Kris Humphries In Focus

I noticed an article today chronicling a warm exchange of greetings between Jeremy Lin and the Nets' Kris Humphries yesterday (February 20th). Lin told Humphries to ignore fans' unyielding boos (due to his failed marriage with Kim Kardashian) and to continue playing his rebound-gobbling game. (Left unsaid in the story is that Lin and Humphries may share a bond as serious Christians.)

Mrs. Bhel Atlantic is a fan of the many Kardashian television shows, and so I somehow have found the courage to sit through numerous hours of their pablum. One thing I noticed is that, while Kim K. is a vapid, shallow, self-centered diva who romances only athletes and entertainers, Kris Humphries was an arrogant boor of a husband. He refused to express support for his wife's career, he criticized her body shape, he made her possibly-gay friend feel extremely uncomfortable, and he tossed Kim halfway across a room onto a bed. Were they still together, I would say that they deserve each other, but in the event, they deserve the obloquy that has attended their divorce.

Getting back to Humphries as a power forward in the Association, he ranks 12th this season in total rebound rate among starting frontcourt players. With Brook Lopez injured for the first half of the season, Humphries has provided the Nets' only board presence and helped Deron Williams stay sane. He might not complement would-be Net Dwight Howard well, however, as he might find himself fighting with the center for paint space. Humphries has also improved his per-game blocked shots rate nearly every season in the league (save one), entering 1.22 BPG this year. He never attempts 3-pointers, although that extra dimension to his game could certainly increase his value. A free agent this July, he will likely be pursued heavily by a championship-level team in need of a third big man off the bench. (The Knicks, for example, could profit from his play. I am not saying that I see the Knicks as a certain title contender, but the early results from the Jeremy Lin era look good, notwithstanding their loss last night to Humphries's Nets.)

Jeremy Lin Is Amazing and Banal

I blogged before at this site about Jeremy Lin, over three years ago in January 2009. Since then, Lin finished college in June of 2010, joined the Golden State Warriors for the following season, hopped aboard Houston's roster for a few days in December of 2011, and finally found his way to New York. As the undrafted, twice-cut Lin has risen to crazy prominence with his excellent play for the Knicks this month, it is time to revisit this nascent star with some new thoughts.

Via my personal (not my blog-based) email account earlier this week, I was approached by, separately, a New York-based talent agent and a New York-based journalist from one of the major television networks. Both of these individuals wanted to get in touch with Jeremy Lin: one to represent him in his putative Hollywood career and one to speak with him for a career-making interview. My connection with Lin is merely tenuous -- while I have never met him and I am 8 years older than him, I do know a couple of his friends and my name happens to appear on a certain webpage near his. But I was struck that the frenzy over Lin had suddenly made me important -- not for anything I did, but for my apparent indirect value in getting to Lin. (I was not able to help the entreators, as I have no clue how to contact the young Knick.) If I am getting these requests, then I wonder who else is, and what of the people who actually know Lin? Fame must be hard, and knowing a famous person must be hard, as all sorts of strangers suddenly want a piece of you, to help feed the public's thirst for heroes and demigods.

I have not seen any other writer note that with Lin, Christianity has returned to the Knicks, evoking thoughts of the regular Bible study circles that Charlie Ward, Allan Houston, and Kurt Thomas held 10 or 12 years ago during the Knicks' last era of quality ball. The much-lampooned "Nerd Handshake" between Lin and Landry Fields (a Stanford graduate) ends with a finger pointed upwards to the glory of God. And Tyson Chandler, New York's steady center, has a crucifix tattooed on his right arm. I am not aware of any other religiously observant players on the current Knicks roster; Amare Stoudemire may or may not be a converted Jew, but aside from donning the occasional yarmulke, I am not aware that he follows the Jewish rituals. At any rate, overt religious faith seems somewhat uncommon in NBA circles (in contradistinction to the NFL, where many players besides just Tim Tebow credit their maker for touchdowns), and Lin is changing things in New York.

I enjoyed J.A. Adande's article published today on ESPN.com, describing how Lin thrives in New York (but not in Oakland or Houston) because his strengths fit Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni's offensive scheme. Adande does not delve enough into the details of the "system", but D'Antoni gives his point guards freedom to dribble the ball all over the court, often moving off ball screens, waiting for something good to happen. To profit from this liberty, a PG needs skilled handle, great vision and passing ability, the ability to finish at the rim when the paint gets crowded, and deadly shooting ability for the moments when defenders hang back to deny any penetration. Steve Nash had plenty of this. Even Ray Felton had a bit last season. Chauncey Billups (at the end of 2010-11) and Toney Douglas (at the start of 2011-12) did not. Lin's herky-jerky driving mechanics are suited well to D'Antoni's plan.

This article from the New York Times published today suggests that every Taiwanese person has paid careful attention in real time to Knick games during the past 10 days, despite the 13-hour time difference between New York City and Taiwan. Other reports indicate that millions of Chinese mainlanders are following Lin daily like a cat eyeing a laser toy. These stories simply struck me that the American self-conception as the world's "indispensible nation" may still have some currency (and that the traditional Chinese casting as the "Middle Kingdom", 中国, may have less than total salience), despite recent economic strides in other large countries. Can you imagine the same type of hysteria in the States over, say, a skinny American midfielder scoring multiple goals for Chelsea or Liverpool? It wouldn't happen, though we know the world's finest soccer is played in Europe. To the Chinese, at least, athletic success on American terms is where it's at. (China's national athletic authority has cultivated young athletes to succeed at gymnastics and hurdles, rather than traditional tug-of-war or cuju.)

Can Lin keep up his great play from the past six games? Of course, a few players in the past have tossed aside a shroud and flashed into the spotlight with sudden bursts of greatness. Consider Ronald "Flip" Murray's play in the first month of the 2003-04 season, when he averaged 22 points per game while starting at off-guard for Seattle in relief of the injured Ray Allen. Murray never again reclaimed the same levels of performance in his career after that torrid stretch. Or, going back several more years, recall what rookie Negele Knight did for Phoenix towards the end of the end of the 1990-91 season, averaging 24 points and 11 assists in a five-game stretch while incumbent point guard Kevin Johnson recovered from an injury. And, well, who remembers Negele Knight? On the other hand, Lin could, in the event, grow into a career like that of Tom Brady, a sixth-round draft pick who became a Hall Of Fame-level talent after an injury to Drew Bledsoe cleared room for the youngster. (The undrafted Ben Wallace or the Arena Football League veteran Kurt Warner are also hopeful templates for Lin.) Who knows? Only time, the adjustments of opposing coaches, and the dedication of Lin will decide if he can sustain this play. At the least, he needs to cut down his turnovers.

Finally, I hope that the media fuss over Lin abates if he continues to play at a high level. Russell Westbrook delivered 22 and 8 in game after game last season, but his reliable play is not deemed "magical" or "Russdiculous", even though he never manned point guard before entering the Association. That is just what Westbrook does. Similarly, we may soon need to adjust our perceptions of Lin if he sustains his big numbers and his penchant for winning. Just as Darko Milicic should not be blamed for being drafted at a position above his ability level, Jeremy Lin should not be patronized as a hard-luck, low-odds, small-school miracle merely because the best college basketball program that recruited him was Harvard. Lin, the Northern California Division II player of the year in 2006, deserved to go to a major hoops university and it didn't happen. He tore up legitimate teams like Boston College or the University of Connecticut during Harvard's non-conference games. He is still of the same caliber as other 2010 draft picks like Evan Turner or Wesley Johnson.

Commitment-phobes Rule the League

In a normal offseason, contract extensions for 2008 draftees would have been completed by October 31st, 2011 and no later. However, thanks to the now-pummelled lockout, no transactions could be completed last summer, and the contract extension deadline has been moved to January 25th, i.e., tomorrow. Strangely, we have not heard much news of contract extensions lately: compare this to October of 2010, when Kevin Durant and Al Horford and Mike Conley, Jr. and Joakim Noah all extended their deals, or the fall of '09, when Rondo, Roy, Bargnani, Aldridge, and Rudy Gay all re-upped with their teams. Thus far, from among the 2008 draftees, only Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook have signed contract extensions, both committing through the 2016-17 season. What of the un-extended players?

Let us consider every first-round draft pick from 2008 (different contract rules apply to second-rounders), ignoring Rose and Westbrook. I will ignore players who have not succeeded as regular rotation members: this set includes Joe Alexander, Anthony Randolph, Marreese Speights, Alexis Ajinca, Kosta Koufos, and J.R. Giddens. (Of late, Speights has earned some starting time in Memphis, but that is due to injuries to the Grizzlies' two other power forwards, Darrell Arthur and Zach Randolph. Speights earned no floor time in Philadelphia, a young team with no backup big men.)

Michael Beasley: This is an easy one. Beasley has proved personally and athletically mercurial. The Timberwolves have a power forward from the 2008 draft in Kevin Love (discussed below), a small forward from the 2010 draft in Wesley Johnson, and a "tweener" forward from the 2011 draft in Derrick Williams. With this array of talent, the Wolves need not keep Beasley beyond this season (recall that they obtained him in 2010 for merely a second-round draft pick, so they have little psychological investment in him). Perhaps they could try to trade him during this season, or next July in a sign-and-trade when he becomes a restricted free agent.

O.J. Mayo: Despite frequent trade rumors during the past 12 months, Mayo contributed to Memphis's surprising playoff run last spring and is sniping the ball with rare accuracy this season. The Grizzlies reportedly will not extend his contract this week, but they still hope he will stay around for a few more years. This is likely a wise move; Mayo will expect money worthy of the third pick in the draft, but with Tony Allen expertly manning the shooting guard position with "grit and grind" for Memphis, paying him that salary would be daft. Mayo will likely command more in the restricted-free-agent market than Grizzlies management wishes to pay him.

Kevin Love: Well, of course. If the insane scoring and rebounding are not persuasive, how about the unusually skilled passing and shooting for a big man? The Timberwolves reportedly will offer Kevin Love a four-year extension through 2015-16. SI.com's Zach Lowe assesses this potential deal and finds it fair. If the Wolves' refusal to include a fifth year deters Love from signing, general manager David Kahn should be fired. At any rate, NBA.com's Steve Aschburner has a good discussion, published here today, of the negotiating dynamics between Love and the team.

Danilo Gallinari: After the trade of Carmelo Anthony, Gallo has emerged as Denver's best player. He scored 37 points in a double-OT win over Anthony and the Knicks last Saturday -- "out-Meloing Melo", as the Denver Post termed it. Denver has a strong young core with Ty Lawson, Nene Hilario, Corey Brewer, and Arron Afflalo already under contract (and Wilson Chandler likely returning soon). Extend Gallinari and continue developing a roster of swift young colts.

Eric Gordon: Gordon has been injured with a bad knee for most of this young season, and he missed 20 games in 2009-2010 and 26 games in 2010-11. His fragility can't help his case. Still, in his third season with the Clippers, he averaged 22 points and over 4 assists, dueling with James Harden for the honor of best young shooting guard in the league. He is the Hornets' best player, though he was unhappy about being pushed out of Los Angeles and reportedly felt in December like leaving New Orleans as soon as possible. More recently, with big money about to slip through his fingers and wash over the deadline cliff, Gordon has expressed interest in signing an extension. With the Hornets co-owned by the other 29 owners, however, and the joint owners trying to minimize long-term financial obligations for the next owner, team GM Demps has a difficult time negotiating and executing big transactions like this one, as we saw in the Chris Paul trade talks. If I were Demps and I had any kind of authority, I would ink Gordon to a contract extension. The injuries are worrisome, but it has been a different body part in each season (groin, wrist, knee) and he can really go when healthy.

D.J. Augustin: Augustin has played decently this season (check his numbers) but the Bobcats' drafting of NCAA champion Kemba Walker does not evince much confidence in Augustin at the point guard position. The Bobcats hardly know if their team can win more than ten games this season or next. Extending Augustin would be a mistake.

Brook Lopez: This one perplexes me. Why hasn't NJ signed Lopez to a speedy re-up? New Jersey wants to trade Lopez for Dwight Howard. But Lopez is of little value to Orlando if not signed beyond 2011-12. If Lopez wanted to leave Orlando, then under the CBA rules, Lopez could accept Orlando's qualifying offer for 2012-13, then sign anywhere as an unrestricted free agent in July of '13. Sure, Lopez would be leaving some money on the table in 2012-13 and risking that injury during the 2012-13 campaign might ruin his long-term value. But under league rules, a determined player can leave his team fairly readily. So again, why would Orlando trade for a player whose contract will soon end? New Jersey should extend Lopez's contract if it is at all serious about building a winning squad. He is the best player on the team save Deron Williams, and Williams looks set to leave later this summer as an unrestricted free agent if the team cannot land Howard. So if the Nets can trade for Howard, an extended Lopez is valuable; and if the Nets cannot trade for Howard, an extended Lopez is still valuable. Do this deal. Lopez's broken foot is worrisome, but this injury should not dog him beyond this season.

Jerryd Bayless: No. Amazing to think that Bayless and Westbrook were considered interchangeable options leading up to the '08 draft.

Jason Thompson: Thompson has drifted in and out of the Kings' starting lineup during the past four years. Sacramento now fields two power forwards from the 2008 draft, in Thompson and J.J. Hickson (mentioned below). They surely cannot extend both-- but could they extend one and not the other? That sounds disastrous for team chemistry, and probably not justified on basketball grounds, as neither player has consistently excelled. Put it this way: Could Thompson or Hickson be a starter on a championship-level team? Well, Hickson actually did start for a title contender in Cleveland in 2010, so I suppose anything is possible, but neither man has impressed much in Sacramento. I would wait to see how Thompson and Hickson perform with DeMarcus Cousins in new coach Keith Smart's system before making long-term decisions on their contracts.

Brandon Rush: Rush, the 13th pick in the 2008 draft, is a middling bench player for Golden State, having been recently traded from Indiana for "energy guy" Louis Amundson, who brings little more than defensive disruption. Rush is performing well this year, shooting the ball at 50% from the field and over 50% from 3-point range, but he looks at Monta Ellis manning his position during player introductions every night. Nor is Rush a handy sixth starter like Jason Terry or James Harden: Rush hardly rebounds or assists, and he failed to impress while starting for Indiana last season. So long as the Warriors remain committed to Ellis, extending Rush would be a mistake.

Roy Hibbert: The local paper in Indy reports that the Pacers will not offer Hibbert an extension. Odd decision, as the Georgetown product is killing it this season, most recently helping his team edge out the Lakers by 2 points on Sunday in Staples Center. Hibbert averages 14 points, 10 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and a number of defensive intimidations every night. The Pacers have a solid young roster with Darren Collison, Tyler Hansbrough, George Hill, Paul George, and Hibbert. (Other starters Danny Granger and David West are still solidly in their prime, but could not be reasonably deemed "young".) I can't understand why the Pacers would not want to lock up Hibbert, unless they are seeking to retain salary-cap room for a significant free-agent signing (Eric Gordon? Heck, Dwight Howard?) later this summer.

Robin Lopez: With Marcin Gortat excelling as their starting center, Lopez is not a vital cog to the Suns. And team president Lon Babby told a reporter yesterday that he does not intend to extend Lopez.

JaVale McGee: McGee is the Wizards' only young big man with promise (I exclude Andray Blatche from that category). Though his defense positioning is sometimes wanting, he averages 11 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 blocks in this young season, making him statistically an apparent top-10 center. (For the curious, the others would include Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum, DeAndre Jordan, Marc Gasol, Andrew Bogut, Samuel Dalembert, Marcin Gortat, Al Jefferson, and Roy Hibbert, with Tyson Chandler just excluded.) The Wizards fired their coach, Flip Saunders, earlier today after a 2-15 start. With a new helmsman taking over in DC today, perhaps McGee will further develop his offensive game. However, I don't believe McGee should be rewarded at this time for contributing to such a wretched squad. The Wizards can likely retain McGee by matching any offer sheet he signs as a restricted free agent this July.

J.J. Hickson: See Thompson discussion above.

Ryan Anderson: Another writer has already considered the question of Anderson's extension: Oh hell, yes. With Dwight Howard, Anderson is a terror on the perimeter and a solid rebounder. Extending him could help persuade Howard to stay past this season. Without Dwight Howard, Anderson's role could shrink, as he has not yet developed much of a post-up or face-up game. Anderson is a good man to have on your roster with Dwight Howard in the middle, but I cannot determine his value in the counterfactual world without Howard. (As a Net rookie in 2008-09, his numbers were poor in 20 MPG, but [A] he was a rookie, and [B] it was the Nets.) Strangely, I have not read any reports of a looming contract extension for him. The case is close, but given the uncertainty over Howard's tenure, I would not extend Anderson. Likely, the team can match a RFA offer for him next summer.

Courtney Lee: Lee started on Orlando's 2009 Finals team (and nearly won Game 2 against the Lakers with a spectacular inbound oop-to-layup play that tragically failed) before he was deemed expendable the following summer, traded for Vince Carter. Since then, Lee was a reliable starter for the 2009-10 Nets, but got traded again in the fall of 2010 as part of the four-team, five-man Hornets-Pacers-Nets-Rockets trade. In Houston, Lee has struggled to find playing time behind wing players such as Kevin Martin, Shane Battier, Chase Budinger, and now Chandler Parsons. If you can't beat out a Chase and a Chandler, you may not be that good. And Lee, who played four years in college, is already 26 and may not have much more improvement in him. Needless to say, an extension would be foolish. Here, though, is perhaps the highlight of Lee's career:

Serge Ibaka: On a team with two offensive powerhouses, Ibaka plays his role very well: he cleans up missed shots and defends opposing forwards when the slender Kevin Durant cannot. He also produces about 2 blocks per game. Ibaka likely will develop his offensive game further in coming seasons (he is still only 22) but the Thunder seem to win quite well with him right now. Ibaka's contract should be extended... but actually, he will not be eligible for a contract extension until the 2012 offseason, because he did not actually debut in the NBA until November of 2009. Basketball common sense says that the Thunder should certainly extend both Ibaka and Harden later this year, but a P&L statement (with limited revenue in a relatively small market, the Thunder owners simply may not want to add so much salary and luxury tax to their payroll) may decide the team's move.

Nicolas Batum: A January 13th report in The Oregonian mentioned negotiations on Batum's extension, but nothing has been concluded yet (a report yesterday indicated that talks continue). Still just 23, Batum has been a sometime starter during his career; this season, Gerald Wallace has supplanted him as the Blazers' starting small forward, though the limited availability of Marcus Camby and the non-availability of Greg Oden has created starter-level minutes for Batum. (It helps that LaMarcus Aldridge can shift to center and Wallace to PF when needed.) While not a dominant scorer like other small forwards (see Gallinari, above), Batum is deadly from 3-point land and shoots free throws at a very high percentage. His long arms also make him a plus defender. With the Portland future of Camby and Oden highly questionable, Aldridge's future may be as a center-- and thus Batum should be pencilled in as the Blazers' small forward of the present and future. With Ray Felton's contract expiring this June, Portland has salary-cap flexibility. Extend quick Nic!

George Hill: Reports indicate that the Pacers are discussing the sketches of an extension with Hill's agent. While Hill, who shoots a stellar percentage for a guard, has outperformed Brandon Rush (whom Hill basically replaced as the first guard off the bench in Indiana), I would not extend Hill at this time; budding star Paul George already plays his position. With George's height, he appears bound for a SF role, which would mean the expulsion of Danny Granger-- perhaps for a true shooting guard. At any rate, the Pacers have been very financially careful in recent years since breaking up the Artest-Tinsley-Jackson-O'Neal team, and George Hill, while a very good player, is not worth the obligation it would cost them. They can probably lock up Hill at a reasonable price as a restricted free agent next July, after carefully considering what to do with their current roster.

Darrell Arthur: Arthur was a very good first big man off the bench last season for Memphis. However, he unfortunately tore his Achilles tendon last month and will miss the whole season. Were he healthy and still producing, I might advocate an extension, but his injury makes this decision clear.

Donte Greene: Greene has shown little excellence in any skill during his four years in Sacramento; he could not beat out Omri Casspi or Travis Outlaw as the team's small forward, and he consistently shoots over two 3-pointers nightly despite a 30% (or less) success rate. Not a chance.

D.J. White: White, formerly a benchwarmer in Oklahoma City, has received stepped-up exposure this season for the woeful Bobcats. White can ball (10 points and 5 rebounds in 25 MPG) but with Tyrus Thomas also on the roster, an extension for White seems ill-advised at this time, especially with only a dozen games to judge him on.

So to review, I am recommending extensions for six players in addition to Rose and Westbrook: Love, Gallinari, Gordon, Brook Lopez, Hibbert, & Batum. While eight extensions is more than previous draft classes enjoyed, the '08 draft was unusually deep. Why not?

Miami Pulls A Santorum, Upsets Atlanta

Miami, missing its top two stars, edged a mostly healthy (except for Kirk Hinrich) Atlanta squad in triple overtime last night, an extremely long game that pre-empted the entire first half of TNT's Lakers-Blazers match.

(My headline metaphor doesn't quite pass, because Rick Santorum did not quite defeat Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses, but please work with me.) Atlanta had seemingly all the advantages last night: a home crowd, a wounded enemy with James and Wade out, and the confidence from beating the Heat on the latter's home floor earlier this week. They also had three separate overtime periods to tire out and over-score the poorly staffed Heat, but they failed in each opportunity. The performance was embarrassing, as the TNT announce crew repeatedly noted. Still, it is just one game. A few observations on this night:

Atlanta's starters shot 21-for-66 in the 63 minutes of game action. Miami's best remaining defenders, Joel Anthony and Shane Battier, did a good job of deflecting or intimidating shots; Battier proved manly in man coverage against the quicker Joe Johnson.

Atlanta big men Josh Smith and Al Horford had no answer for Chris Bosh, who was frequently able to bull his way to the hoop for layups.

As sharp an ax as Bosh wielded as he sliced through the Hawk defense, he presented an equally lipidinous barrier when Atlanta challenged him on the other end. 6'8" journeyman Ivan Johnson (click the link, a good profile) repeatedly barreled to the rim with dribble-drives as Bosh and Joel Anthony could not stop him.

The TNT broadcast crew pointed out that Atlanta's roster is the second-oldest in the league, at an average 29.2 years of age. However, this statistic is misleading: Josh Smith is 26 years and 1 month, Marvin Williams 25 years and 7 months, Al Horford 25 years and 7, Joe Johnson 30 and 6, and Jeff Teague 23 & 7. The average age of Atlanta's starting lineup is thus a bit over 26, hardly an ancient team. (Compare to the Mavs of Kidd-Carter-Haywood-Nowitzki-Marion, or the Spurs of Parker-Ginobili-Duncan-Jefferson-Blair, the Celtics of Rondo-Allen-O'Neal-Pierce-Garnett, or the Lakers of Fisher-Bryant-Bynum-Gasol-Barnes.) Atlanta's advanced dotage owes to older bench players like Tracy McGrady, Kirk Hinrich, Jason Collins, and -- especially -- 37-year-old Jerry Stackhouse, who appeared to be retired last season as a studio pundit on NBATV after getting cut by Miami. [I did a double-take when I noticed his name on Atlanta's roster for 2011-12.] Thanks to Atlanta's trade of 2010 draftee Jordan Crawford and a 2011 first-round pick for Hinrich last February, the Hawks are short on low-grade youth. Still, weighted by average minutes played, the average age of a Hawks player is likely no worse than average, although I have not done the calculations.

Related to a post I wrote in 2010, Miami has almost as much roster continuity as Atlanta's core of Johnson/Horford/Smith/Williams, who are in their fifth season together (the seventh season if we don't count Horford). Dwyane Wade, James Jones, Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, and coach Erik Spoelstra have all been with Miami since the start of the 2008-09 season, making this their fourth rumba together. (Other experienced units include the same old squads I mentioned above: the aforementioned Lakers core sans Barnes, together since 2007-08, the Celtics core minus O'Neal, also together since 2007-08, Dallas's Kidd-Terry-Nowitzki core, also together that long, and the Spurs' Big Three, who are in their tenth season together.)

Turner Sports's Charles Barkley, usually assigned to halftime studio work, was instead staffed as a courtside color commentator on this night with Reggie Miller and Kevin Harlan. Why? I doubt this was pre-planned; TNT likely reacted to the injury absence of LeBron James and Dwyane Wade by redirecting Barkley from Turner Studios in Atlanta to the Heat game, which was conveniently at the Phillips Arena 2 miles away. The ratings gambit worked, at least for actor Jeremy Piven, who confessed on Twitter that he remained tuned in just for Barkley.

New Year's Hangover

For several normally steady playmakers, the leather sphere felt like a tennis ball on Sunday. Waking up from New Year's Eve, these fellows couldn't play either offense or defense.

Kobe Bryant: 6 for 28, -17 plus-minus (the worst on his team)

DJ Augustin: 1 for 11, -21 plus-minus

Rudy Gay: 2 for 12, -36 plus-minus

Marco Bellinelli: 3 for 12, -13 plus-minus

Jason Richardson: 1 for 8, -22 plus-minus (by far the worst on his team; his backup, J.J. Redick, logged a +26)

The Week In Prose

With the onset of NBA games, months of rank speculation in NBA media -- about labor negotiations, trade rumors, obscure tweets, and a lot of stuff untethered to the game -- has turned to actual analysis of on-court hoops in the past week. Here are the best articles we have found. We promise not to make this a regular feature, but the return of good sportswriting has been refreshing.

Sports Illustrated's Britt Robson on the debut of Ricky Rubio (and you should click the Youtube link embedded in the article).

Sports Illustrated's Lee Jenkins on coping with the aftermath of a failed trade.

Sports Illustrated's Sam Amick on Derrick Rose's personal habits.

Sports Illustrated's Zach Lowe on how the Heat handled a zone defense in their victory over Boston on Tuesday night.

ESPN.com's Ethan Sherwood Strauss on Dwight Howard's suitability to the current age of NBA game rules.

Blogger Devin Kharpertian showing why Andray Blatche is a low-quality defender.

Blogger Rob Mahoney breaks down a potential traveling violation on Dwyane Wade's game-winning shot against Charlotte from Wednesday night.

Howard Beck of the New York Times profiles the newly renamed Metta World Peace.

Stephen and Dell Not the Only Curry?

In a blog post last year, we alerted readers to Satnam Singh Bhamara, a teenaged giant from Punjab in India who is turning heads in national and international competitions. Following that AOL Fanhouse article discussed therein, ESPN The Magazine profiled Bhamara in a lengthy piece published today:

THIRTY OR SO YEARS AGO, in the Indian state of Punjab, in a tiny village surrounded by rice paddies, miles from the nearest home with air conditioning or even with glass and screens on all its windows, there lived a teenage boy named Balbir Singh Bhamara who did what had once seemed impossible; he grew to be taller than his mother.

Balbir's father was a wheat farmer and miller with a string of glistening black water buffalo that gave milk as sweet as honey. His mother was 6'9", and young Balbir grew to be a little over seven feet tall -- the tallest person in the village. Everywhere the giant boy went, people told him he ought to play basketball, a game many of them had heard about but never seen.

[...]

And then one day another giant emerged: Balbir's middle child, a sweet and joyful boy named Satnam. When Satnam was 9 years old and already taller than most adults in the village, Balbir took the boy to a scruffy local court to play basketball, a game Balbir still barely understood. Satnam walked onto the court, utterly bewildered. He had misunderstood and thought his father was taking him to play volleyball. Predictably, the boy struggled. Balbir watched, feeling untroubled, undeterred -- happy, even.

Not long after they got back home, Balbir crossed the lumpy dirt courtyard that separated his small stable and mill from his even smaller house and mounted a hoop to the weathered brick wall. Balbir summoned his son to the courtyard and handed Satnam a new rubber basketball.

The family room was right inside. At the end of the workday, while others in the family strained to hear the little TV over the big kid's incessant banging of the ball against the wall, Balbir -- a man destined to become the second-tallest person in his village -- would just sit back, sip his tea with buffalo milk, stroke his long, graying beard and grin.

The exoticized, indeterminate, hazy, fablesque tone of the story (which other ballers grew up around mooing buffalo?) is odd but not surprising. Only the sensational gets clicked on that particular website. As we reminded readers last year, Bhamara is just a kid-- one of many playing hoops at a high level in India. His story may already be nothing more than typical. In any case, here is a UK-produced video about him:



Bhamara is not the only 7-footer of South Asian background to fall into the ken of serious scouts this year. The 80-inch-plus Bhullar brothers of Toronto, whose parents are from Punjab, both play for a prep school near Pittsburgh. Sim, the elder boy of the pair, is now in 12th grade and has committed to attend New Mexico State next fall (although, for unclear reasons, he will be academically ineligible to play ball in 2012-13).

Behold the Bhullars:

On Player Introductions

The featured NBA personality of the past month has been Chris Paul, who was traded to the Lakers, then returned to the Hornets, then finally traded to the Clippers. Paired with Blake Griffin, Paul promises to mount an MVP-caliber season if he and Griffin keep their repaired knees healthy. One thing you can count on when the Clippers introduce Paul at their home opener will be his billing by the public address announcer: We will learn not that Paul was born and raised in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina area, nor that he played four pro seasons in New Orleans (and two in Oklahoma City), but that he attended Wake Forest University for two years. Throughout the league, university attendance, no matter the duration or the proximity to the player's hometown (in Paul's case, he attended college close to home, but many ballers do not), is made part of a player's brand. Of course, not every NBA player attended university -- at least those who entered the league before the 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement. But team marketing staffs have thought of a simple solution for this problem: wherever LeBron James, for example, has played pro ball, he is billed at "6 foot 8, from St. Vincent - St. Mary's..." owing to his early entry to the NBA direct from high school. (Forward to 0:52 mark of video:)



Why, though, is a player's educational affiliation his most salient identifier? I tend not to introduce myself at parties by describing where I studied ten years ago; I might refer to my hometown, or what neighborhood I live in now. Minutiae like my high school or college are hardly relevant to my life today. Employers hardly care about my university affiliation, either: an adequate one is useful to get one's foot in the door, but for promotions and movement to different companies, it is recommendations and recent accomplishments that make the difference.

With my examples of Paul and James above, at least their schooling was only a few miles from their hometown, but top college basketball programs usually draw recruits from all around the country, or from other nations. Kevin Love, for example, spent his whole life in Oregon before passing through southern California for one college season after he finished high school in 2007. And following the '08 draft, he has lived in Minneapolis for over 3 years. Yet the Timberwolves announcer always reminds us that Love is from UCLA. Kevin Durant is a son of Maryland, yet his introduction pairs him with the University of Texas, where he spent approximately 7 months of his life, in the fall and winter of 2006-2007. Similarly, lifelong Torontonian Tristan Thompson, now of the Cavs, spent two prep years in New Jersey, one further high school season in Nevada, and a few collegiate months in Austin, Texas, before he entered the NBA draft last spring. Before each home game, Cavs fans will be reminded of the news that this Canadian is "from" Texas.

NBA fans with a moderately long memory will remember announcer Ray Clay's iconic introductory locution for Michael Jordan (backed by an addictive synthesizer hook from the Alan Parsons Project) before every game in Chicago: "From NORTH... Carolina... at guard, 6'6"... Michael... JORDAN!" At least in Jordan's case, the "North Carolina" appellation identified both his college and his homeland. But calling Tristan Thompson, of Brampton Ontario, a Texan is a bit of a stretch.

It is true that college is a singular moment in the lives of many young people: away from home for the first time, thrown together with young people with different backgrounds, staking their future on their ability to sit for exams and nail the answers, college students form very intense bonds with their new friends and with the institution. Years later, former students look first to their college ties for social connection and professional support; even Rudy Gay, who spent just one year at the U. of Connecticut, or Kyrie Irving, who played 10 games for Duke, look to their alma mater for a place to scrimmage in summertime.

Moreover, until twenty years ago, it was unusual for top young players to spend any fewer than two (and usually three) seasons in college ball; future MVPs Lew Alcindor, Bill Walton, Larry Bird, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Tim Duncan all spent four years on campus. Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, and Shaquille O'Neal spent three. When Chris Webber left college after his sophomore season in 1993, he began to stress the three-season norm for college ballers that had mirrored the NFL's explicit no-sophomores rule, and afterwards entry by high school seniors (beginning with Kevin Garnett in '95) or college freshmen became more typical. Perhaps there was once a feeling in NBA circles that college truly was the most formative place for a young lad to learn the game, but things change.

Today, of course, high school and college student-athletes spend most of their non-official time attending summer academies sponsored by apparel companies, AAU tournaments, and tours through China. It is risible to argue that a few months in Lexington, Kentucky was the most defining period of John Wall's pre-pro life, after he grew up in rural North Carolina in a challenged family. Yet...



My co-blogger H.O.S.S. suggests that teams ask players how they would like to be introduced. Barring that, the smartest approach I have seen is the Chicago Bulls' introduction of Derrick Rose, who spent his whole life before college (including a celebrated high school basketall career) in the city of Chicago. Rose passed through John Calipari's point guard factory at the University of Memphis for one season before joining the NBA in 2008 -- returning to his hometown in Cook County. The Bulls do not pretend that his college half-year was the most salient time in his life, instead pleasing the home crowd by simply calling him "From Chicago" (forward to 4:52 mark of video):



(Of late, Rose has spent more of his free offseason time in Los Angeles than in Chicago, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?)

Robber Barons Up In The Frozen Tundra

Last year I expressed dismay that Mike Ilitch, owner of the Detroit Red Wings and Detroit Tigers, was seeking to get his hands on the Pistons as well. In the event, a different buyer bought the Pistons from Karen Davidson and I was pleased.

Today comes news that Rogers Communications and Bell Canada are buying Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment from the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. Rogers and Bell will each have a 37.5% stake. Though MLSE, Rogers now is the effective co-controlling owner of the Raptors, Maple Leafs, Air Canada Centre, and (not mentioned in the Reuters article) Toronto FC of Major League Soccer. And Rogers already owns a controlling share of the Blue Jays and Skydome (er, excuse me, "Rogers Centre"). The only independently owned pro club in Toronto is now the Argonauts.

This cannot be good news for Toronto sports fans or cable TV subscribers. Rogers and Bell each own a cable TV channel (Sportsnet and TSN) and collectively they hope to corner the market on Leafs and Raptors broadcasts. Ticket prices and sports apparel will likely spike as well. Canada's Competition Bureau must stop this purchase.

More Changes In The Association This Season

Today the NBA announced two important sets of changes for the 2011-12 season: one impacting on-court play, and one impacting off-court business matters. Both developments are positive, in my view.

The CBA
The new Collective Bargaining Agreement contains tweaks to numerous league protocols. Notably, the new CBA allows a player to renegotiate an existing contract for lower annual money but more years, if the annual salary reduction is no more than 40%. This provision would allow, say, Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony to take a bit less money in 2012-13 and beyond in order to create more salary-cap room for the Knicks to sign Chris Paul or another top free agent. [Reports Thursday indicate that the Knicks intend to sign Tyson Chandler to a large long-term contract that would cover 2012-13 and beyond. The contracts of those three guys would eat up most of the $58 MM salary cap. Theoretically, all three of Chandler, Stoudemire, and Anthony could agree to reduce their salaries sufficiently to make room for Paul at a large number; perhaps each of them could earn $13 MM annually, say.]

The new deal also sets the minimum team salary at (after a couple years of transition) 90 percent of the salary cap, rather than 75 percent. This provision will help further the goal of competitive balance; cheap owners such as Donald Sterling or Glen Taylor will be forced to hire at least a few middling (as opposed to terrible or very young) players to fill out their roster.

The contentious minimum age for draftees was not changed, but apparently punted to be decided by a future union-league committee. I have previously advocated in this space for the age limit to be raised to two years post-college.

GAME RULE CHANGES
The previously over-generous shooting fouls granted in "rip-through" or "and-one" situations, wherein the shooter was clearly not in a shooting motion before the foul, will be curtailed. Travelling rules will be enforced more strictly (LeBron James's "crab dribble", which we reviewed in this post in 2009, will no longer be legal) and timeouts will be made to conform to the billed 20-second or 60-second lengths. Here at JPO, we have long criticized inconsistent rule enforcement, and this news begets great happification in our hearts.

Should Dirk Nowitzki win Sportsman of the Year?

Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year award will be announced tomorrow. To me, the three strongest candidates are Aaron Rodgers, Dirk Nowitzki, and Novak Djokovic. Here is a review of their credentials.

RODGERS
Rodgers has played superlatively in 2011, from his Super Bowl run in January-February to his undefeated regular season this autumn. Moreover, an American face on the cover would be likelier to sell magazines. On the merits, Rodgers's excellence in his sport was not worse than the success of Nowitzki or young Djok: all won championships (there is no defined championship in tennis, but Djokovic won 3 of 4 "major" tournaments) and looked dominant in doing so. In the current regular season, Rodgers has 37 touchdown throws against only 5 interceptions; he has completed 70% of his passes and is on pace to break the record for passing yards in one season. However, Sports Illustrated also picked NFL quarterbacks for the award in 2005, 2007, and 2010; four in seven years would be too much. Let us scratch Rodgers, then.

NOWITZKI
Between the two Europeans, Nowitzki is likely better known to Americans, as he spent all his time this year playing in the main US pro basketball league. After a previous loss in the Finals, an individual MVP, a broken engagement to a questionable woman, and an impressive record of skill improvement over his 13-year career, it was heartening to see Nowitzki finally win the championship this year, leading his team to a surprising win over the more talented Miami Heat. Nowitzki played solidly against Portland before exploding against Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, and Miami in a two-month run that cemented his place in the NBA Hall of Fame. Against the Thunder and Heat, Nowitzki keyed improbable 15-point, fourth-quarter comebacks that sapped the spirits of his opponents and made his teammates believe that Dallas could really do it. Yet it was the relative brevity of this display -- just two months -- that puts Nowitzki just behind the rightful winner in my estimation. Nowitzki's vernal outburst excited American fans as they emerged from the long winter's freeze. He was very good. However, Djokovic did his thing all year long.

DJOKOVIC
Unlike Nowitzki, Djokovic's success lasted from the Australian Open in January to the U.S. Open in September, across a span of eight months, four continents, and four playing surfaces. Besides his three major wins in Melbourne, Paris, and New York, he won tournaments in Montreal, Rome, Madrid, Belgrade, Miami, Indian Wells, and Dubai. That's right-- Djokovic won ten tournaments in a single calendar year! [Notably, Djokovic has failed to win the three late-season tournaments he entered this year after leaving Queens-- losing to lesser-ranked players in Basel, Paris, and London.] Djokovic amassed a staggering 70-6 record in 2011, taking 3 of 4 matches from Roger Federer and 6 of 6 from Rafael Nadal. While Nowitzki's story is the most endearing, I would hand the award to Djokovic, who clearly established himself as the best in his sport. To understand Djokovic's season, consider his forehand to save match point against Federer in New York:



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UPDATE December 5th:
Well, instead of the three guys listed above, Sports Illustrated gave the prize to two long-serving US college basketball coaches who did not win anything in 2011: Mike Krzyzewski and Pat Summitt. They are certainly deserving of something, with 12 NCAA championships and 3 Olympic gold medals between them, but the timing was strange. Perhaps Sports Illustrated / Time Warner wanted to do something "nice" in light of Summitt's recent diagnosis of neurologic illness. On the merits, though, it is difficult to defend.

Worry Not, Flyover Fans

I was on a long trip abroad and somewhat physically infirm for the past couple weeks, but a lot happened in NBA circles. The remnants of the players' union finally agreed with the owners on the framework of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the lockout is more-or-less now over. Immediately thereafter, rumors began flying about potential trade destinations for Chris Paul and Dwight Howard, who will be free agents next summer and don't seem inclined to re-sign with their respective current teams.

Fans of teams in smaller burgs tend to lament the inevitable loss of star players. But, first, the loss is not inevitable: Tim Duncan stayed in San Antonio, Kevin Durant seems bound to remain in OKC, and Isiah Thomas spent a whole career in Detroit. And consider that Kevin Garnett stayed in Minnesota for 12 years; save for one year when Sam Cassell played like an All-Star, the team could not assemble quality talent around him. 12 seasons was more than Garnett owed to the team.

Secondly, if your team loses a star, another will come soon enough. Orlando lost Shaq and Penny; Hill and McGrady soon replaced them. When they proved too brittle for the job, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis rolled into town. Minnesota lost Garnett and now has Love. The Kings of Sacramento once had a robust Webber; now they have a rambunctious Cousins. The annual draft that assigns the best talent to the worst teams tends to do that. Toronto lost Vince Carter but found themselves nurturing a college-aged Bosh. Bosh left, but now Jonas Valanciunas seems poised to shine in T.O. [Toronto is hardly a small market, but its relative unattractiveness for American players makes it comparable to Detroit or Orlando.]

Consider the recent plight of the Grizzlies, a 1995 expansion team. Originally based in Vancouver, the team held Top-6 draft positions every year from 1995 through 2003*, drafting Bryant Reeves, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Antonio Daniels, Mike Bibby, and Stromile Swift along the way. Steve Francis, drafted at #2 in 1999, actually refused to play for the team, exhibiting the same Canuckophobia discussed above. Despite the repeated lottery picks, Vancouver could not build a winning team, mostly due to a poor overall talent level in the draft in those years. (None of Vancouver's draft picks could be derided as obviously terrible. They missed Kevin Garnett by just one draft position; nobody thought Kobe Bryant would be a superstar in '96; the '97 draft pool was terrible; and Mike Bibby had won a college championship while Paul Pierce had not. The 2000 draft was possibly the worst ever.) Owner Michael Heisley could not make the economics of pro hoops work in Vancouver, so he moved the team to another relatively small market, Memphis.

*Memphis's 2003 first-round pick, which obtained as #2 in the lottery, was traded to Detroit.

Heisley and his management were determined to start freshly in their new home. The '01 draft night served up a bounty for the Grizzlies, as they acquired rookie Shane Battier with their lottery pick and rookie Pau Gasol via a trade of Abdur-Rahim. Later that summer, they swapped Bibby for Sacramento's flashy disher, Jason Williams. Gasol won Rookie of the Year that season, and this core of players (plus the aforementioned Swift) was able to reach the playoffs in three consecutive springs from 2004 through '06. Unfortunately, the Grizzlies got swept each time, out-talented by Tim Duncan, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki. After three straight playoff failures, Gasol wanted out; the team had no apparent intention of improving the roster, and Gasol wanted to win. Memphis sought his exit, also: he was clearly not good enough to captain a championship team, and Memphis had no obvious means of acquiring a better superstar with Gasol on the roster.

Thus, starting in '06, the Grizzlies jettisoned their playoff roster and began rebuilding the team. They traded Battier for a draft pick that became one-and-done college prospect Rudy Gay; they acquired Mike Conley in the '07 draft; they traded Paul Gasol for the draft rights of his brother, Marc Gasol; they drafted O.J. Mayo and Darrell Arthur in the talent-laden 2008 draft; and they later drafted Sam Young, Greivis Vazquez, and Xavier Henry. Those are eight players who began their careers with Memphis and are still part of the team. Combined with veteran Zach Randolph, acquired in a 2009 trade, and defensive ace Tony Allen, signed as a free agent last year, the Grizzlies now have a deadly core that can contend for championships for the next few years. Taken seriously by no one, they rolled over the 4-time champion Spurs and nearly made the Western finals last spring.

Twice now, the Grizzlies have restocked their roster with new stars. Fans in Memphis were despondent one year ago, fearing their team might be contracted, but now they have reason for glee. Even fans in Vancouver need not mope; their city might one day get a new or existing NBA team, notwithstanding the earlier divorce.

The lesson here is that smart roster management can sustain a great team in a small market. Dumb roster management, such as the Timberwolves under Kevin McHale, will lead to naught.

Breaking Down The NBA's Final Offer

A relatively detailed summary of the NBA's November 10th proposal (allegedly its last and best offer) is found here in PDF form. Some thoughts:

The ban on "extend-and-trades" in Paragraph 13 is clearly intended to avoid a repetition of the Carmelo Anthony drama that dogged the Nuggets for most of 2010-11. If a top player in his final contract year (such as Chris Paul in the putative 2011-12) is keen to leave his team, he can wait until the following summer to sign with a new team as a free agent; pushing for a trade to his desired team (the Knicks, say) would not immediately yield him a long-term contract extension. Few or no teams would trade for a Paul just a few months before his contract expiration, if they are not allowed to immediately gain his long-term contractual commitment. Of course, it could be that the only way for Paul to get to the Knicks, if they have no good salary-cap room, is via a mid-season trade rather than a summer signing, and then he could re-sign with the Knicks as a "Bird"-type free agent (see Paragraphs 5 and 6). Maybe the Knicks or other similarly-situated teams would do the deal anyway. But the elimination of extend-and-trade transactions will certainly quiet, somewhat, the in-season rumor mill.

Per Paragraphs 4 and 5, the maximum contract length for a free agent joining a new team is 4 years and the annual salary increases are limited to 3.5%; the maximum length for a contract signed with a free-agent's existing team is 5 years, with 6.5% annual increases. For a maximum-salary caliber player (assume the initial max salary is $20 MM), a free-agent contract with his existing team would yield 35% more dollars (compared to a free-agent contract with a new team) over the life of the contract, i.e. approximately $113 MM instead of $84 MM.

Per Paragraph 11, if a free agent signs with his existing team immediately prior to a trade to a new team (the "sign-and-trade" maneuver), then his contractual terms are exactly the same as if he had signed as an outright free agent with the new team: a maximum 4-year deal with 3.5% salary increases. Thus, a free agent has no incentive to push his desired destination team for a sign-and-trade; this change in the rules might actually hurt small-market clubs. It was better for Cleveland and Toronto to receive draft picks when they lost James and Bosh, rather than receiving nothing at all. (Similarly, it was better for Detroit to receive Ben Wallace when they lost Grant Hill, rather than receiving nothing!) And this provision will make it easier for a potential new employer that lacks salary-cap room to compete for a FA's services against teams sufficiently under the salary cap. The employer over the salary cap can acquire the free agent only via a sign-and-trade with the FA's existing team, but the terms of such contract -- four years, 3.5% annual increases -- are exactly the same as if the FA signs a regular contract with the suitor team that is under the salary cap. In other words, creating salary-cap room to lure free agents becomes relatively less attractive under the proposed new CBA. On the other hand, after 2012-13, taxpaying teams will not be allowed to do sign-and-trades. It should be noted, though, that the tax line exceeds the salary cap and many rich teams may savvily figure out a way to stay just under the tax line.

According to some reports, some players are unhappy with the provision in Paragraph 3 saying that players will never receive a higher share than their agreed-upon 50% of Basketball-Related Income. If the dollar value of BRI turns out to be less than projected and the total nominal dollar amount of player salaries exceeds 50% of BRI (even after owners withhold and then keep part of contracted player salaries via the escrow mechanism) then, although owners have no practical means to claw back the cash from players' bank accounts, they will withhold the overpaid money from future seasons' salaries, it seems. I don't see a problem with this; it simply ensures that owners get their 50%.

Per Paragraph 7, maximum player salaries will be unchanged from the 2005 CBA, as I assumed in my post last week modeling team salaries under the new system. Also consistent with my post last week, rookie salaries (see Paragraph 10) and veteran minimum player salaries (see Paragraph 6) will be reduced by 12% -- the same percentage reduction as the player BRI share will undergo (from 57 percentage points of BRI to 50 percentage points). Again, intra-team inequality will worsen under this new system.

A Tidy Model of Team Salaries

I attempted to illustrate the problem of salary inequality in my September 26th post, but my explanation was a bit clumsy; let me try again in clearer language this time. The percentage of Basketball-Related Income that players in aggregate receive (currently pegged at 50% in the latest negotiations, and formerly 57% in the 2005 labor agreement) determines total salaries, but does not determine the inter-player distribution of salaries. Let us take a simple example. Say total BRI is projected at $100. Say there are only two teams in the league, each with six players-- five starters and a sixth man. Let us use the 57% number from the '05 deal. Under such terms, all players combined will receive $57. The top two stars (LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, say) might receive $16 each. (Assume player salaries are capped at $16.) If the "mid-level exception" is capped at $5.33 per year, then some team will likely sign a secondary free-agent player (Jamal Crawford, David West) at $5.33. [Why wouldn't a team sign free agents for less? Is Jamal Crawford really 1/3 as good as James or Bryant? In a competitive bidding scenario, with limited quality free agents, teams are forced to overbid up to the individual cap, lest they wind up with nothing, which would guarantee that their roster will remain stagnant.] Each team then pays a total of ~$7.2 (averaging $1.79 per player) to its remaining four players, so each team's payroll is $28.5 and aggregate league spending is $57. So to recap, here are the salaries:

Team King
LeBron James - $16
Jamal Crawford - $5.33
King Scrub 1 - $1.79
King Scrub 2 - $1.79
King Scrub 3 - $1.79
King Scrub 4 - $1.79

Team Mamba
Kobe Bryant - $16
David West - $5.33
Mamba Scrub A - $1.79
Mamba Scrub B - $1.79
Mamba Scrub C - $1.79
Mamba Scrub D - $1.79

Now imagine the season's Basketball-Related Income is tallied up and it is not actually $100, but really $90, which is 10% under $100. Every salary thus will be rolled back by 10% to maintain the 57% of BRI ratio. The new salaries will be:

Team King
LeBron James - $14.4
Jamal Crawford - $4.8
King Scrub 1 - $1.61
King Scrub 2 - $1.61
King Scrub 3 - $1.61
King Scrub 4 - $1.61

Team Mamba
Kobe Bryant - $14.4
David West - $4.8
Mamba Scrub A - $1.61
Mamba Scrub B - $1.61
Mamba Scrub C - $1.61
Mamba Scrub D - $1.61

Now total salaries are $51.3 (57% of $90). However, notice that regardless of how the total dollar amount of BRI comes out, if we fix aggregate salaries at 57% of BRI and assume certain other individual salary caps, then the best player on the team will always earn three times what the second-best player makes, and about 9x the salary of each role player.

Now, let us assume again that total BRI is $100, but, after some bitter labor negotiations, let us tweak two features of the system: first, player share of BRI falls to 50% (so each team has a payroll of $25), and the mid-level exception salary for free agents falls to $3. Assume the maximum salary remains at $16. What now?

Team King
LeBron James - $16
Jamal Crawford - $3
King Scrub 1 - $1.5
King Scrub 2 - $1.5
King Scrub 3 - $1.5
King Scrub 4 - $1.5

Team Mamba
Kobe Bryant - $16
David West - $3
Mamba Scrub A - $1.5
Mamba Scrub B - $1.5
Mamba Scrub C - $1.5
Mamba Scrub D - $1.5

Notice, now, that James and Bryant make more than five times the salary of their respective running mates, and nearly 11x the salary of their scrubs. [Now imagine again that BRI falls to $90 instead of $100. The numbers immediately above will all be reduced by 10%, but the ratios of salaries between different players will remain the same. I will omit that presentation so as not to bore you too much.]

Who suffers here? Obviously, mid-level-exception-caliber players suffer a lot, seeing their salary reduced by 44%, from $5.33 to $3. Scrub players also see their salary reduced by 16%, which is more than the percentage reduction, 12%, in the players' aggregate BRI share. Mid-level players are asked to bear much of the player suffering, and scrubs get hurt as well, disproportionately to the union's overall hit. Superstars like James and Bryant don't suffer one bit, at least in my example (and, I believe, in the owners' actual proposal).

Of course, if I scaled up the dollar value of BRI sufficiently (more and more eyeballs are watching the Association in China), I could construct a set of numbers where Crawford, West, and the scrubs are making an equal or better salary in dollars under the new regime, compared to the old regime. Say BRI blows up to $180 (so the players' share is $90 and each team has a payroll of $45), and the individual max salary, and the mid-level exception salary, are both increased by 80%.

Team King
LeBron James - $28.8
Jamal Crawford - $5.4
King Scrub 1 - $2.7
King Scrub 2 - $2.7
King Scrub 3 - $2.7
King Scrub 4 - $2.7

Team Mamba
Kobe Bryant - $28.8
David West - $5.4
Mamba Scrub A - $2.7
Mamba Scrub B - $2.7
Mamba Scrub C - $2.7
Mamba Scrub D - $2.7

This scenario is entirely possible with the projected growth in league revenues during the coming decade. The scrub salary (which is also the median player salary) is higher under such assumptions. And perhaps the inability of teams with one superstar to sign another very good player (due to the paltry mid-level-exception salary for tax-paying teams) will encourage parity among teams, thus juicing fan interest. Posit for a moment that the new system could actually contribute, by itself, to BRI growth, and my imagined 80% growth of revenues would not happen with the 2005-2011 rules. So why wouldn't players be happy with this deal? Well, note that now, as I mentioned above, the superstar makes over 5 times the salary of his best teammate, and over 10 times the salary of his worst teammates. Under the 2005-2011 regime, those values were 3 and 9.

So inter-player inequality is worse under the new system, even if the average player is earning more money. Is that enough to make the deal objectionable? Note that most of the NBPA could be charitably called "scrubs": only about 3 players on each real team are vital for amassing wins, and the rest are interchangeable. The composition of the NBPA's executive committee suggests this: 8 of the 9 guys are far from All-Stars. It is the scrubs whom union President Fisher and Executive Director Hunter toil for. How much do players mind inequality of income between them and their best teammate? Perhaps the knowledge of 11-fold inequality could lead to locker-room resentment, even if James, Bryant, Wade, Howard, Durant, and the like really do drive ticket and jersey sales to that degree. Looking beyond pro hoops at the broader political-economic system in our society, a majority of Americans don't seem to like the extent of income and wealth inequality that has developed during the past 30 years.

I am not sure whether the players are really resentful over the prospect of intra-union salary inequality, or whether they are just mad at losing their 57% and not inclined to give the owners a "win" just yet. However, judging from the rhetoric of some player representatives, there is a good argument that the players might rather be poorer and more equal, rather than richer and further apart.

Two Bicyclists Headed For A Collision

Last Saturday, NBA owners, fronted by Commissioner Stern, offered players an improved deal that could potentially give players up to 51% of Basketball-Related Income, though the percentage would more likely settle around 50%. Stern threatened to withdraw the deal and replace it with a much worse set of terms if not accepted by Wednesday afternoon, November 9th. A fuller description of Stern's offer is contained in this excellent article by the NYT's Howard Beck, who has consistently been the best reporter on the recent negotiations. Meanwhile, today's reports indicate that several players are ready to take the currently-offered deal.

I cannot predict what will happen in this test of wills. It is notable that players have slowly relaxed all of their previous commitments: 53% of income is no longer a must-have; a punitive luxury tax now seems palatable; and contracts will be shorter than before. A deal could be had with a bit more budging by both parties, but perhaps they both feel they have budged enough and will not slide their respective positions more just to make a deal. They have both attempted to signal their willingness to lose the season — Deron Williams accepted work in Turkey and half the Denver Nuggets took contracts in China, while the owners have already cancelled all of November's games — but actually walking away from play would be insane. From the examples of the 1994 Major League Baseball strike and the 2004-05 NHL lockout, fans would not cheerfully return 12 months later. Unfortunately, neither side seems very inclined to swerve in this game of chicken.

UPDATE, November 8th: The NBPA announced today that they are unwilling to take the league's latest offer. These articles from Sports Illustrated's website provide excellent updates on the terms of negotiation.

It's About Time

What took so long for NBA players to make a serious push at decertification of their union? Pre-emptively taking your best negotiating threat off the table was a poor idea.

Is Marriage For Suckers?

A great article appeared today by Sports Illustrated's Ian Thomsen about Brian Shaw's unsuccessful hunt for the L.A. Lakers' head coaching position. While Shaw is a very strong candidate, Mike Brown is as well and I don't view the Lakers' decision as clearly unreasonable. I did notice, however, the recurring suggestion that Jim Buss, son of team owner Jerry Buss, wanted to expunge any trace of Phil Jackson's leadership from his organization.

After 11 championship-laden seasons with Jackson, there seems little reason to change the organization's direction, particularly when the core players from the recent title teams are ready for at least one more run. Perhaps the Busses are eager to prove that they, and not the coaching staff, are the ultimate drivers of success in the organization. The Buss family will likely lead the Lakers franchise as long as the NBA exists (until the next global nuclear war, perhaps); it may behoove them to show the rest of the league that their permanence will long dominate passing staff. But the Lakers, like most successful teams, have maintained ties to their great alumni: Abdul-Jabbar was an assistant coach, Johnson a part-owner, West the general manager. Why send Jackson's entire squad of assistant coaches out of SoCal?

The real story may be the part left silent in Thomson's SI article. Jackson has, almost since he showed up in Los Angeles in 1999, been the steady boyfriend (by now and at their age, a husband, really, though he apparently does not prefer the ratification of law) of Jeannie Buss, who is Jim's brother and also a Vice-President in the Laker organization. So Jim does not like his quasi-brother-in-law, or at least prefers not to do business with the tall one. Joining a "company family" is not easy; I would rather keep my professional life out of my home, and vice-versa. I wonder what Thanksgiving dinner around the Buss table might be like later this month.

UPDATE: This writer had the same thoughts as I did after reading the SI.com piece.

If Mainstream News Covered Politics Like They Cover the NBA

Sean Hannity would tell us OMB's latest estimates for the growth rate of TANF block grants in FY12.

Wolf Blitzer would tweet about the alignment of GOP representatives with either Cantor or Boehner on the Airport And Airway Extension Act.

Your local News At Eleven would lead with the number of weekly cafeteria duty periods agreed to in the latest teachers' labor contract.

TMZ would publish a leaked draft of the latest Status of Forces Agreement between the USA and Bulgaria.

Jay Leno would bring on his favorite economist to opine on the wage elasticity of labor supply.

C-SPAN would play in local watering holes.

A Suggestion For NBA Owners

Would you rather not give away half of your revenue to your performers? Why settle for the NBPA's latest offer when you can improve your economics a hundredfold?

NBA Labor Talks Go Nowhere

Pro basketball labor negotiations concluded today without an agreement and with grim portents for the coming months: The entire October slate of pre-season games has been cancelled, and regular-season games will be cancelled next Monday if there is no agreement by that time.

Reading the quotes in this article, it seems that the NBA owners formally offered a revenue split of 47% to the players, but Commissioner Stern later strongly hinted that they are willing to come up to 50%. The players' union, however, remains unwilling to budge from its latest offer of 53%. (Whether the owners are sincere in suggesting that a 50-50 split would sate them is unclear, but it would be difficult to walk back from such a public statement.)

It seems, then, that the owners are more ready to compromise to reach a deal today and begin playing ball. I do not attach any moral opprobrium or admiration for a willingness to cave on one's initial position, or for a stubborn insistence on not losing face. I merely note that the players appear less willing to agree to the psychologically salient half-half division of revenues. (They may soften their resolve after a couple months of lost paychecks, of course. An entire missed season of salary is a greater loss, given the average player's 5-year career, than the aggregated annual differences between 50% and 53% of total revenues.)

Of course, a negotiating party can try to appear reasonable by throwing out an extreme initial bid and then "compromising" to something less provocative. And the owners have already won a dimension of these talks by carving out certain revenue streams from the definition of "Basketball-Related Income" that is subject to division. I am mindful that Stern and the NBA owners are trying to spin external observers and commenters. In these talks, the owners began with a proposal of 46% to the players, while the players would have been chuffed to continue the 57% dictated by the 2005 labor agreement. Perhaps the players feel that they should not have to move so much. But the old contract is now null and void; the players' new bargaining position is determined solely by economic factors and the wiles of their negotiating team.