2010 NBA Draft: BOOMS and BUSTS Ground Rules

I'm going to call it. For every player in the first round, I'm going to put myself out there and declare, right now, what the future holds or could likely hold for them. I base my opinion here on their college numbers, scouting info I have read, and interviews I have listened to. I'm going common sense here, rather than some sort of advanced metric or insider information. With this stuff, I think common sense can get you pretty far.
My judgements here are not relative to draft position nor are they particularly specific. I'm not about to say, "John Wall will play in exacty four all-star games and win league MVP twice." Nor am I even saying "John Wall will be a regular in the All-Star Game."

I am not making relative judgements. At a high level, players from the draft will play out their careers and will either be remembered as good players, or crappy players. For example, though limited in ability, Udonis Haslem will be remembered as a good player. Emeka Okafor, despite the tons of money he has been paid, numerous opportunities he has been given and the stats he has accumulated, will be remembered as a scrub. That's what I'm talking about. Scrub, or not a scrub.

I am giving myself a middle ground. There are some players that will be initial considered to be scrubs. They will fail in ther first opportunity. But, for whatever reason, on their second try, or third try, the right situation occurs and/or they figure "it" out. The ship is righted and they lose the scrub label. Recent examples are JJ Reddick and Shannon Brown. Adam Morrison is still a scrub, but he may get one more chance to change that perception.

TERMINOLOGY:
BOOM: A "boom" will quickly begin developing, improving, and generally adjusting to the NBA and the team owners in question will breath a sigh of relief within a few months of the draft.
IMMEDIATE BUST: An "immediate bust" will not succeed with his first  team (unless they stubbornly give him shot after shot over several years, which usually doesn't happen - The axe comes after about two years or whenever the rookie contract gives ownership an out). However, this player shows enough that a second team, a team where the player really seems to be a good fit, gives him a shot. It works, and the player turns it around and builds a career. Sometimes this can take a third or fourth team.
*FOREVER BUST: A "forever bust" is a player that doesn't belong in the NBA. Either not enough of a combination of talent and natural ability and/or lacking the mentality to be productive with the assets they have. This player fails with the first team. He may get additional chances but will fail in them too. There is usually a mental component to forever busts, because few true scrubs are drafted high, especiaslly in 2010.

* I love this term :)

2010 NBA Playoffs: Jazz/Lakers Game 1 (Lakers win)

• Kobe and Gasol both give B+ games
• Lakers second team blows lead
• Boozer is a solid second banana, but is it "contract year thunder"?
• Kobe's 4th quarter is a classic
• Terrible ref-ing; Not just pro-Lakers as Gasol got absolutely mugged by Boozer late in the fourth

2010 Playoffs: Day 5 Thoughts

Bobcats @ Magic, Game 2:

• Didn't watch. Call me when the Bobcats win a game.

Spurs @ Mavericks, Game 2:

• Watched the first quarter and then TiVo hopped through much of the rest.
• Dallas looked rusty, like you would expect them to look at the beginning of a game 1.
• Tim Duncan and RJ led an early attack that scored points and got several Mavs in foul trouble.
• It was nice to see RJ play well. His game 1 showing was just sad. In game 2, he got it going early, found his shot, hustled and played with a lot of energy.
• Shawn Marion has looked out of shape all year. For a guy whose game relied greatly on athleticism, he isn't doing himself any favors putting on the extra weight. He used to be a beast on the boards, swiftly moving up and down the court, getting easy baskets and blocking shots. He's a shadow of that former self and I don't think he'll be in the league much longer.
• Nowitzki's shot wasn't falling but he kept on shooting, as he should. Nowitzki has a clear matchup advantage against McDyess, who covers him much of the game. McDyess is old and slow. Even with his limited mobility and athleticism, Dirk should be able to shoot over and go around McDyess. Instead, we get performances like this, where Nowitzki struggles against an inferior defender.

2010 Playoffs: Day 4 Thoughts

Thunder @ Lakers, Game 2:

• Watched most of the second half.
• Green and Harden were non-factors (or a negative factor in the case of Green, who shot 2-11 from the field). To be fair to Harden, he was on the floor for less than 10 minutes.
• This was a close game decided by a better crunch-time play by the Lakers, except for the final moments, when the Lakers nearly gave it away.
• The gunner is back! Kobe had a big game, shooting without the hesitation I saw in Game 1. He wasn't shooting well, but he got to the line and made up for it there.
• Durant and Westbrook were the only Thunder playing well. They will have to continue to do so if they want to make it a series.

No comments on these games:
Bucks @ Hawks, Game 2
Heat @ Celtics, Game 2
Trailblazers @ Suns, Game 2

2010 NBA Playoffs: Celtics versus Lakers Brief Preview

Upset Odds (i.e. Celtics Win): 1:2 (I've been going these wrong the entire post-season - in reverse I think - oops)

Quietly, this is not a good match-up for the Celtics overall. In '08, missing their starting center, the Lakers competed in every game except one, losing considerable early leads in two of their loses (nobody will forget the 24 point lead in game 4) and winning two other games outright. Now, the Lakers have Bynum, who has value even if injured.

I may do a whole post about it but I will say it here, now: The 2010 Celtics are not better than the 2008 Celtics. They are worse. Their defense remains elite, but not dominant. The offensive may be slightly better, but insufficiently better to make up for loss of defensive ability. Meanwhile, the 2010 Lakers are clearly better than than the 2008 Lakers. The defense is better, and although the raw numbers don't show it, the offense runs better than it did two years ago. By that I mean the Lakers each better understand their roles and the offensive execution has improved.

Why do I give the Celtics decent odds despite being over-matched? For one, Celtics and Lakers intangibles. The Celtics are physical and psychological bullies. The talk shit, yell, bump, foul, scream, talk more shit. It's hard to ignore. It's worked before (on the 2008 Lakers, the 2010 Cavs, the 2010 Magic...), and it could work again. A Laker negative intanglible is their propensity for giving up big leads. Forget 2008, they did it at home against the Suns in game 5 then again in game 6 against the Suns. These were big almost 20 point leads, present well into the second half. The Celtics are unlikely to let them off the hook like the Suns did. Rondo could also single-handidly keep the Celtics in games when the rest of their offense stumbles. And at this level, with teams and players of this caliber, close games at the end could go either way.
Prediction: Lakers in 6

Let me be more specific. If the Lakers win game 1, I think Lakers in 6. However, if the Lakers lose game 1, it will be a much harder. Still, they will preservere and win in 7.