. Also, Kobe’s wikipedia page mentions some of this, although its tough to trust that source. If you want more I can always search the internet more. Most of what I recall comes straight from memory.
Do or do not. There is no try.
True...
But it wasn’t as though Kobe was Lebron James. He was a high school kid who fell to the 13th pick in the lottery. Officially, Kobe only demanded that he be traded, not specifically to the Lakers (although, admittedly, it has been said that his agent told teams he would be playing for the Lakers). Charlotte agreed to trade him in part because they already had Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, and Kendall Gill on the wings. Charlotte was looking for size in that draft, and it wasn’t happening (The players they wanted, Todd Fuller and Vitaly Potapenko, were drafted in the 2 spots before Kobe). . As such, Charlotte essentially picked for the Lakers in the 13 spot. Kobe’s agent used the trade demand strategy to scare off other teams knowing the Lakers wanted Kobe, and it worked. Jerry West offered Charlotte what they were looking for in exchange for Kobe, who they (charlotte) didn’t need. Jerry West definitely saw the potential Kobe had and jumped on the chance. On draft day, no one thought the hornets and been ripped off and their franchise was ruined. They used the draft to get the type of player they thought they needed.
In my opinion, good management got the Lakers Kobe Bryant.
Thanks
for all the details. I don’t always remember all of the specifics.
I think you might be giving the Laker management a little too much credit though. They really didn’t have to do much to get him. From what I remember, Kobe said he would not play for any other team aside from the the Lakers, so don’t draft me. That is why he fell so much…or as you put it, scared other teams off. Yes, Kobe was a teenager at the time…yes Kobe was a punk back then (same as now if you ask me)…and yes, it was a shrewd move on the Lakers part to go and get him. But I am not willing to give their management all the credit. Every team in the league knew Kobe was good…really good for that matter. I am just not a big fan of people coming into the league (or any professional sport for that matter), and demanding to play one specific team. I guess that is when my hatred of Kobe started.
And to top it all off, the Lakers had just signed Shaq, so trading Vlade was inevitable, and getting the rights to Kobe was a no-brainer at that point.
I think you and I agree on most of what transgressed in all of this. I just contend that if it were any other team in the league that Kobe “demanded” to play for, they would have done the same. Thats all. No real stroke of genius by Laker management. More good luck if you ask me.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Give West a lot of credit...
To say that Kobe wasn’t LeBron is a little misleading. If that draft happens in 2004, Kobe goes number 1 or possibly second behind Iverson. But 1996 was a different time regarding HS players – Kevin Garnett, drafted in 1995, averaged 28 minutes and 10 points his rookie season. LeBron averaged 39 minutes and 21 points his rookie season.
But West knew – without a doubt, knew – that Kobe was going to be truly great. I remember him talking about Kobe the whole off-season, saying he might be the best player ever, when the guy had yet to play a game.
The advantage the Lakers have is that they’re the Lakers, and it manifested itself every way imaginable that summer. But Jerry West was also very, very smart.
They were one of the first teams to really jump through hoops to clear cap space – trading George Lynch and Anthony Peeler for nothing, renouncing their rights to 6 or 7 other guys (and this is from a team that won 53 games!) – to accumulate enough money to make a serious offer to Shaq. BUT… here’s the thing…. another team could do that and Shaq might say ‘No thanks’. When you’re the Lakers, you have a certain level of confidence that your offers will be accepted. So Shaq comes to town, Kobe always wanted to come to town… and a 53 win team turns over 75% of the roster and lays the foundation for multiple championships.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Apr 22, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I didn't mean...
to belittle Laker’s management or what they did. They did their work that summer, especially with the Shaq deal, and reaped the benefits with 3 championships. I would argue though that the team they had prior to getting Shaq, then Kobe was really at its peak with 53 wins, and wasn’t in the upper echelon of the league (especially after being dispatched in the first round of the playoffs). They needed to do something to get over the top, and that is exactly what they did, by blowing up the team and starting over with the acquisition of Shaq, then Kobe.
All I really wanted to point out was that Kobe pretty much explicitly said I am only playing for the Lakers, and that’s it. In that sense, it was all too easy for the Lakers to acquire him. Granted, they recognized the talent, and jumped at the opportunity. But don’t you think any other team would do the same? I don’t know, you make a good point about the way they treated high school kids back then, but I would like to think so. Like you say, they are the Lakers, and normal rules don’t apply to them. There is the mystique and the history and the “showtime”.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Very true....
and I believe everything stems from Sterling’s initial mentality of not giving a crap about the team and just trying to make money. He has dug a huge emotional and psychological hole for this franchise. The first step in recovery is to change the culture, but it doesn’t appear as if DTS is willing or able to do that any time in the near future. I guess he did “try” to change by actually spending money these past few years, but I don’t think he is as dedicated to the process as he should be. Obviously the initial domino in all of this is to fire MDsr. If it hasn’t happened by now, I have my doubts about it happening any time sooner than next years all star game, which will again be too little too late. We shall see.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Nah
It’s our fault. We just got shell shocked.
"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Hamed Haddadi goes to the zoo
- David Stern changed the competition committee to push new rules, report says
- Nazr Mohammed films Oklahoma City Thunder fans welcoming the team back at 5:30 in the morning (VIDEO)
- The Orlando Magic finally part ways with both Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
