Bleacher Report - Articles by Gaz V

The NBA's Best: By The Numbers, Part 1

Gaz V — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:39:57 -0400

A fellow Bleacher Report contributor recently invited me to read an article he wrote concerning a tradition he has recently initiated to celebrate each of his son's birthdays. Each year, his boy will receive a jersey bearing the retired number of one of baseball's all-time greats that matches his current age. Read here: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/181054-the-best-retired-numbers-in-baseball-1-9. Inspired by his list, I created my own for the NBA. Here, you will find my thoughts on who represents the best NBA player -- past or current -- to ever don a specific uniform number, ranging from 00 (Robert Parish) to 50 (David Robinson). Where the choice has been a tough one, I have given an 'honorable mention' to those players who come close, but ultimately fail to represent the best player to ever wear their number. Karl Malone and Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, both fall short of Magic Johnson as the best NBA player to wear number 32, yet their still warrant recognition for their accomplishments in that uniform. For players who have worn more than one uniform number during their careers, I have limited their eligibility to the number they wore the most. That means, for example, that Kobe Bryant is only eligible for uniform number 8, even though he has worn number 24 for the past few years. One other disclaimer before we begin: Due to the limited numbers players to wear a uniform number in the ranges 26-29, 36-39 and 46-49 inclusive, I have not provided an entry here, even though their may be an obvious choice. Andrei Kirilenko probably has a lock on number 47 given his nickname (i.e. AK-47) and Russian origins, but he falls in one of those relatively non-competitive ranges that will not be considered here. [Incidentally, for those who may not know, basketball officials have historically resisted the desire by players to choose numbers ending with anything greater than five. Simply put, signaling the number of a player to the scorer's table is more difficult to achieve when you need both hands to indicate the number]. Without further delay, I hope you enjoy Part 1 the show, which will cover the range of numbers from 00 through 10.

Begin Slideshow

The NBA's Best: By Height

Gaz V — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:21:12 -0400

We’ve all read articles that talk about the best players of all time, the best players to ever play a certain position, the best players to never win a championship, the best players to never win an MVP award, the best players to wear a (insert team name here) uniform, and the like.

What I have yet to see, however, is an article that examines the best players of specific heights. This is somewhat surprising to me, particularly since the defining feature of a basketball player is height. Ask any 8-year-old to describe a professional basketball player and the most common response you'll hear is "tall."

But does bigger always mean better? Are the taller players necessarily the better ones?

Was Manute Bol, who stood 7'7" tall, the best player to ever play an NBA game? Of course not! But was Manute the best player of his height to ever play an NBA game?

Given that only two players in the history of the NBA were listed at that height (Manute and Gheorghe Muresan), the answer may be yes.

Who was the best NBA player to ever stand 5’9” tall: Nate Robinson or Calvin Murphy?

This one is not so easy, since we’re comparing two very talented athletes. I stuck with Calvin, but may change my opinion in a few years once Nate has had a greater opportunity to prove himself.

If you think these are hard to decide, wait until you choose a height which boasts a talent pool so deep that you’ll have trouble narrowing it down to your best three.

Here are the criteria I used in making the list:

(1) Player height used will be that which is listed on NBA.com (other sources may provide conflicting data);

(2) Only the player's NBA career will be considered (we’re not counting what they did in college or international leagues); and

(3) Only one best player for each listed height will be selected.*

*For the height of 6'9", I had to break this rule by listing both Bird and Magic. They were inseparable during their careers, so I think we can let this one slide.

Anyway, without further ado, here is the list. The main competitor(s) at each height are listed in parentheses (maximum of three). Feel free to make corrections or suggest alternatives. Thanks for reading.

7’7” Manute Bol (Gheorghe Muresan only)
7’6” Yao Ming (Shawn Bradley only)
7’5” Chuck Nevitt (Slavko Vranes only)
7’4” Mark Eaton (Rik Smits, Ralph Sampson)
7’3” Zydrunas Ilgauskas (Arvydas Sabonis)
7’2” Kareem Abdul Jabbar (Dikembe Mutombo, Artis Gilmore)
7’1” Wilt Chamberlain (David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Robert Parish)
7’0” Hakeem Olajuwan (Dirk Nowitzki, Patrick Ewing)
6’11” Tim Duncan (Bill Walton, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard)
6’10” Bill Russell (Moses Malone, George Mikan, Alonzo Mourning)
6’9” Larry Bird/Magic Johnson (Karl Malone, James Worthy)
6’8” Lebron James (Dominique Wilkins, Grant Hill, Scottie Pippen)
6’7” Julius Erving (Clyde Drexler, Alex English, George Gervin)
6’6” Michael Jordan (Kobe Bryant, Charles Barkley, Manu Ginobili)
6’5” Oscar Robertson (Elgin Baylor, Adrian Dantley, John Havlicek)
6’4” Dwayne Wade (Walt Frazier, Jeff Hornacek, Jason Kidd)
6’3” Earl Monroe (Deron Williams, Sidney Moncrief, Steve Nash)
6’2” Jerry West (Tony Parker, Stephon Marbury)
6’1” Bob Cousy (Nate Archibald, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas)
6’0” Chris Paul (Allen Iverson, Tim Hardaway)
5’11” Avery Johnson (Terrell Brandon)
5’10” Damon Stoudamire (Michael Adams)
5’9” Calvin Murphy (Nate Robinson)
5’8” Charlie Criss (no competition; thanks to Paul Augustin)
5’7” Spud Webb (no competition)
5’6” (none found)
5’5” Earl Boykins (no competition)
5’4” (none found)
5’3” Muggsy Bogues (no competition)

Play of Perkins Powers the Pursuit of Perfection

Gaz V — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:03:58 -0500

With a record-breaking 27-2 start to this NBA season, the Boston Celtics have arguably improved as a team since last year's championship run. According to many preseason pundits, however, James Posey's signing with the New Orleans Hornets in the offseason represented the loss of a vital cog in the well-tuned Green Machine. Many, in fact, predicted a significant downturn in the fortune of the Celtics.

With the rapid improvement of Rajon Rondo, who many now place among the premier point guards in the East; the resurgence of Ray Allen, who has found his rhythm within the Celtics offensive sets; and the continued improvement of bench players like Leon Powe and Tony Allen (who now looks fully recovered from his 2007 knee surgery), the Celtics appear to have more than covered the loss of Posey.

In breaking the team record for consecutive wins with No. 19 tonight, the Celtics owe no small part of their improvement to the development of Kendrick Perkins, a player whose accomplishments are often overlooked on this star-studded team.

Over the past 10 games, Perkins has quietly averaged a double-double in points and rebounds. In that span, Perk has more than doubled his career scoring average of 5.1 points per game by contributing nearly 13 points per night. His rebounding over the same stretch, at 10.2 boards per contest, has also nearly doubled his career average of 5.3 rebounds per game.

Perhaps more importantly, Perkins has established himself as an intimidating presence in the paint on the defensive end. Averaging nearly two blocks per game and amassing the fourth most blocks in the NBA so far this season, Kendrick has bolstered a defense that already boasts Kevin Garnett, the reigning Defensive Player of the Year, and Rajon Rondo, who has the second most steals in the NBA this season, trailing only Chris Paul by three.

How much more can Perkins improve? Although he now has five NBA seasons to his credit, we have to remember that Kendrick was a very raw talent when he was drafted straight out of high school. Having recently celebrated his 24th birthday, Perkins' best years should still be ahead of him.

Most insiders, including coach Doc Rivers, suggest that Kendrick's rapid improvement this past year has been due to two main factors: (1) the presence and influence of Kevin Garnett, who was traded to the Celtics in July 2007; and (2) the tutelage of Clifford Ray, who joined the Celtics as an assistant coach in May 2006.

Given that both men will likely remain with Boston for at least the next year, we should expect to see the very real potential of a "Big Five" if both Rondo and Perkins continue to build on this breakout season.

Is Mr. Clutch Losing His Touch?

Gaz V — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:29:35 -0500

For the second night in a row, the Los Angeles Lakers—a team frequently labeled the “best team” in the Western Conference—had possession of the ball, time on the clock, and the opportunity to make the tying basket to send a game to overtime against an Eastern Conference rival.

Against the Miami Heat on Friday night, the Lakers trailed by just two points when they called a timeout with six seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. After Phil Jackson drew up the play, no one was surprised to see it reach the hands of Kobe Bryant, the player known as “Mr. Clutch” by his adoring fans.

Bryant caught the ball near center court off a Lamar Odom inbounds pass, temporarily dribbled past his immediate defender using a high pick set by Gasol, then reached the left elbow where he forced a fadeaway jumper over the outstretched arms of Shawn Marion.

The ball bounced around the rim and popped out just as time expired, leaving one to wonder whether either Odom or Vujacic—who were both wide-open beyond the arc for a kick-out pass that never arrived—could have made the game-winning shot.

Against the Orlando Magic tonight, the Lakers again found themselves with the ball at half court, time on the clock (three seconds), and the opportunity to force overtime with a clutch three-pointer.

Who does Phil Jackson rely on to knock down the money shot? Yes, you guessed it, “Mr. Clutch” himself. Again, Bryant gets the ball, forces up a tough shot with a defender in his face, and misses the one that mattered most.

Two straight opportunities to send the game to overtime. Two straight opportunities for “Mr. Clutch” to earn his nickname. Two straight opportunities where “Mr. Clutch” performed more like “Mr. Choke.”

Do Kobe and Company Need Viagra To Avoid Going Soft?

Gaz V — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:45:27 -0500

In the process of being humiliated in last year's Finals against the Celtics, the Los Angeles Lakers were commonly criticized for being too soft on the defensive end.

Indeed, it seemed at times as if Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom were vying with one another for the all-time record of fewest personal fouls committed in a Finals series.

Every time a Celtics player drove the lane, the Lakers' bigs would kindly step aside to allow an unhindered path to the basket. This practice enabled the Celtics to set two new records for the Finals: their come-from-24-points-behind win in Los Angeles in Game Four and their series-clinching 39-point victory in Game Six.

Full credit goes to Phil Jackson and his Lakers team, however. They have learned the hard lessons from such an embarrassing show. All the talk out of Lakerland over the past few months has centered on the well-known mantra of successful teams: "Defense wins championships."

In fact, the Lakers started the season by not only talking the talk, but also walking the walk. Over the first couple weeks of the season, the Lakers led the league in the one statistical category that perhaps most accurately reflects the effectiveness of a team's defensive efforts: opposition field goal percentage.

Having Andrew Bynum back in the lineup has certainly helped in this regard, especially with his shot-blocking and shot-altering prowess. In watching last night's game against the Mavericks, though, it's clear that the Lakers still have some work to do.

As a team, the Lakers were VERY slow to close out on three-point shot attempts. With so many wide-open looks, I'm surprised that the Mavericks shot ONLY 44.8 percent from beyond the arc.

The Lakers did tighten things up somewhat in the second half, but they still allowed Dallas to shoot more than 51 percent from the field for the entire game. When you consider that the Lakers team committed just eight (yes, only eight!) fouls for the entire game, one word starts springing to mind when discussing their defensive efforts: Soft.

If last night's game was a rare occurrence, then we could write this off as an anomaly. After all, the Lakers still won the game. If we look at recent trends, however, then a worrying pattern emerges.

Over their past 10 games, the Lakers (9-1 during that stretch) have allowed their opponents to shoot nearly 45 percent from the field, while they have shot around 47 percent from the field themselves. That narrow differential is about average for teams above .500 in the league.

For comparative purposes, let's look at the figures for the two teams with the best records in the East. The Celtics, with a 15-2 record (also 9-1 over their last ten), have knocked down more than 48% of their shots over their past ten games while allowing their opponents to make just over 42% of theirs, yielding a 6% differential.

The Cavaliers, who have a 13-3 record (also 9-1 over their past ten games), have made nearly 50% of their shots while restricting their opponents to making a shade over 42% of theirs. Their nearly 8% differential is the best in the league over that ten games stretch and underscores how well Cleveland has been playing defense.

Sure, Los Angeles is still winning games, but how long can that continue if their defensive efforts slide even further? It's hardly surprising that their only loss of the season (at home, nonetheless) was against one of the physical powerhouses from the East: the Pistons. How will this Lakers unit handle the even more physical play from Cleveland and Boston?

Unless Phil can stiffen up his teams' rapidly softening defense, then the Lakers may soon find themselves limping their way to an early playoff exit at season's end.

Green Machine Ready To Roll

Gaz V — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:36:54 -0500

The Boston Celtics currently sit atop the Eastern Conference, having played more games than any other team in the NBA. With nine victories from 11 starts, Boston has thus far won two more games than the hapless Washington Wizards have even played. No other team has played more games to this point in the season.

The Celtics have already survived the toughest part of their regular season schedule. Boston has just finished playing 8 games in 12 nights, a series that veteran Ray Allen said was the “toughest stretch” he has ever endured in his 14-year NBA career.

How did the Celtics fare?

On paper they did reasonably well by winning 7 of those 8 contests, including victories over some of their strongest rivals in the East including the Pistons, the Raptors, and the previously undefeated Hawks.

In each of those games, however, the starting unit for the Celtics showed serious signs of rust during the first quarters, allowing their opponents to jump out to early double-digit leads. It was the second unit, led by Tony Allen, Eddie House, Leon Powe, and Glen Davis, that often closed the gap and set the stage for the rested starters to finish things off in the second half.

Rather than seeing this as a sign of weakness, the rest of the league should be very concerned. Unlike last season, when the starting unit played big minutes together in the pre-season in order to adjust to each other’s games, the ‘Big Three’ saw very little playing time before this season actually began. They are rusty because they have not played competitive basketball since the NBA Finals.

Now, with the hardest part of their schedule behind them and a Conference-leading record to boot, the Celtics starters will have greater opportunities to rest and practice between games. Any lingering rust will be worked out, and the starting unit will soon find its groove again. Watch out, because the Green Machine will soon be running on all cylinders again.

If Kobe Is Mr. Clutch, Then Who Is Paul Pierce?

Gaz V — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:48:26 -0500

I read an article here on Bleacher Report a little over a week ago in which the author claimed that Kobe Bryant should rightly be considered Mr. Clutch, based on his recent fourth-quarter performance against the Nuggets.

In that game, claimed the author, Kobe "stood up from the bench and took off his sweats. Enter Mr. Clutch. In the corner beyond the arc and tightly guarded, his sights locked on the basket, Bryant went to work".

With "the Lakers look[ing] certain to suffer their first loss of the season with eight minutes remaining" (actually, the Lakers led the game with eight minutes to go, but let's overlook that slight distortion of the truth since it undermines the myth of Kobe's alleged greatness), Bryant proceeded to grab two rebounds and score fourteen points, shooting four of eight from the field (including one three-pointer) and five of six from the free-throw line.

In Kobe's time on the court, the Lakers turned a two-point lead into a seven-point victory. That's a five-point difference, for those of you keeping score at home.

Of course, that's a huge improvement over Bryant's performance in last year's Finals, where he went missing in the second half of game four, as the Celtics erased a 24-point deficit to post a record-breaking come-from-behind win in LA.

The fourth quarter in the Nuggets game also eclipsed Bryant's performance in the "win or go home" Game Six in Boston, where the Lakers were pounded by a record 39-point margin. Yes, Mr. Clutch.

Now, let's look at what Paul Pierce did last night. If Bryant's fourth quarter performance in the recent Nuggets game is further evidence that Kobe is Mr. Clutch, then what should we make of Pierce's performance in the fourth quarter against the Raptors last night?

The Celtics trailed by eight points to start the quarter (which Pierce played from start to finish), but ended up winning by seven. That's a fifteen-point turnaround, for those of you keeping score at home.

Individually, Pierce scored 22 points in the quarter, making seven of nine shots (including both of his three-point shot attempts) from the field, and six of seven free throws. Pierce also picked up three rebounds, dished out two assists, and had one turnover.

The Celtics were playing the second game of a tough back-to-back, as they had just returned from their victory over the Pistons in Detroit the previous evening. The Lakers played the Nuggets after a two-day break.

I will not be so bold as to claim that Paul Pierce is better than "Mr. Clutch." Nor will I perpetuate any myth about his achievements. Instead, I will let the numbers tell the truth about the Truth.

UPDATE, 12 November 2008, 10:27pm:

After the Celtics erase a 16-point deficit against the previously unbeaten Hawks, Pierce knocks down a last-second, game-winning shot to propel Boston to a one-point (103-102) victory over Atlanta. Pierce's statline: 34 points on 8 of 14 field goal shooting; 15 of 16 (5 of 5 in the fourth quarter) free throw shooting. Paul Pierce, the new Mr. Clutch?

Is the NBA's East the New Beast?

Gaz V — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:31:42 -0500

It was a common criticism of the Celtics last year to suggest that they owed their spectacular regular season record, in part, to the relative weakness of the competition they faced in the Eastern Conference, despite the fact that they boasted a better winning percentage against teams from the Western Conference. In addition, they ended the Rockets' surprising 22-game win streak, and emerged with an impressive three wins from the 'Texas Triangle' road trip.

When Boston took seven games to dispatch an inexperienced Hawks team in the first round of the playoffs, many observers were also quick to suggest that the Celtics were not true title contenders. If they struggled to eliminate a supposedly weak Eastern Conference rival, which posted a comparatively poor regular season record, how could the Celtics possibly win a series against whatever powerhouse emerged as the champions of the West? Few gave the Hawks or the Celtics the credit they deserved for being strong, competitive teams.

Even when the Celtics survived two more close, physically and emotionally draining series against Cleveland and then Detroit to emerge as Eastern Conference champions, most commentators still gave them inadequate respect.

The popular perception was that the Celtics, who barely made it past three "weak" Eastern Conference foes, would lose in resounding fashion to the seemingly invincible Lakers, who cruised through the "tough" Western Conference. Many commentators predicted a 4-1 or 4-0 Lakers victory in the series. We all know how accurate those predictions proved to be.

A quick glance at the current standings for this regular season suggests that the East may emerge as the "stronger" conference this year. Currently, no team in top eight of the East has a record below .600, whereas three top eight teams in the West—Memphis, Denver, and Dallas have records of .500 or below.

At the other end of the spectrum, only one team in the East—Washington—has won fewer than a quarter of its games. In the West, four teams, including Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Minnesota, and the LA Clippers have won fewer than a quarter of their games.

Yes, it is still early days, but a series of high draft picks and superstar trades during the past few months have arguably made a number of teams in the East significantly more potent, including Chicago (Derrick Rose), Miami (Michael Beasley), Cleveland (Mo Williams), Toronto (Jermaine O'Neal), Philadelphia (Elton Brand), and more recently the Pistons (Allen Iverson).

Moreover, the continued improvement of teams like Atlanta, which is currently undefeated, will make the Eastern Conference a much more difficult place to visit for Western Conference teams.

Will we see a reversal of fortunes between the Eastern and Western Conferences this year? Early signs suggest the case, but such predictions like a Lakers sweep of last year's Finals are notoriously wrong.

UPDATE: 17 November 2008

With another week of the season behind us, the East is still looking like the tougher conference. The Western Conference currently has five teams (the Mavericks, Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Thunder, and Clippers) which have won fewer than one-third of their games. The Eastern Conference, by contrast, has just one team (the Wizards) in that category.

At the top end of the scale, the Western Conference has just two teams which have won 70% or more of their games (the Lakers and Suns), while the Eastern Conference has four teams which have done so (the Celtics, Cavaliers, Magic, and Pistons).

Furthermore, three teams which currently sit outside the Top 8 in the Eastern Conference (the 76ers, Bulls, and Bucks) would find themselves a place in the current Top 8 in the Western Conference, based on winning percentage.

Team USA Basketball: Yet Another Dream Team Versus Redeem Team Article

Gaz V — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:51:39 -0400

I think it's great that the play of the so-called Redeem Team has brought so much joy to so many people. At the same time, too many commentators seem to be downplaying the achievements of the Dream Team and the quality of the players who competed in that era.

Currently, there are at least five articles on B/R written in the past week which suggest that the current US Team is better than the '92 edition. Such comments typically come from those who never actually saw the members of the original Dream Team in their prime. They might have caught them in the odd "ESPN Classic" game, but such B/R members have a very limited sense of how basketball was played at the NBA level in the 1980s and 1990s.

I have read statements that suggest that the Dream Team played "mostly patsy teams" back in 1992, which supposedly accounts for why Jordan and company enjoyed such a large average margin of victory back then. While I agree that the level of international competition has improved, there were still "patsy teams" that survived even the pool stage of this Olympic tournament.

Australia, for example, has only one bona fide NBA player in Andrew Bogut, who at best would be lucky to be considered among the Top 15 centers in the NBA today. When the Dream Team played Australia in '92, the Australian team had two members who played stints in the NBA (Andrew Gaze and Shane Heal). At the time, it was MUCH harder for international players to break into the league.

Quite frankly, I'm really surprised the Redeem Team allowed Spain to remain so close. Although the Spanish team is comprised of some NBA players, none of them can seriously be considered the best on their respective NBA teams, let alone among the best in the NBA. None are perennial All-Stars. Gasol "earned" his surprise selection to his lone All-Star appearance as a replacement.

In light of that, I ask myself why the "best" from America cannot soundly beat—i.e. by 25-plus points—what is essentially a Spanish team of four average NBA players and a mix of Euroleague and "amateur" players?

Yes, the international competition has improved, but I think at the same time the quality of talent on the US Team has slipped since '92. Overall, in fact, I think that while NBA players are more athletic today than they were in the past, they are also much less skilled—especially in fundamentals.

Athleticism allowed the Redeem Team to score most of their points on fast-break dunks off turnovers, but the lack of fundamental skills—such as screening, off-the-ball movement, and low-post moves—meant that they often struggled in half-court offensive sets in most of the games they played.

Today's stars may play some very impressive games, but they also play some rather poor ones. Ask yourself: Would Larry Bird have gone 1-15 from three-point range like Bryant did in the first two games of the Olympics? Would Magic Johnson have turned the ball over 12 times like James did against the Celtics in their first two games of this year's Boston-Cleveland playoff series?

Too many of today's top NBA players rely far more on athleticism than skill. The classic antithesis of the current NBA prototype is a player like Larry Bird, who at 6'9" could barely dunk the ball—but still managed to post numbers that would be the envy of any player in the NBA today. Check out his career stats, then look particularly at the numbers he posted in his prime (1984-88).

Compare Bird's shooting percentages (52.7% FG, 41.4% 3P-FG, 91.6% FT) for the 1987-88 season — a year that Bird did not win the MVP award — with the best season from any current NBA player who you may think is better. Realize that Bird also averaged nearly 30 points, 10 rebounds, six assists, two steals and one block per game that same season.

How does your favorite player from today stack up? Now, remind yourself again that Bird was relatively slow and could barely dunk. Fundamentals, people, fundamentals.

With so many of today's stars having skipped the college route on the way to the NBA—James, Howard, Bryant—they missed out on the 2-4 years of college coaching which players from the early 1980s through mid-1990s enjoyed.

College coaching was—and in some programs, still is—dramatically different to NBA coaching. At the collegiate level, there was/is a much greater emphasis on refining the fundamentals of one's game—shooting, passing, rebounding, dribbling, defensive positioning, movement without the ball, and screening.

When Olympic commentators questioned why the Redeem Team often struggled to prevent their opponents from getting easy offensive rebounds, struggled to score in half-court sets, struggled to score against zone defenses, the answer was always the same in my mind—a lack of fundamental skills.

In the open court, against man-to-man defenses, the US players had no problems employing their superior athleticism to gain a scoreboard advantage. When facing team (zone) defenses, however, they often struggled to score on three or four consecutive possessions.

So, even though we may celebrate the athletic superiority of our US Team, we should mourn the loss of our superiority in the fundamentals of the game. International teams have shown us in recent Olympic and World Championship competitions that superior athleticism is rarely enough to guarantee victory.

Achieving Celtics Immortality: Will No. 5 Hang From The Rafters?

Gaz V — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:52:53 -0400

A close friend and I were joking the other day that the Celtics cannot afford to retire too many more jersey numbers without creating the need to start using three digit numbers.

Paul Pierce's No. 34 was our consensus choice for the next number to hang from the rafters in the Garden, but we debated about whose might follow.

I suggested that Kevin Garnett's No. 5 was a possibility if he can somehow bring two more championship banners to Boston over the next three years.

My friend rightfully pointed out that this was highly unlikely, but it raised an interesting question of whether or not KG would deserve the honor if he somehow managed to secure banners 18 and 19.

I argued that KG would be a lock for having his number retired in such circumstances, but my friend insisted that he would need to play more than four years as a Celtic to warrant the honor.

Are four years too few?

The Celtics have retired the numbers of two players— Ed Macauley (No. 22) and Reggie Lewis (No. 35)— who each played for just six seasons.

Interestingly, neither of them played on a championship team.

If KG plays just four seasons in green but brings home the bacon three times during that span, shouldn't he have his No. 5 retired?

If so, then what about Ray Allen's No. 20 if he also plays on those hypothetical championship teams?

What do you think?

What criteria should the Celtics or any other NBA team use as the basis for retiring a number?

Who will follow Pierce for the Celtics?

Does KG have a chance?

Who Cares? The NBA Cares, That's Who! Part 1

Gaz V — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:17:50 -0400

In this, the first of two articles on how the 'NBA Cares', I look at some specific ways in which the organization and its personnel live up to its current slogan. I hope you enjoy it.

The NBA Cares for the Global Economy

Michael Jordan. MJ. His Airness. This man has done more to support the economies of the developing world than any player in the history of the NBA. He set the standard of how the NBA Cares for the global economy.

Through his endorsements of such companies as Nike and Hanes, both of which employ child labor at about eight cents per hour to make their fabulous products, MJ has encouraged generations of children across the world to forsake school and head straight to work. I want to be like Mike!

Now some in the “artsy fartsy” crowd will claim that sending children to work in factories rather than to school is a “bad” thing. Get over it, losers! Every player in the NBA has proven that you don’t need an education to become a multi-millionaire. Ha!

As long as you can contribute to society in a meaningful way, like blowing out a candle on a cupcake at rim level while dunking, then you will always have people around you who can “help” you pass those pesky SATs on your sixth try.

The NBA Cares for Communities

No event in recent memory better demonstrates just how the NBA Cares for communities than the so-called “All-Star Day of Service” this past February.

Although arriving nearly three years after Hurricane Katrina struck, several NBA players and coaches braved a light mist and a choking throng of newspaper photographers and television crews to devote nearly three hours of their precious time rebuilding the rubble that was New Orleans.

Apparently by the end of their time in the community, Amare Stoudemire and Paul Pierce managed to knock in a nail far enough to hold the “2 Rich 4 U” sign on Chris Paul’s twenty-car garage. What a job well done! All-Star talent yields All-Star results.

The NBA Cares for Women

Perhaps no player in the history of the NBA better exemplifies the way in which the NBA cares for women than Wilt “The Stilt” Chamberlain. During his illustrious career and beyond, Wilt claims to have shared his love with more than 20,000 different women. What a man! What an ambassador for the game! Wilt established the framework for what caring for women by the NBA means.

Later players, such as Magic Johnson, have followed Wilt’s model as best they could. Unfortunately, Magic’s endeavors were tragically cut short by the contraction of HIV, but not before he shared his love with six women at once! Showtime!

The great thing about Magic and other legends of the NBA (like Shaq) is that they do not allow silly little things like marriage vows to hinder their efforts to “Care for Women” the NBA way. Thanks, men, you’ve given us all something to emulate.

The NBA Cares for the Arts

No single player in the history of the NBA cares for the arts more than Shaq. Not content to entertain us with just his mason-like, free-throw technique, he acts, he raps, he even creates culinary treats. Recently, in fact, he advertised his latest delectable delight in a rap! Wow! Combining two artistic talents in one! How good is this guy?

His latest recipe somehow involves his anus, although I remain unclear on the details. How inventive! You never see the Iron Chef prepare something as creative as that!

Apparently he’s invited his close friend and former teammate, Kobe Bryant, to be first to sample this new masterpiece. Kobe has never had trouble getting to the rim, so I guess he was a logical choice.

Andrew Bynum: Will He be Crushed by the Weight of Expectation?

Gaz V — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:34:12 -0400

In the aftermath of the Lakers’ latest capitulation to the Celtics in the NBA Finals, many within the Los Angeles sports community have suggested that having Andrew Bynum in uniform would have reversed the outcome of the series.

Of course, many of these same “experts” boldly predicted a Lakers' sweep or (at the very least) a 4-1 series victory, even without Bynum in the lineup. Well, the latest thing we’re hearing from this vocal crowd is just how great the Lakers will be next season with Bynum returning from knee surgery.

To such fans, a healthy Bynum virtually guarantees a return to the NBA Finals, where the Lakers will undoubtedly sweep or (at the very least) crush by a 4-1 margin whatever team emerges from the “weak” Eastern Conference.

Is Bynum really that good? Will he be able to return from knee surgery (performed about a month ago), regain his NBA fitness, and overcome the psychological scars associated with his injury to post the kind of numbers that his eager fans expect of him?

Assessing just how good Bynum is presents difficulties because he has only played one full season, his second in the NBA. In 2006-'07, as the Lakers’ starting center (53 of 82 games), Bynum averaged 7.8 points per game on 56 percent field goal shooting, while grabbing 5.9 rebounds per game.

For purposes of comparison, let’s look at the numbers for Leon Powe who, at times, played as the Boston Celtics’ third string center behind Kendrick Perkins and PJ Brown (and even Brian Scalabrine) this past season, his second in the NBA.

Like Bynum, Powe is a young and talented player, whose second year numbers have been surprisingly similar. Powe scored 7.9 points per game on 57 percent field goal shooting, while grabbing 4.1 rebounds per game in 2007-'08.

Bynum obviously had the edge in terms of rebounding. But when you consider he played 50 percent more minutes than Powe (22 versus 14.5), that rebounding margin doesn’t look quite so impressive. Especially when you consider that Bynum also enjoys a four inch height advantage.

What does this tell us? During his only full season in the NBA, the Lakers' starting center put up numbers that were comparable to those put up by a third string center/power forward for the Boston Celtics who happened to play seven fewer minutes per game.

Of course, before his season-ending injury in January, Bynum began to put up numbers that started to justify the hype surrounding him, nearly doubling the scoring and rebounding averages he posted during the 2006-'07 season. More importantly, Bynum began to establish himself as a better interior defender by blocking roughly two shots per game.

According to Bryant, that interior defense would have made the difference in the championship series: “He gives us a presence in the middle that we didn't have in the Finals. He's a shot-blocker. So now guys coming down the middle, Pierce laying the ball in, he's got to think about that now and shoot floaters because Bynum is naturally a shot-blocker.”

This argument works on one level, but what it overlooks is the fact that Gasol (also nearly two blocks per game) and Odom were among the top 20 shot blockers in the NBA this past season. Why weren’t either of them able to stop Pierce?

Would Bynum, a third year player, have been able to do what two of his shot-blocking veteran teammates could not? Maybe, but I doubt it. If you look at Bynum’s performance in the two games he played against the Celtics in the regular season, then you’d doubt it too.

Moreover, I question the quickness, ball-control, and overall effectiveness of a projected starting lineup next season that includes Bynum (seven footer), Gasol (seven footer), and Odom (very close seven footer). Having these guys on the floor at the same time creates serious match-up problems for Phil Jackson against quicker teams.

In the Finals this year, everyone saw how Doc Rivers’ decision to go with a smaller, faster, three point shooting player rotation turned the proverbial tide in the Celtics’ favor during their historic 24 point come from behind upset of the Lakers in Game Four.

Please don’t get me wrong. I agree that Bynum is a good player with developing skills, but returning from knee surgery is not as simple as some would like to believe.

As Phil Jackson publicly claimed after the surgery, Bynum’s knee will be 100 percent physically fit by the start of next season. What Jackson failed to note, however, is that knee injuries leave psychological damage that persists months after the physical healing process has completed.

I think this young man will have enough trouble dealing with such concerns, without the added pressure of being expected to play consistently at a level he has rarely achieved in his short NBA career.

Some Lakers fans love to claim that Bryant is the next Jordan. Please, for the sake of this young man, don’t expect Bynum to be the next O’Neal or Jabbar. As with efforts to compare Bryant to Jordan, he’s got a LONG way to go before such comparisons can and should be drawn.