Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Around-the-NBA type newspaper articles

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Samir K. Misra

unread,
Mar 27, 1990, 6:39:18 AM3/27/90
to
In addition to the wire-service reports of NBA games and the newspaper's own
beat writer covering the local team(s), most newspapers also have some kind of
a weekly NBA feature. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer has such a feature
every Sunday (written by their Sixers beat writer Bob Ford), where they talk
about trade rumors, hirings and firings, and othe league snippets. I know some
of the New York tabloids also have such features and would like to read them.
Does anyone know which day of the week they appear? Is Peter Vecsey's column
any good? When and in which paper does he write?


--
(` _ . |\ /| . (` _
_) (_\ |V| | |] | \/ | | _) |] (_\ sa...@cvrc.med.upenn.edu
_______| |___|\_ | |______|\____

edward.lor

unread,
Mar 27, 1990, 11:24:49 PM3/27/90
to
In article <1...@cvrc.med.upenn.edu> sa...@cvrc.med.upenn.edu (Samir K. Misra) writes:
>In addition to the wire-service reports of NBA games and the newspaper's own
>beat writer covering the local team(s), most newspapers also have some kind of
>a weekly NBA feature. For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer has such a feature
>every Sunday (written by their Sixers beat writer Bob Ford), where they talk
>about trade rumors, hirings and firings, and othe league snippets. I know some
>of the New York tabloids also have such features and would like to read them.
>Does anyone know which day of the week they appear? Is Peter Vecsey's column
>any good? When and in which paper does he write?

Pete Vecsey's column appears on the NY Post every Tuesday.

On the Daily News, Fred Kerber's column appears every Sunday, and probably
once in the weekday (I forget which day).

On the National, Ted Green's column appears every Friday.

Pete Vecsey's column was OK. But I don't like his recent ones, which are
basically swipes on the sinking Knicks. Al "Batross" Bianchi has become
his favorite whipping boy, a role used belong to R Sampson.

I like Ted Green's the best, not only is he a Lakers fan, also because
he happens to agree with most of my opinions. For example:

1) Michael Jordan is so individually dominant that his team is never ever
going to win a championship. He used Wilt as an example. It's not until
Wilt lowered his scoring average in 1967 that he won his first ring.
2) The end of March are the dog days of the NBA, it's sad that everybody is
so caught up in the inferior games played by boys. The quote I like most is

"And those contrived coaches' handshakes staged for the TV cameras?
They're as fake as costume jewelry."

3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.

--
Edward Lor
AT&T Bell Labs

Kyle E. Pope

unread,
Mar 28, 1990, 7:06:43 PM3/28/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>, l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor) writes:
> 1) Michael Jordan is so individually dominant that his team is never ever
> going to win a championship. He used Wilt as an example. It's not until
> Wilt lowered his scoring average in 1967 that he won his first ring.
> 2) The end of March are the dog days of the NBA, it's sad that everybody is
> so caught up in the inferior games played by boys. The quote I like
most is
>
> "And those contrived coaches' handshakes staged for the TV cameras?
> They're as fake as costume jewelry."
>
> 3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.
>
> --
> Edward Lor
> AT&T Bell Labs
>

I just have to disagree with the third statement. The players I see as
being the most valuable to their team are Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone and
Charles Barkley.

Ewing is attempting to carry the Knicks, but without someone to help him
on the boards, the Knicks aren't as impressive.

Malone is just an all-around awesome player. He can score lots of
points and get lots of rebounds consistently. He has the muscle to
be a dominating low-post player for years to come. One knock against
him being so valuable is John Stockton. Critics will say that many
players can put up the stats Malone does if they are on the receiving
end of 15 assists per night. I don't agree.

Barkley is a sentimental pick on my part. He is a jerk who should
learn to shut up and just play basketball, but he can also back up
the hot air he is spouting. In an interview with Barkley, a sportswriter
asked why Barkley thought he shouild be MVP as opposed to Magic or Bird
who "make their teammates look better." Barkley replied by asking,
"Who's easier to make look better...Kevin McHale or Shelton Jones?"
Good point.

Kyle Pope ndp...@athena.mit.edu

Samson De Key

unread,
Mar 28, 1990, 8:45:01 PM3/28/90
to
In article <1990Mar29.0...@athena.mit.edu> ndp...@athena.mit.edu (Kyle E. Pope) writes:
>Ewing is attempting to carry the Knicks, but without someone to help him
>on the boards, the Knicks aren't as impressive.

If nobody's helping Ewing on the boards, then this Oakley guy must be the
biggest media hype this decade.

Sam

Andrew Markham

unread,
Mar 28, 1990, 11:30:34 PM3/28/90
to

I believe that Oakley was recently injured. Being a Bulls fan and hating
the trade between Cartwright and Oakley (for a day or two - I'm starting
to like it now), Oakley is NO media hype. He averages 10+ rebounds per
game (I don't have my stats with me)!

_|_o Andrew W. Markham <mar...@wsmail.cs.unc.edu>
| V \O Computer Science Department UNC-CH
| |\ "Nobody in the world can cover my main man Michael Jordan.
| / \ No, No, Nobody." -Mars Blackmon

Corey Leonard

unread,
Mar 29, 1990, 12:22:53 AM3/29/90
to
In article <1...@gamera.cs.utexas.edu> sde...@cs.utexas.edu (Samson De Key) writes:


Hold on a second Sam, You obivously have not heard that Oakley is injured
and he is the only BIGMAN in the LOW-POST to help Ewing. Kenny Walker
can SCORE and is a DAWN GOOD defensive player, BUT when it comes to
Rebounds; NO ONE can DO IT LIKE Oakley. He even out-rebounds Ewing on a
constant basis. He is the second in the league in rebounds behind
Olajuwon.
AND PERSONALLY I FEEL HE WAS JERKED AT THE ALL-STAR GAME... HE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A STARTER...

COME ON KNICKS. GET IT TOGETHER....
G.Q.

John Carter

unread,
Mar 29, 1990, 2:50:38 PM3/29/90
to
corey@hcx (Corey Leonard) writes:

>... when it comes to Rebounds; NO ONE can DO IT LIKE Oakley.
...


>He is the second in the league in rebounds behind Olajuwon.

Doesn't your second statement (a fact) tend to contradict your first
statement (an opinion)? Enquiring minds (and Olajuwon fans) want to know.

Akeem is averaging approx. 14.8 rebounds a game. His closest competitors
pull down approx. 11.8 rebounds a game (there are several players right
around there). A 3 rpg gap between Dream and the rest of the field makes it
pretty clear who the top rebounder in the league is. The possible argument
that Oakley has to work harder than Akeem because he's teamed with Ewing
doesn't cut it, since Akeem is teamed with Otis Thorpe, who averages about
9.5 boards a game, and Larry Smith, who pulls down about 7 boards a game.

BTW, Tarpley would be right up near Akeem if he'd played the entire season.

--
John Carter (ret...@rice.edu) Basketball : Rock-heads (Rockets)
Rice University (Perennial) Football : Fish-heads (Dolphins)
Computer Science Grad school: Bone-heads (My pals and I)

"That's it, no more! Sign the @#%$ form and let me go!" - Me, soon (I hope).

Prakash Narain

unread,
Mar 29, 1990, 2:52:10 PM3/29/90
to
In article <1990Mar29.0...@athena.mit.edu> ndp...@athena.mit.edu (Kyle E. Pope) writes:
>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>, l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor) writes:

[Ted Green writes:]

>> 1) Michael Jordan is so individually dominant that his team is never ever
>> going to win a championship. He used Wilt as an example. It's not until
>> Wilt lowered his scoring average in 1967 that he won his first ring.

>> 3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.

>> Edward Lor

> I just have to disagree with the third statement. The players I see as
> being the most valuable to their team are Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone and
> Charles Barkley.

You have missed out the best of them all. Michael Jordan. Who do you think
is carrying the Bulls? Stacy King?

> asked why Barkley thought he shouild be MVP as opposed to Magic or Bird
> who "make their teammates look better." Barkley replied by asking,
> "Who's easier to make look better...Kevin McHale or Shelton Jones?"

This is the most signficant point in this whole argument.

In my opinion, Ted Green does not know which hole he is talking from. What
the Bulls really need, in order to win championships, is Ted Green as their
coach. Then he can call upon Michael Jordan to score less and upon Pippen
and Cartwright to score 20+ a game. Unfortunately, the last two coaches
that the Bulls have had, failed to think of this scheme. They are both
idiots.

Incidently, how exactly is Jordan supposed to lower his scoring average?
Should he miss more shots per game or should he let Bill Cartwright
attempt a lot of shots?

>Kyle Pope ndp...@athena.mit.edu

Prakash

Paul GOODE

unread,
Mar 29, 1990, 3:43:56 PM3/29/90
to
In article <1990Mar29.0...@athena.mit.edu>, ndp...@athena.mit.edu (Kyle E. Pope) writes:
> > 3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.
> >
> > --
> I just have to disagree with the third statement. The players I see as
> being the most valuable to their team are Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone and
> Charles Barkley.
>
> Ewing is attempting to carry the Knicks, but without someone to help him
This is a good list, but I think that Magic clearly deserves
consideration for MVP. This may be my bias showing, but I
believe that David Robinson does, too. Yes, he plays with
some talented people, but all of the others do, too, Barkley's
disingenuous remark about Shelton Jones notwithstanding.

The point is that Robinson -- like all of the above -- is the
key player on his team, and has been delivering all season
long. What separates him is the degree to which he has
exceeded expectations and the turnaround of his club. Even
with all of the new faces, the Spurs would be a .500 club
without the Admiral. As it is, they're 47-22 and are currently
starting two rookies and two second-year men (this lineup
is 9-2, I believe). The way he's playing, they have a great
chance to finish strong and set a record for most improved
record.

If I had a vote, I would choose Johnson: I don't think the
Lakers would be a very good team without him (after Johnson
and Worthy, the roster is not especially impressive); with
him, they could win another NBA championship. I don't think
this claim can be made for any of the other players above, with
the possible exception of Malone. But the Admiral desrves
a few honorable mentions.

Paul

edward.lor

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 12:25:18 AM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar29....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:
>Then he can call upon Michael Jordan to score less and upon Pippen
>and Cartwright to score 20+ a game. Unfortunately, the last two coaches
>that the Bulls have had, failed to think of this scheme. They are both
>idiots.
>
>Incidently, how exactly is Jordan supposed to lower his scoring average?
>Should he miss more shots per game or should he let Bill Cartwright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>attempt a lot of shots?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, Prakash, to my surprise, you hit it right on the money.

Yes, the two Chicago coaches are both idiots. They have a lethal weapon
in Cartwright and fail to use him properly.

Cartwright averaged 10.81 FGA, 6.16 FTA in his NY career, only 9.22 FGA, 3.99
FTA in his 2 years in Chicago. Even in 83 and 84, when he was teamed with
another one-man show Bernard King, you could still count on Cartwright for
16-17 points from the paint.

And although Cartwright carries a "soft" label like James Edwards, is a
legitimate low-post threat. He was a .552 career shooter in New York, never
dipped below .531. While your friend MJ is only a .513 shooter.

Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 1:43:19 AM3/30/90
to
In article <53...@microsoft.UUCP> pa...@microsoft.UUCP (Paul GOODE) writes:
>In article <1990Mar29.0...@athena.mit.edu>, ndp...@athena.mit.edu (Kyle E. Pope) writes:
>> > 3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.
>> >
>> Charles Barkley.
>> Ewing is attempting to carry the Knicks, but without
>This is a good list, but I think that Magic clearly deserves
>consideration for MVP. This may be my bias showing, but I
>believe that David Robinson does, too. Yes, he plays with

Enough already - about contributing for your team ... With Jordan the
Bulls would be fighting for a playoff berth, and not with the 2nd best
record in the East. With Jordan the should/could/would reach the
Eastern finals, while without him they'd be hitory in round 1 (if they
made the playoffs).

So as far as contributing to your team, there is no doubt in my mind
that Jordan deserves the MVP, because without him the Bulls would be
nowhere.

That is not to say, the Bulls are a one man team - notwithstanding his
69 point performance. Even if Jordan was on any other team in the
league, he would have scored 50+ points that night. What do you want
the man to do to score less - deliberately miss shots??

Anyway, back to the 1-man-team argument. Sure, he's by a large margin
the best player on the team - this would be true of most other teams
in the league. Jordan is by so far better than anyone else, he
dominates, and any coach that does not use his most potent weapon is
deranged.

Hey, I wouldn't mind another Jordan or even a micro-Jordan on the
Bulls, but Pippin and Cartwright do a very able job of taking some of
the heat of MJ. But he is the main man...

Sure he has the ball at crunch time, but at crunch time inspite of the
awesome Laker team who do you think Riley wants to have the ball -
Magic. 4-5 years ago, even when McHale & Parish were awesome (they
still are great Celt fans ..), Bird had the ball in the clutch.

-Bharat
R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
E-Mail: bha...@gaea.cs.uiuc.edu
US Mail: Beckman Institute, 405 N Matthews, Urbana, IL61801

Andrew Markham

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 9:46:31 AM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar30....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <53...@microsoft.UUCP> pa...@microsoft.UUCP (Paul GOODE) writes:
>>In article <1990Mar29.0...@athena.mit.edu>, ndp...@athena.mit.edu (Kyle E. Pope) writes:
>>> > 3) Magic is the front runner of the MVP.
>>> >
>>> Charles Barkley.
>>> Ewing is attempting to carry the Knicks, but without
>>This is a good list, but I think that Magic clearly deserves
>>consideration for MVP. This may be my bias showing, but I
>>believe that David Robinson does, too. Yes, he plays with
>
>Hey, I wouldn't mind another Jordan or even a micro-Jordan on the
>Bulls, but Pippin and Cartwright do a very able job of taking some of
>the heat of MJ. But he is the main man...
>
>-Bharat

I personally feel that Pippen is WAY underrated. A couple of nights ago,
the distribution of box scores went something like...

Person Min Pts Ast Reb Stl
------ --- --- --- --- ---
Pippen 36 27 9 6 4
Jordan 27 28 6 12 4

Not to take away from Jordan's abilities, but Pippen can play pretty damn
good ball and is starting to look like a 'micro-Jordan'.

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 11:06:05 AM3/30/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>Yes, the two Chicago coaches are both idiots. They have a lethal weapon
>in Cartwright and fail to use him properly.

>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.


>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.

> Edward Lor

To say that Chicago almost lost because MJ scored 69 points while
Cartwright had only FGA's is downright lunacy. Causality is a
wonderful thing. Yes, Chicago almost lost (thats true of most OT
wins), Jordan scored 69, and Cartwright took 7 shots. Whats the
logical conclusion from this? MJ's selfishness almost caused Chicago
the game? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Most people would conclude
that had MJ not scored as much, Cleveland would actually have managed
to beat the Bulls ..... but it takes all types ....

All right to use your stats about that 1 night ...

Jordan shot - 22/37 if my memory serves me right - thats about 59.5%.
Even using the statistical arguments you have about big Bill ..

>legitimate low-post threat. He was a .552 career shooter in New York, never
>dipped below .531. While your friend MJ is only a .513 shooter.

Well my poor shooting friend had a good night - he shot only near 60%.
So your friend Bill did the right thing - let the guy with the hot
hand shoot - as far as I can tell .595 > .552. So at least on that one
night the the Bulls coaches followed your policy....

People agree that MJ is the best player in the league, perhaps the
greatest talent ever. He would dominate the scoring on *ANY* team, not
because he is a selfish ball hog, but because coaches (stupid them!)
want their teams to win - and so have the "best" player take the key
shots.

Yes Jordan almost exclusively has the ball in clutch situations in the
4th quarter. Even on the great Laker team, Magic is always the key
man, and even 5-6 years ago when the Celtic frontline was the best
thing since whenever, Bird was Mr. Clutch. If I was a coach given that
I had a choice, I would want to loose if Magic or Bird missed, not
because Dennis Johnson (no offense) clanged a 17 footer off the iron
with 2 seconds left. The same is true of MJ.

The Bulls starters are vastly under-rated. True without MJ making the
playoffs would make the Bull's season - with him I expect them to
reach the Eastern finals where the $#%^&@ Pistons will win again in 6.

Pippin & Cartwright are no slouches, as you have pointed out. They
don't have the depth to deal with a healthy Piston team - but I doubt
any other team does. Paxson and Grant do a great job as well. If -
there always that - the rookies develop, who knows ....

edward.lor

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 11:25:44 AM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar30....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>Enough already - about contributing for your team ... With Jordan the
>Bulls would be fighting for a playoff berth, and not with the 2nd best
>record in the East. With Jordan the should/could/would reach the
>Eastern finals, while without him they'd be hitory in round 1 (if they
>made the playoffs).
Well, it's that time of the year, the "without XXX our team will be shit"
campaign.

Let me try ....

Without Tom Chambers the Suns won 28 games, with Chambers they won 55.
He wasn't even one of the top vote-getters in last year's MVP. He won't get
many again this year.

This year:

- Without Buck, the Trailblazers were a losing team barely qualified for the
playoffs. With Buck, they are one of the elite.

- Without Ricky Mahorn, the 76ers were a lousy lottery team. With Ricky, they
are one of the top

- Without Terry Cummings and David Robinson, the Spurs won 21 games and almost
made Larry Brown quit. With these two guys, they become one of the elite.

- Without Larry Bird, the Celtics were a .500 team barely made the playoffs.
With Bird, they are one of the top teams again.



>So as far as contributing to your team, there is no doubt in my mind
>that Jordan deserves the MVP, because without him the Bulls would be
>nowhere.

OK, so with your reasoning, the leading MVP candidates should be:
Buck, Ricky, Cummings + Robinson (co-MVP), Bird, and Chambers.

MJ? MJ? Malone? Barkley? Ewing? They have been with the team too long. How
shitty their teams were before they joined were beyond everyone's memory,
i.e. not a reasonable measure.

See, your reasoning of "without XXX my team will be ...." SOUNDS reasonable,
but it is nothing but a myth fans make up. The voters have NEVER used it as
voting criteria.

Who care how bad your team is without XXX? We only care how great your team
is with XXX. And these are two different measures.

>Sure he has the ball at crunch time, but at crunch time inspite of the
>awesome Laker team who do you think Riley wants to have the ball -
>Magic.

Another myth again.

Sure, Magic has the ball only because he is the point guard.

As I detailed in another article previously, the Lakers try to have
some unpredictability during crunch time this season. Many other players
have had taken last-second game-winning/tying shots (AC, Byron, Thompson,
Worthy).

AC - at Denver
Byron - at San Antonio
Thompson - at Milwaukee
Worthy - he's the other goto guy

Actually, going to Thompson is not a smart move on the surface.
He has never shown he can hit THE shot in his 3+ years with the Lakers. In
the Milwaukee game, he missed the shot and they lost the game. But going
to him is simply an investment that may pay off sometime in the playoffs.

So who do you think Riley wants to have the ball? And who do you think Phil
Jackson wants to have the ball?

Gidi Avrahami

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 12:35:23 PM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>
>>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.
>
>To say that Chicago almost lost because MJ scored 69 points while
>Cartwright had only FGA's is downright lunacy. Causality is a
>wonderful thing.

Try not to get so heated up. Let me explain Ed's reasoning, or at
least, my version thereof:

Had Chicago had a few more consistent shooters, and had they been
committed to giving them the ball even when they start the game
shooting bricks, they would be able to get -- consistently --
10 to 15 points from the likes of Cartwright, King, Paxson and,
of course Pippen.

However, they don't and they won't. When people start missing their
shots, Chicago switches to Jordan mode. Jordan is great enough to
respond, so it seems like it's no problem. At the end of the day,
you have a W (which is nice) and you also have eleven players on
the roster who know that they don't mean diddley in the scheme of
things, that they will never need to make a clutch shot, and that
they are merely ball boys for Michael.

You'll win a lot of games with this system, but I doubt very much
that you'll ever win a championship. This is the Wilt Syndrom (c).

It's like the old debate on Boston not using the bench in the 85-88
campaigns. When you have a wonderful weapon, why not use it all the
time? The answer is, because the regular season is when you develop
a 7-9 man rotation. In Boston's case, it was total burnout after the
86 championship. In the Bulls' case, it means a very limited playoff
horizon.

>... Most people would conclude


>that had MJ not scored as much, Cleveland would actually have managed
>to beat the Bulls

Of course this is not the case. But if the other players made a few
shots, Michael would not have needed to score 69 for the win. Forty
Jordan points + 20 from Cartwright would have sufficed for a win in
regulation.

>Pippin & Cartwright are no slouches

And yet you misspelled his name. This wouldn't have happened if
Pippen was a really importnat cog in the machine. ``Here comes
what's-his-name, the second leading scorer for the Chicago Bulls.''
``Really? I never knew they had a second leading scorer.''


--
Gidi gi...@cs.stanford.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hell, if you understand everything I say, you'd be me!" (Miles Davis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prakash Narain

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 12:48:37 PM3/30/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:

>In article <1990Mar29....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:

>>Incidently, how exactly is Jordan supposed to lower his scoring average?
>>Should he miss more shots per game or should he let Bill Cartwright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>attempt a lot of shots?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Yes, the two Chicago coaches are both idiots. They have a lethal weapon


>in Cartwright and fail to use him properly.

>Cartwright averaged 10.81 FGA, 6.16 FTA in his NY career, only 9.22 FGA, 3.99
>FTA in his 2 years in Chicago. Even in 83 and 84, when he was teamed with
>another one-man show Bernard King, you could still count on Cartwright for
>16-17 points from the paint.

Well, Eddy, I don't really care about what Cartwright did with Bernard
King. What I know is that New York did not win any championships. So
you have another example of an idiot coach who failed to recognize that
the key to winning a championship is to let Cartwright attempt more
shots than Bernard King. May be you should enter the coaching profession.

>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I always thought that implication is your strong point. But you screw up
when you have to formulate your own premises. How did you establish the
relationship between Michael's scoring and Chicago's near loss? Also,
how do you rate the significance of a loss, near loss and a blow out?

> Edward Lor

Prakash

Gautam Mehrotra

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 1:10:29 PM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>>Yes, the two Chicago coaches are both idiots. They have a lethal weapon
>>in Cartwright and fail to use him properly.
>
>>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.
>> Edward Lor
>
[ junk deleted]

>
>Yes Jordan almost exclusively has the ball in clutch situations in the
>4th quarter. Even on the great Laker team, Magic is always the key
>man, and even 5-6 years ago when the Celtic frontline was the best
>thing since whenever, Bird was Mr. Clutch. If I was a coach given that
>I had a choice, I would want to loose if Magic or Bird missed, not
>because Dennis Johnson (no offense) clanged a 17 footer off the iron
>with 2 seconds left. The same is true of MJ.

Yes, in clutch situations you want the best player to have
the ball -- that doesn't mean that the other 4 guys stand and watch.
When Magic / Bird have the ball in their hands in the last 4-5 min.,
their other teammates are a threat too because Magic/Bird often pass
the ball to their teammates for an easy layup/dunk/jump shot. DJ has
made many a clutch basket for the Celtics. Haven't you heard of
James 'Big Games' Worthy. If Magic/Bird are double/triple
teams they have the ability to deliver to a teammate for
an 'easy' shot -- Jordan either doesn't look for his teammates
or his teammates screw up when he does. That implies that one(or
both) of the following is not true --
a. Jordan is a great team player.
b. Bulls starters are underrated.
If you insist that the Bulls starters are 'vastly under-rated'
and that MJ is a great teamplayer ( we all agree he is a great
'individual' player ), then the Bulls should be better than 7th in
the league ...


>
>The Bulls starters are vastly under-rated. True without MJ making the
>playoffs would make the Bull's season - with him I expect them to
>reach the Eastern finals where the $#%^&@ Pistons will win again in 6.
>
>Pippin & Cartwright are no slouches, as you have pointed out. They
>don't have the depth to deal with a healthy Piston team - but I doubt
>any other team does. Paxson and Grant do a great job as well. If -
>there always that - the rookies develop, who knows ....

We can keep hoping ... !


>
>
>-Bharat
>R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
>E-Mail: bha...@gaea.cs.uiuc.edu
>US Mail: Beckman Institute, 405 N Matthews, Urbana, IL61801

cheers,
gautam

JAZZ over BULLS in the finals !

Prakash Narain

unread,
Mar 30, 1990, 2:18:31 PM3/30/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> gi...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:

[Analyzing the Chicago style of play :]

>Had Chicago had a few more consistent shooters, and had they been
>committed to giving them the ball even when they start the game
>shooting bricks, they would be able to get -- consistently --
>10 to 15 points from the likes of Cartwright, King, Paxson and,
>of course Pippen.

>However, they don't and they won't. When people start missing their
>shots, Chicago switches to Jordan mode. Jordan is great enough to
>respond, so it seems like it's no problem. At the end of the day,
>you have a W (which is nice) and you also have eleven players on
>the roster who know that they don't mean diddley in the scheme of
>things

I would have agreed with a lot of what you have said (in substance) last
year. This is exactly the reason why I was very happy to see Doug Collins
go. I also thought that it would be great when the new coach developes
different schemes and gets more people involved. Chicago will not be
a one man team any longer.

Considering that I follow the Bulls very closely and you don't, it is
not surprising that you still harbour the same opinions. I have, however,
over this season, seen the Bulls attempt to do that and fail. Sure,
with the new coach, they have changed their style of play. Now, they
don't ask Michael to score 20 points in the fourth quater and win the
game for them. You do not see Michael dancing around with the ball,
challenging the double teams, drive to the basket and still score a
twisting layup. Instead, he plays more at the perimeter. But look at
the box scores at the end of the game and you still have Michael with
30+ points.

Much to chagrin of many Bulls fans, I had commented that the Bulls
are no better than last year. I still believe that the Bulls are
quite pathetic offensively. But this is going to change. Stacy King
and Armstrong should see a lot of playing time next year and after
Michael, these are the two best offensive players that the Bulls have.
Then we will really find out what to make of Michael's team work.

>You'll win a lot of games with this system, but I doubt very much
>that you'll ever win a championship. This is the Wilt Syndrom (c).

It is different to say that the Bulls need more production out of
the rest of their team if they want to win a championship. I have
no problems with that. It is however, an altogether different matter
to say that the Bulls will never win a championship unless Michael
Jordan brings down his scoring average. That is stupid. It is just
an example of a contrived statement from a Lakers fan who, in the
absence of any other valid reason, is making up something to justify
his claim of Magic's superiority over Michael.

> Gidi gi...@cs.stanford.edu

Prakash

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Mar 31, 1990, 2:01:32 PM3/31/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> gi...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>>>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>>>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.
>>To say that Chicago almost lost because MJ scored 69 points while
>>Cartwright had only FGA's is downright lunacy. Causality is a
>>wonderful thing.
>Try not to get so heated up. Let me explain Ed's reasoning, or at
>least, my version thereof:
The back of my neck is cool - no heat there. Just find the sweeping
generalizations made hard t resist ..

>Had Chicago had a few more consistent shooters, and had they been

They do - I caught the end of the 4th quarter last night on the
radio(Not OT itself tho ..), and it seemed to me that Pippen &
Armstrong took 2 out of the last 3 key shots Chicago took - of course
on the very last position MJ had the ball, but I've already commented
on this.

>>Pippin & Cartwright are no slouches
>
>And yet you misspelled his name. This wouldn't have happened if

>Pippen was a really important cog in the machine. ``Here comes


>what's-his-name, the second leading scorer for the Chicago Bulls.''
>``Really? I never knew they had a second leading scorer.''

I agree with the lack of depth being a factor - but Chicago is not a
one man team. Pippen (see I got it right this time:-) is blossoming
into a real star. If the Pistons continue to slide (whew 4 losses out
5 or something like that), the Bulls (& the rest of the league) can
start dreaming again.

Also about mis-spelling Pippen's name, thats because half the time I
can't spell correctly (Pippin doesn't show up on 'spell-check'), and I
have a lousy memory - forgetting the names of friends whom I've last
seen 3 days before .....
> Gidi gi...@cs.stanford.edu

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 1, 1990, 10:30:32 PM4/1/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:
>It is different to say that the Bulls need more production out of
>the rest of their team if they want to win a championship. I have
>no problems with that. It is however, an altogether different matter
>to say that the Bulls will never win a championship unless Michael
>Jordan brings down his scoring average. That is stupid.

Well, I have no problem with "Prakash roots for Boston". It is however,
an altogether different matter to say that "Prakash is a Celtics fan".
That is stupid too.

1) If the Bulls get more (point) production out of the rest of the team, they
get it at whose expense? If Pip, Mr. Bill, and Pax can raise their scoring
average by 3 points each, is MJ going to keep his at 32-33?

Umm.... so all of them raise their production and MJ keeps his average.
The Bulls are going to raise the team average by 10 points to 119.1
points (the Warriors are currently leading the league at 115.2).
Are you saying the Bulls have to become the Loyola Marymount of the NBA
in order to rule?

2) What is the correlation of individual scoring average and team scoring
average? the is the correlation between team scoring average and team scoring
differential?

The last attribute determines how dominant a team is, year in year out,
in all sports. This is the Pythagorean Theory in baseball which most
statistical nuts thrives on. Unfortunately, individual scoring average in b-ball
has little correlation with team scoring average, let alone team scoring
differential. This is completely different from the other sports. A QB passing
for a lot of TDs almost guarantees a high-scoring offense. In the soccer
culture, a great individual scorer almost guarantees a great TEAM. This is
no such song in basketball.

So what's the implication of having an MJ on the team? From a business point
of view, great (guaranteed sellouts); from the competitive perspective, little.

Well, I don't follow the Bulls as close as you do. Maybe they really shouldn't
give more opportunities to the other guys. Maybe they are doomed to become
a one-man team. Then they should trade MJ for Isiah+Dumars+Edwards+Laimber+
Rodman+Salley.

3) Is Ted Green's (and mine's) theory about MJ reducing his scoring average
far fetched?

Checked out Wilt's career, he averaged in the 30's, 40's and 50's from
1959-1966, and his team served as Boston's whipping boys year in year out.

After averaging 33.5 in 1966 (his career low), he took a different approach
to his game. He scored only 24.1 in 1967, and the 76ers swept thru the
league that year. Many people still claimed that the 1967 76ers were more
dominant than any single year edition of the Celtics in the 60s, and arguably
the greatest of all time. Is that a coincidence?

Well, maybe because Wilt is an asshole and MJ is a nice guy, so it's ALTOGETHER
DIFFERENT MATTER again.

>It is just
>an example of a contrived statement from a Lakers fan who, in the
>absence of any other valid reason, is making up something to justify
>his claim of Magic's superiority over Michael.

Well, maybe Lakers fans know more about basketball than Celtics fans. Since
we follow BASKETBALL rather than just follow our team.

Prakash Narain

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 2:56:17 PM4/2/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:

>In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:

>>It is different to say that the Bulls need more production out of
>>the rest of their team if they want to win a championship. I have
>>no problems with that. It is however, an altogether different matter
>>to say that the Bulls will never win a championship unless Michael
>>Jordan brings down his scoring average. That is stupid.

>Well, I have no problem with "Prakash roots for Boston". It is however,
>an altogether different matter to say that "Prakash is a Celtics fan".
>That is stupid too.

Yes, it is stupid. You are entitled to evaluate whatever you have written
and conclude that it is stupid. I still believe that the statement made
by Ted Green (and your agreement with it) is stupid. I had said that Ted
Green does not know which hole he is talking from. You, on the other
hand, know the hole but can't help the fact that it is the wrong one.

The statement, Michael Jordan is such a great offensive player that
his team will never win a championship unless he brings down his scoring
average, is absolutely ridiculous. Why? Because it implies that Michael
is responsible for his scoring average and continues to score a lot
even though he realises that it is against the good of the team.

This will be hard for you to figure out unless you take your head out of
your asshole.

>1) If the Bulls get more (point) production out of the rest of the team, they
>get it at whose expense? If Pip, Mr. Bill, and Pax can raise their scoring
>average by 3 points each, is MJ going to keep his at 32-33?

>Umm.... so all of them raise their production and MJ keeps his average.
>The Bulls are going to raise the team average by 10 points to 119.1
>points (the Warriors are currently leading the league at 115.2).
>Are you saying the Bulls have to become the Loyola Marymount of the NBA
>in order to rule?

No sonny. I am not saying that. I am saying that the Bulls need to go a
few levels higher than Loyola Marymount in order to dominate. 119.1 is
not good enough. 219.99 is closer to what they need. I also did not mean
that Cartwright, Paxson etc. should raise their average by 3 points each.
What I was saying is that Cartwright, Paxson, Pippen etc. should each
average 35 points per game.

>2) What is the correlation of individual scoring average and team scoring
>average? the is the correlation between team scoring average and team scoring
>differential?

>The last attribute determines how dominant a team is, year in year out,

All right. You have impressed me. This was a grand statement and deserves
some applause. But eaxctly how do you figure the Bulls to achieve the
point differential. There is no correlation between individual scoring
average and team scoring average? Well, I have news for you. If each
player in an eight man rotation averages ten points per game, the team will
only average 80 points scored per game. Do you realise that the team scoring
differential has to be positive for a team to rule?

>In the soccer
>culture, a great individual scorer almost guarantees a great TEAM.

Relax. Soccer is still an alien game for you. Don't make a complete
fool of yourself.

>3) Is Ted Green's (and mine's) theory about MJ reducing his scoring average
>far fetched?

>Checked out Wilt's career, he averaged in the 30's, 40's and 50's from
>1959-1966, and his team served as Boston's whipping boys year in year out.

Well, I don't care about Wilt and what he did. Many people claimed that
the 1967 76ers were more dominant than any single year edition of the Celtics?
Well, many also claim that Michael is not a team player. These uninformed
minorities will always exist.

As for Michael bringing down his scoring average, if he does that with the
kind of supporting cast he has now, Chicago will not be the whipping boys
just for the Pistons. They will be the whipping boys of the rest of the
league.

>Well, maybe Lakers fans know more about basketball than Celtics fans. Since
>we follow BASKETBALL rather than just follow our team.

Nah! Lakers fans look upon basketball as celebrity watching. They think
that All-Star voting is a popularity contest. They vote A.C.Green to All*
team. They would be willing to vote for Joe Montana if his name appeared
on the All* ballot. They think that they like to watch basketball when it
is the legs of Magic, Worthy et. al. that attract them to the game.

> Edward Lor

Prakash

Bucky Ransdell

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 3:20:49 PM4/2/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>Yes, the two Chicago coaches are both idiots. They have a lethal weapon
>in Cartwright and fail to use him properly.

[some Cartwright stats omitted]

>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.

Early this season I heard someone (probably Phil Jackson) say that the
Bulls had made a commitment to get the ball to Cartwright more this
year. They had decided that at least every third offensive possession
they would get the ball to Mr. Bill in the low post.

From what I saw the Bulls were sticking with that strategy earlier this
season. In recent games it has been obvious that they have abandoned
it, intentionally or otherwise. In my opinion their half court offense
has suffered as a result.

Has anyone else noticed this change? Did it coincide with Cartwright's
injury that caused him to miss several games?

Nico Nierenberg

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 12:25:23 PM4/2/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>Enough already - about contributing for your team ... With Jordan the
>>Bulls would be fighting for a playoff berth, and not with the 2nd best
>>record in the East. With Jordan the should/could/would reach the
>>Eastern finals, while without him they'd be hitory in round 1 (if they
>>made the playoffs).
>Well, it's that time of the year, the "without XXX our team will be shit"
>campaign.
>
>Let me try ....
>
>Without Tom Chambers the Suns won 28 games, with Chambers they won 55.
>He wasn't even one of the top vote-getters in last year's MVP. He won't get
>many again this year.
>
>This year:
>
>- Without Buck, the Trailblazers were a losing team barely qualified for the
> playoffs. With Buck, they are one of the elite.
>
>- Without Ricky Mahorn, the 76ers were a lousy lottery team. With Ricky, they
> are one of the top
>
>- Without Terry Cummings and David Robinson, the Spurs won 21 games and almost
> made Larry Brown quit. With these two guys, they become one of the elite.
>
>- Without Larry Bird, the Celtics were a .500 team barely made the playoffs.
> With Bird, they are one of the top teams again.

I think all of this points out the problems with the MVP concept. Aren't
we trying to determine who the NBA's best player was this year? In other
words given an expansion draft with no limitations who would be your first
pick. I can tell you that my answer would be MJ.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go,
Unify Corp. there you are."
nico@unify

Roger M. Christal;685-2116;61-215

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 2:41:06 PM4/2/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>Enough already - about contributing for your team ... With Jordan the
>>Bulls would be fighting for a playoff berth, and not with the 2nd best
>>record in the East. With Jordan the should/could/would reach the
>>Eastern finals, while without him they'd be hitory in round 1 (if they
>>made the playoffs).
>Well, it's that time of the year, the "without XXX our team will be shit"
>campaign.
>
>Let me try ....
>
>This year:
>
>- Without Buck, the Trailblazers were a losing team barely qualified for the
> playoffs. With Buck, they are one of the elite.

I don't want to downplay the trememdous contribution Buck Williams has
made to the success of the Blazers this year, but there are many other
things to be considered from last year's team.

For example:

- Mike Shuler's coaching style had the entire team in dissention until
his dismissal late in the season.

- Rookie Mark Bryant (5.0 ppg) was used as the starting power forward
for the first 25 or so games and was replaced by Caldwell Jones (2.8
ppg).

- Danny Young, backup point guard for Terry Porter was out 34 games at
the end of the season with a broken hand (or was it a thumb?).

- Kiki Vandeweghe played only 18 games and was out because of injury.

- Steve Johnson was never happy with his role after losing his
starting job to Duckworth. Shuler always said, "noone will lose a
starting role to injury." So, when Steve came back from his injury,
he wanted his starting position restored. Didn't happen.

- Sam Bowie only played 20 games after a 2 year rehab from injuries.

So, that left the bench with Richard Anderson, Jerry Sichting, Adrian
Branch, Brooke Steppe, Clinton Wheeler, Craig Neal and Rolando
Ferreira. Where are they now? Anderson pretty much warms the bench
in Charlotte, I believe Sichting was cut from Charlotte, Adrian Branch
went to Minnesota and then the CBA before being cut, Neal went to
Miami and was cut, and I don't know about Steppe, Wheeler and
Ferreira.

This year? How about a solid first year performance by coach Rick
Adelman, Cliff Robinson and Drazen Petrovic. Add to that the
aquisition of Wayne Cooper, a healthy Danny Young, the development of
sophmore Mark Bryant as a role player and you have a team that will
finish with close to 60 wins.

'Course, adding Buck Williams hasn't hurt too bad either. {:^)

-=<< Roger Christal rog...@orca.WV.TEK.COM +1 503 685 2116 >>=-

Gautam Mehrotra

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 4:57:26 PM4/2/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>for a lot of TDs almost guarantees a high-scoring offense. In the soccer
>culture, a great individual scorer almost guarantees a great TEAM.This is
Uhmm !! The *almost* saved you there. You shouldn't open
your mouth when you don't know much, Ed -- it shows ! A great
individual scorer in football ( soccer, ie ) can't do diddley if he
doesn't get the ball in the right place. His presence
makes a good team great but does not make an ordinary team great (as
you suggest). On the contrary, a great individual player ( scorer if
you will) can make more of a difference in basketball.

>no such song in basketball.
[parts of Ed's reply to Prakash deleted]

>
>
>Well, maybe Lakers fans know more about basketball than Celtics fans. Since
>we follow BASKETBALL rather than just follow our team.
and thats a FACT ! :-) and that is why they'll vote some Laker girl
as the starting center for the West in the All-Star game next year.

>
>--
> Edward Lor
> AT&T Bell Labs
>
cheers,
gautam

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 5:24:48 PM4/2/90
to
Be warned ... convoluted logical arguments be here ......

In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:

>In article <1990Mar30....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>Enough already - about contributing for your team ... With Jordan the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>>Bulls would be fighting for a playoff berth, and not with the 2nd best
>>record in the East. With Jordan the should/could/would reach the
>>Eastern finals, while without him they'd be hitory in round 1 (if they
>>made the playoffs).
>Well, it's that time of the year, the "without XXX our team will be shit"
>campaign.
>Let me try ....
>Without Tom Chambers the Suns won 28 games, with Chambers they won 55.

[other examples of super-human contributors deleted]

>OK, so with your reasoning, the leading MVP candidates should be:
>Buck, Ricky, Cummings + Robinson (co-MVP), Bird, and Chambers.

>See, your reasoning of "without XXX my team will be ...." SOUNDS reasonable,

>but it is nothing but a myth fans make up. The voters have NEVER used it as
>voting criteria.

Actually, if you see the first line of my post, I was responding to
somebody (I forget who) who claimed that Sir Charles deserved the
award because he single-handedly made Philly a contender. I was
attempting to point out, that by his (the poster's criterion) too MJ
deserved the award.

>Who care how bad your team is without XXX? We only care how great your team
>is with XXX. And these are two different measures.

I do not think that the "without X team Y would stink" is an over
riding factor, but think that it is somewhat of a factor. By your
reasoning, the MVP should be selected only from the team that wins the
Championship, or atleast the team that has the best regular season
record. If you consider how good a team is with X, to properly
evaluate that you must have some idea of how much worse the team would
be *WITHOUT* X.

> Edward Lor

I prefer that the MVP go to the best player in the league - here
Jordan. However, I find the attitude of some Laker fans unpalatable -
viz. Magic should be MVP/is better than MJ, 'coz he is a *team*
player, and makes his team better. That statement is perfectly
reasonable; however, the same fans go into a frenzy when you claim
that Jordan makes his team *much* better - note his *team* and not
necessarily his team-mates, using the following argument ....

Lakers - Magic >> Bulls - Jordan

Lakers (with Magic) >= Bulls (with Jordan)

So if you think the above is not a worthy argument I'll go along with
you, but then note you have no leg to stand on if you claim Magic
deserves the MVP. The MVP then should go to the *best* *player* in the
league, & I don't think anyone will argue who that is!!!!!

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 5:42:29 PM4/2/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gau...@kandinsky.UUCP (Gautam Mehrotra) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>Yes Jordan almost exclusively has the ball in clutch situations in the
>>4th quarter. Even on the great Laker team, Magic is always the key
>>man, and even 5-6 years ago when the Celtic frontline was the best
>>thing since whenever, Bird was Mr. Clutch. If I was a coach given that
>>I had a choice, I would want to loose if Magic or Bird missed, not
>>because Dennis Johnson (no offense) clanged a 17 footer off the iron
>>with 2 seconds left. The same is true of MJ.
>
> Yes, in clutch situations you want the best player to have
>the ball -- that doesn't mean that the other 4 guys stand and watch.

I know that one shot does not a season make, but Stacey King did not
'stand and watch' when he put in the Jordan airball to win against the
Knicks in OT.


>Jordan either doesn't look for his teammates
>or his teammates screw up when he does. That implies that one(or
>both) of the following is not true --
>a. Jordan is a great team player.
>b. Bulls starters are underrated.
> If you insist that the Bulls starters are 'vastly under-rated'
>and that MJ is a great teamplayer ( we all agree he is a great
>'individual' player ), then the Bulls should be better than 7th in
>the league ...

I think stating the Bulls are '7th in the league' is an example of
using statistics in a somewhat distorted fashion. 2nd in the East is a
much better indicator of how good they are. Lets have a simple test

... I think the Bulls are among the Best 3 teams in the League. OK,
I'll claim that the Bulls will reach the Eastern finals - Other the
Pistons and the Lakers name any one team that will reach the finals of
either the East *OR* the West. This should be easy to do, if as you've
implied the Bulls are #7 in the league - that gives you 4 other teams
that are 'better' to pick from ..... or pick an Eastern team (other
than Bulls & Pistons) and a Western team other than Lakers.

In fact at this point, with JoeD out, the Bulls may even be able to -
gasp overtake - the Pistons.

So how about the following - Jordan is a great team player & of course
a *great* player, and b) the Bulls starters are very good = one of top
4 teams in the league....

That makes sense ....

>gautam
>JAZZ over BULLS in the finals !

Bulls over X in Finals - nah it wont happen!!

Rooz Eftekhari

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 5:50:26 PM4/2/90
to
In article <37...@rtifs1.UUCP> w...@babar.UUCP (Bucky Ransdell) writes:
>Early this season I heard someone (probably Phil Jackson) say that the
>Bulls had made a commitment to get the ball to Cartwright more this
>year. They had decided that at least every third offensive possession
>they would get the ball to Mr. Bill in the low post.
>
>From what I saw the Bulls were sticking with that strategy earlier this
>season. In recent games it has been obvious that they have abandoned
>it, intentionally or otherwise. In my opinion their half court offense
>has suffered as a result.
>
Again I think it is time for people to wake up and
smell the coffee, or some glue or anything. First off,
it might help to realize that Jordon & Co. have been
tearing up the league in their last 12-13 games.
There performance may not be a lesson in the team
concept of basketball. However, I have always thought
that the whole point is to win. So who cares how
much Jordon scores, and how in effective Cartwright is,
you go with what works. Does anyone have the stats on the
last 15 or so Bulls games? Hasn't Jordon's output increased
and Cartwright's decreased, and haven't the Bulls been
winning. Therefore, who cares if Cartwright doesn't score.
He isn't a dominating player now, and he never will be.


| Rooz Eftekhari | Member of the trade Will |
| West Lafayette, Indiana | Perdue Club as soon as |
| (s...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) | possible. |

Nico Nierenberg

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 3:56:00 PM4/2/90
to
In article <1990Mar31.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> gi...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:
>>In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@aosun.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>>>>Last night, MJ scored 69 points while Cartwright only attempted 7 FGs.
>>>>As a result, Chicago almost lost to Cleveland.
>>>To say that Chicago almost lost because MJ scored 69 points while
>>>Cartwright had only FGA's is downright lunacy. Causality is a
>>>wonderful thing.
>>Try not to get so heated up. Let me explain Ed's reasoning, or at
>>least, my version thereof:
>The back of my neck is cool - no heat there. Just find the sweeping
>generalizations made hard t resist ..
>>
>

- Arguments about the spelling of Pippen's name deleted -

>I agree with the lack of depth being a factor - but Chicago is not a
>one man team. Pippen (see I got it right this time:-) is blossoming
>into a real star. If the Pistons continue to slide (whew 4 losses out
>5 or something like that), the Bulls (& the rest of the league) can
>start dreaming again.

I've seen quite a few Chicago games this year, and in general they
have been pretty balanced, but that game against Cleveland no one else
could get a thing going. Teams without Jordan would have just folded
their tents and gone home with yet another road loss, but Jordan was
simply on fire. Every time he tried to back off, the rest of the team
stalled and he had to get going again.

Gautam Mehrotra

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 6:36:54 PM4/2/90
to
In article <1990Apr2.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@delta.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <1990Mar30.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gau...@kandinsky.UUCP (Gautam Mehrotra) writes:
>>
>> Yes, in clutch situations you want the best player to have
>>the ball -- that doesn't mean that the other 4 guys stand and watch.
>
>I know that one shot does not a season make, but Stacey King did not
>'stand and watch' when he put in the Jordan airball to win against the
>Knicks in OT.
The Knicks game was much better. The rest of the team showed
up.
>>Jordan either doesn't look for his teammates
>>or his teammates screw up when he does. That implies that one(or
>>both) of the following is not true --
>>a. Jordan is a great team player.
>>b. Bulls starters are underrated.
>> If you insist that the Bulls starters are 'vastly under-rated'
>>and that MJ is a great teamplayer ( we all agree he is a great
>>'individual' player ), then the Bulls should be better than 7th in
>>the league ...
>
>I think stating the Bulls are '7th in the league' is an example of
>using statistics in a somewhat distorted fashion. 2nd in the East is a
>much better indicator of how good they are. Lets have a simple test
>
If the following is the only argument you can come up with,
then, I am very dissappointed !! Even granting you your assumption
that the Pistons and Bulls will reach the East Finals, all it proves is
that the Bulls are in the Top 2 in the East.


>... I think the Bulls are among the Best 3 teams in the League. OK,
>I'll claim that the Bulls will reach the Eastern finals - Other the
^^^^^

>Pistons and the Lakers name any one team that will reach the finals of
>either the East *OR* the West. This should be easy to do, if as you've
Please don't bring in unsubstantiated claims and assumptions.
If it is so obvious that the Bulls and Pistons will reach the
East Finals, why are all those poor folks in Philly, Boston, NY ...
fighting it out for the playoffs ?? !!

>implied the Bulls are #7 in the league - that gives you 4 other teams
>that are 'better' to pick from ..... or pick an Eastern team (other
>than Bulls & Pistons) and a Western team other than Lakers.
>

I can't name a single team that *will* reach the finals of
the East or West ! I can say that one team has a better shot at it
than another but to claim with certainty ... Nah ! If you are so
sure about the Lakers,Pistons and Bulls reaching their respective
conference finals, put all you own on the line -- Vegas will give you
great odds !

However, for the sake of argument, I will say that Spurs,
Suns, Portland, Utah, Pistons and Lakers are better teams than the
Bulls ( the Bulls are more fun to watch, though ). To reach the finals
in the East, the Bulls will not beat the likes of the above-mentioned
teams.


>In fact at this point, with JoeD out, the Bulls may even be able to -
>gasp overtake - the Pistons.
>
>So how about the following - Jordan is a great team player & of course
>a *great* player, and b) the Bulls starters are very good = one of top
>4 teams in the league....
>
>That makes sense ....

About as much as the rest of your article !


>
>>gautam
>>JAZZ over BULLS in the finals !
>
>Bulls over X in Finals - nah it wont happen!!

:-)


>
>-Bharat
>R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
>E-Mail: bha...@gaea.cs.uiuc.edu
>US Mail: Beckman Institute, 405 N Matthews, Urbana, IL61801


cheers,
gautam

Trent Lange

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 6:43:41 PM4/2/90
to

In article <1990Apr2....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@delta.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>Be warned ... convoluted logical arguments be here ......
>
>Jordan makes his team *much* better - note his *team* and not
>necessarily his team-mates, using the following argument ....
>
>Lakers - Magic >> Bulls - Jordan (1)
>
>Lakers (with Magic) >= Bulls (with Jordan) (2)

>
>So if you think the above is not a worthy argument I'll go along with
>you, but then note you have no leg to stand on if you claim Magic
>deserves the MVP. The MVP then should go to the *best* *player* in the
>league, & I don't think anyone will argue who that is!!!!!
>
>R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Your argument is relatively sound, but one of your premises are wrong.

The second premise is false; it should read:

Lakers (with Magic) >> Bulls (with Jordan)

Sorry. That's a FACT.

-----

Gary and Scott, why don't you two do something after tonight's final to spice
up these rational (well, usually), but long-winded, pro discussions?

With Mehrad gone, and /tom spending most of his time in hiding, poor Ed
is left as the only one to uphold the proud tradition of NBA
net.convoluted-logic.gurus. Yes, I know Prakash tries, but he is only
a pale shadow of the late, great Mehrad (may he rest in peace).

*Something* has to be done.

- Trent Lange

**********************************************************************
* College Basketball Fever: Catch it! *
* Yeah, I mixed my slogans. So what are you going to do about it? *
**********************************************************************

Gidi Avrahami

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 6:31:17 PM4/2/90
to
In article <91...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> s...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Rooz Eftekhari ) writes:
> Again I think it is time for people to wake up and
> smell the coffee, or some glue or anything. First off,
> it might help to realize that Jordon & Co. have been
> tearing up the league in their last 12-13 games.

I stand corrected. Obviously, even Michael Jordan's name can be
misspelled by his fanatic followers.

Alright then, Jordon for MVP.

________ Gidi ___________________________ gi...@cs.Stanford.EDU ______________
NET READERS BEWARE: Some of the statements in this posting were not meant to
be taken at face value, but rather as a satirical or humorous parody of ideas
to which the author objects. If you cannot spot those parts without the help
of "smiley" signs, consult your therapist.

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 8:42:19 PM4/2/90
to
In article <1990Apr2.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gau...@kandinsky.UUCP (Gautam Mehrotra) writes:
[Gautam Mehrotra -GM- wrote]

>>> If you insist that the Bulls starters are 'vastly under-rated'
>>>and that MJ is a great teamplayer ( we all agree he is a great
>>>'individual' player ), then the Bulls should be better than 7th in
>>>the league ...
[I wrote]

>>I think stating the Bulls are '7th in the league' is an example of
>>using statistics in a somewhat distorted fashion. 2nd in the East is a
>>much better indicator of how good they are. Lets have a simple test
[GM wrote]

> If the following is the only argument you can come up with,
>then, I am very dissappointed !! Even granting you your assumption
>that the Pistons and Bulls will reach the East Finals, all it proves is
>that the Bulls are in the Top 2 in the East.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now isn't that just what I said - I really must make a terrible
argument and justly disappoint you Gautham, because you merely
repeated what I said.

See, what sounds better ???

Bulls are a (rotten, lousy, middle-of-the-pack-team) 7th in the
league .... OR

Bulls are (wow! they're great, super, contenders) the 2nd best team in
the tough East.

>>... I think the Bulls are among the Best 3 teams in the League. OK,
>>I'll claim that the Bulls will reach the Eastern finals - Other the
> ^^^^^
>>Pistons and the Lakers name any one team that will reach the finals of
>>either the East *OR* the West. This should be easy to do, if as you've
> Please don't bring in unsubstantiated claims and assumptions.
> If it is so obvious that the Bulls and Pistons will reach the
>East Finals, why are all those poor folks in Philly, Boston, NY ...
>fighting it out for the playoffs ?? !!

"Unsubstantiated claims & assumptions" - horrors, I wouldn't do that.
Did I make a claim in the sense you are attributing - read again
carefully. Yes, I did use the word "claim", but merely offerred my
opinion the Bulls were #3 in the league.

[Brilliant pseudo-satarical grammatical arguments by G.M. deleted]

See the little word -I'll- before the word claim. It expands to "I
will" - I was offerring to predict, and then giving you my prediction
in advance (see how generous I am), and asked you on the basis of your
obviously superior basketball knowledge (Bulls are not a "good" team)
to counter if you cared.

You promptly wimped out by saying that "yes the Bulls are/may be #2 in
the East", but x other West teams can beat them). Way to go .....

It is IMPOSSIBLE to claim something about something that won't happen
- call it my prediction & *excuse* my English pleez... However, if you
wish to be pedantic, let me assure you that my sentence is perfectly
correct, semantically and syntactically. I'll leave you to figure it
out - think "hypothesize" ....

> However, for the sake of argument, I will say that Spurs,
>Suns, Portland, Utah, Pistons and Lakers are better teams than the
>Bulls ( the Bulls are more fun to watch, though ). To reach the finals
>in the East, the Bulls will not beat the likes of the above-mentioned
>teams.

True, but a wimpy way to back off from a challenge.

>>So how about the following - Jordan is a great team player & of course
>>a *great* player, and b) the Bulls starters are very good = one of top
>>4 teams in the league....
>>
>>That makes sense ....
> About as much as the rest of your article !

If it had made sense to you, I would begin to wonder ....

>cheers,
>gautam

R. Bharat Rao

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 8:52:01 PM4/2/90
to
In article <33...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> la...@lanai.UUCP (Trent Lange) writes:
>In article <1990Apr2....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bha...@delta.UUCP (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>Jordan makes his team *much* better - note his *team* and not
>>necessarily his team-mates, using the following argument ....
>>
>>Lakers - Magic >> Bulls - Jordan (1)
>>
>>Lakers (with Magic) >= Bulls (with Jordan) (2)
>>
>>So if you think the above is not a worthy argument I'll go along with
>>you, but then note you have no leg to stand on if you claim Magic
>>deserves the MVP. The MVP then should go to the *best* *player* in the
>>league, & I don't think anyone will argue who that is!!!!!

>Your argument is relatively sound, but one of your premises are wrong.


>The second premise is false; it should read:

>Lakers (with Magic) >> Bulls (with Jordan) (2')


>Sorry. That's a FACT.

^^^^^^^ (I give 2' as much weight as you gave 2)

I look forward to a chance to test that out in the playoffs!! However,
I take issue with (2') - whats the head-to-head like! I'm sure you can
tell me. Also a 6-7 game lead over the Bulls does not transalate into
much-greater-than ">>" in my book. I think the Lakers are better, but
not much better. I think the difference is like 60-40, while >> seems
to be 80-20 or so.

Come on Lakers >> Orlando
Lakers >> Miami

But Lakers >> Bulls is just a load of ..

>- Trent Lange

-Bharat


R.Bharat Rao, AI Group, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Daniel Solomon

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 9:52:33 PM4/2/90
to
In article <33...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> la...@lanai.UUCP (Trent Lange) writes:

>Your argument is relatively sound, but one of your premises are wrong.
>
>The second premise is false; it should read:
>
>Lakers (with Magic) >> Bulls (with Jordan)
>
>Sorry. That's a FACT.


That's news to me. I'd like you to look up head-to-head records of all of
the Bulls-Lakers games since Michael joined the Bulls. I know one thing is
for sure, that the Bulls have BEATEN the Lakers in five of their last six
meetings. THAT'S A FACT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dsol...@hmcvax.bitnet dsol...@jarthur.claremont.edu
"We got teams that lose, yeah but sometimes they win.
But it don't seem to matter, if you're a ChiTown fan."
-Jonathan Brandmeier, We're All Crazy In Chicago

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 2, 1990, 11:34:31 PM4/2/90
to
In article <1990Mar30.1...@Neon.Stanford.EDU> gi...@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) writes:
>It's like the old debate on Boston not using the bench in the 85-88
>campaigns. When you have a wonderful weapon, why not use it all the
>time?
I am a firm believer of "a pitcher only has a certain number of innings
in his arms". Analogously, a basketball player only has a certain number
of minutes in his legs, seasonwise and careerwise.

If a Bird or a Parish exceeds his allocation in the regular season,
he just has less left for the playoffs. If KC still plays
them 40+ minutes in the playoffs, the performance dropoff is obvious.

And if a player exceeds his allocation for a certain season, he will
just have less left for his career.

That's why Kareem was smart. He goofed around a lot since 1981,
less rebounds, less rough stuff inside, a defensive liability, but he
could still contribute in the 1987 and 88 championship drives, when he was
over 40 (albeit he stayed one season too long).

>The answer is, because the regular season is when you develop
>a 7-9 man rotation. In Boston's case, it was total burnout after the
>86 championship. In the Bulls' case, it means a very limited playoff
>horizon.

I always say that the regular season is meaningless. Meaningless in terms
of W/L, since the Lakers are a cinch to make the playoffs anyway.

But the most important thing in the regular season is to develop
the rotation, the system, the chemistry. Find out what work and
what don't (like the Knicks' half-court offense). It's an investement
for the real season. It's no accident that 15 out of 20 teams
that finished with the best record in a conference reached the
past 10 finals.

Just like the pre-season, the W/L is meaningless, but you need it
to evaluate your roster. So the regular season is not meaningless
in all senses.

That's why I don't like coaches playing the starters excessive minutes
in order to achieve 60 wins. There is a price to be paid sooner or later.

This season, Magic's and Worthy's 40+ minutes night in night out worry me
a lot (when I look at a Lakers box score, the first column I look at is
"minutes"). Getting the best record is nice, but getting it at such expense
may backfire in the playoffs. Pat Riley is the 2nd coming of KC Jones.

>>... Most people would conclude
>>that had MJ not scored as much, Cleveland would actually have managed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to beat the Bulls
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>
>Of course this is not the case. But if the other players made a few

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>shots, Michael would not have needed to score 69 for the win. Forty
>Jordan points + 20 from Cartwright would have sufficed for a win in
>regulation.

Well, this is actually the case.

There are a lot of luck and breaks involved in 1-basket games or
OT games. A bad bounce here and there, a FT made, a foul-up by the
officials, the outcome would easily have been different. Remember the
raw deal Chicago got at MSG with 0.3 second left? or Michigan State got
against GaTech? This is the potential price paid for playing in a game
so close. That's why a near loss and a near win are not much different
performance wise.

So the Cavs could have managed to beat the Bulls indeed. Remember all
the FTs Cleveland missed in the last minute of regulation? One more
FT by Price or Daugherty at the end of regulation, we would have
been saying "So what if MJ scores 61 points? It's all for naught,
Price can win the game by scoring 30 points".

Yes, 40 MJ points + 20 from Cartwright + a few more from the other
guys here and there would easily have sufficed for a win in regulation,
by 6-8 points. No sweat at the end of regulation or OT.

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 11:17:19 AM4/3/90
to
In article <57...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dsol...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Daniel Solomon) writes:
>That's news to me. I'd like you to look up head-to-head records of all of
>the Bulls-Lakers games since Michael joined the Bulls. I know one thing is
>for sure, that the Bulls have BEATEN the Lakers in five of their last six
>meetings. THAT'S A FACT.

Well, what does head-to-head record have to do with >>>>> or <<<<<?

Quiz: which team has the best head-to-head against the Lakers in the past
7-8 years?

I bet nobody knows. NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY...

But I know because I am a diehard fan of all other sports teams (football,
baseball, hockey) in that area, and that NBA team is my second favorite.

Dale Chase

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 2:01:50 PM4/3/90
to
Lakers record vs Chicago since MJ joined the Bulls:

84-85: 1-1
85-86: 2-0
86-87: 2-0
87-88: 1-1
88-89: 0-2 (right? I need a new media guide)
89-90: 1-1
-----
7-5

<>Dale
R-a-m-b-l-i-nnnnnnnnnnnnn
Apostropheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Gautam Mehrotra

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 5:26:58 PM4/3/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>
>Quiz: which team has the best head-to-head against the Lakers in the past
>7-8 years?
>
>I bet nobody knows. NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY...
>
>But I know because I am a diehard fan of all other sports teams (football,
>baseball, hockey) in that area, and that NBA team is my second favorite.
Washington Bullets ??? -- just a guess !

>
>--
> Edward Lor
> AT&T Bell Labs
cheers,
gautam

Peter Barbee

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 1:02:44 PM4/3/90
to
This season I have had cable and have made a real effort to watch some
Chicago games just to watch Jordan. The man is amazing. It really is
pleasurable to see him do what he does.

But it does hurt the team. Someone said that Jordan has the ball in
crunch time just like Magic does. That's true, in fact most teams
want their best initiator to have the ball at those times. The
difference is that when Magic has the ball the other players on his
team actively work to put themselves (or their teamates) in good
scoring position knowing that if they succeed Magic will find them.
Sure sometimes Magic takes the ball to the hoop himself and a lot of
times those forays will end with an assist as a teamate opens up
(probably due to the defense picking up Magic) and Magic finds him for
the easy two.

When Jordan has the ball in crunch time his teamates tend not to
break for the basket but rather they break away from it. Where
to go so as not to get in Michael's way? When the defense collapses
on MJ his teamates are usually not in good scoring position so rather
than passing he takes another bizarre (and wonderful and likely
successful) shot.

Obviously there are many exceptions to what I've written but I believe
the tendency is true.

Peter B

Gidi Avrahami

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 5:42:00 PM4/3/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>Quiz: which team has the best head-to-head against the Lakers in the past
>7-8 years?
>
>I bet nobody knows. NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY...
>
>But I know because I am a diehard fan of all other sports teams (football,
>baseball, hockey) in that area, and that NBA team is my second favorite.

Hmmm... I know Ed likes the Redskins, so could it be the Bullets?
At least in the last two years, they won their home games against
the Lakers.


--
Gidi gi...@cs.stanford.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I treat women as my equals. Of course, most women don't like being
treated like a neurotic balding Jew with contacts." (David Feldman)

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 10:29:10 PM4/3/90
to
In article <1990Apr2.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:
>Yes, it is stupid. You are entitled to evaluate whatever you have written
>and conclude that it is stupid.
Yep, but what I wrote, in a normal sense, is equivalent to what you wrote,
until you save face by saying the Bulls have to average 219.99 point/game.

>The statement, Michael Jordan is such a great offensive player that
>his team will never win a championship unless he brings down his scoring
>average, is absolutely ridiculous. Why? Because it implies that Michael
>is responsible for his scoring average and continues to score a lot
>even though he realises that it is against the good of the team.

Of course Michael is responsible for his scoring average and continues to
score a lot. Why? because he takes that many shots? he took his teammates
out of the offense ......

Against the good of the team? What good? The good of the regular season
is for you to develop the system and the rotation for the real season.
If you think you are doing good for the moment, you are just doing bad
for the playoffs and in the long run.

>No sonny. I am not saying that. I am saying that the Bulls need to go a
>few levels higher than Loyola Marymount in order to dominate. 119.1 is
>not good enough. 219.99 is closer to what they need. I also did not mean
>that Cartwright, Paxson etc. should raise their average by 3 points each.
>What I was saying is that Cartwright, Paxson, Pippen etc. should each
>average 35 points per game.

No wonder, that's why you said "more production from Cartwright, Pax etc."
is altogether different matter than "MJ reducing his scoring average".

Well, I don't know a team can average 219.99 games in the season
Why weren't you more specific in the first article?

Actually, the highest score ever in an NBA game was 186 points. You must be
talking about high school basketball.

>point differential. There is no correlation between individual scoring
>average and team scoring average? Well, I have news for you. If each
>player in an eight man rotation averages ten points per game, the team will
>only average 80 points scored per game.

Surprisingly, in the past 10 years, high scoring individual do not
neccessarily mean high scoring team in the league. So my accusation
that you don't know basketball really shows. My evidence? Let's
look at the past 10 years, the top NBA scorers and how their team fared:

team ranking in team ranking in
scoring offense W/L
=============== ===============
1980 Gervin 1 9
1981 Dantley 19 22
1982 Gervin 3 6
1983 English 1 10
1984 Dantley 5 8
1985 King 22 21
1986 Wilkins 17 6
1987 Jordan 20 14
1988 Jordan 19 7
1989 Jordan 17 9
--------------- ---------------
mean 12.7 10.9
median 17 9

So you can multiply all right, but that's about all you know.

>>In the soccer
>>culture, a great individual scorer almost guarantees a great TEAM.
>Relax. Soccer is still an alien game for you. Don't make a complete
>fool of yourself.

Well, you are not the first one who made such a mistake (Roger Lustig
did that in rec.sport.baseball last year). There are people who don't know
my following in soccer, and try to act like they know more than I do.

I also work out the rankings of the English Div. I teams which had the scoring
champs, from 1977-1986 (those are the years I have in hand), as well as the
top TD-passing QB in the NFL from 1980-1980

team ranking in team ranking in
scoring offense W/L
=============== ===============
scoring champs in English
Div. I 77-86 (22 teams)
mean 4.15 6.15
median 3 4

top TD-passing QB in NFL
80-89 (28 teams)
mean 3.3 -
median 2.5 -

So, having a top individual scorer in soccer is a key, while a top passing QB
is a must for a high scoring offense. A top individual scorer in basketball
is a crapshot. He may get you a .500 record, but actually hinders the team
offensive output,

And next time when I say something, at least check out the numbers before
pouting. Or should I do the rebuttal for you:

"I don't give a shit about the English league, the NFL, Gervin or Dantley,
nobody is going to be compare to my Michael Jordan. NOBODY, NOBODY,
NOBODY ...."

>Well, I don't care about Wilt and what he did.

Well, you don't have to care about Wilt, nor Bernard King. When there
are obvious precedences but you choose to put your head in the sand, you
are welcome to. That just makes your arguments nonsense.

>As for Michael bringing down his scoring average, if he does that with the
>kind of supporting cast he has now, Chicago will not be the whipping boys
>just for the Pistons. They will be the whipping boys of the rest of the
>league.

Well, all your arguments are based on one premise: Cartwright,
Paxson, Pippen, Grant, King, Armstrong are all stiffs belong to the CBA.
Even if they are going the opportunities to produce, they will suck eggs .....
That's why they have to go to MJ all the time. He has NO choice.

Hey, you are free to speculate, since I can't prove it or disprove
it. But if you can speculate, so can I.

My speculation is: Given the opportunities, the Chicago supporting cast
can be very productive.

Disprove it.

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 10:37:25 PM4/3/90
to
[ I am involved in a heated discussion on the significance of a great
individual scorer in basketball and in soccer. Let's have this discussion
in both groups. ]

In article <1990Apr2.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gau...@kandinsky.UUCP (Gautam Mehrotra) writes:

>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>>for a lot of TDs almost guarantees a high-scoring offense. In the soccer
>>culture, a great individual scorer almost guarantees a great TEAM.This is
> Uhmm !! The *almost* saved you there. You shouldn't open
>your mouth when you don't know much, Ed -- it shows !

Well, I followed soccer longer than I followed basketball. Having
been following the European scene since the 60s, I know the importance of
a great individual scorer.

>A great individual scorer in football ( soccer, ie ) can't do diddley if he
>doesn't get the ball in the right place.

In soccer, a very common scenario is "you dominate the game but you get
shutout".

In basketball, you dominate the game means you light up the scoreboard.

The difference is, domination in a basketball game is easily reflected on
the scoreboard, not in soccer.

>His presence makes a good team great but does not make an ordinary team
>great (as you suggest).

Without even a good scorer, a good team is hardly distinguishable from an
ordinary team.

Why? because scoring is so rare in soccer. The American motto "you win
championship with defense" is unheard of. The soccer motto is "offense
is your best defense". How true is it in American sports?

At any level, good teams have great defenses, even a lot of average teams have
great defenses. Or put it this way, it's a game that if you look at the
defense or the Goal-Against, you can hardly tell how good a team is.

Since defensive domination/offensive ineptitude is the norm, what sort out
the men from the boys is the scoring punch.
That's why a great scorer makes all the difference. (I can name all the
examples, Maradona on Argentina and Napoli, Oleg Blokhin on Dynamo Kiev,
Paolo Rossi on Italy, Marco Van Baston and Ruud Gullit on Holland and AC
Milan, Platini on France, Elkjaer on Denmark, Butragano on Spain, Boniek
on Poland. Sure, you can also name Ian Rush on Wales, anymore?)

I work out the rankings of the English Div. I teams which had the scoring
champs, from 1977-1986 (those are the years I have in hand). Here are
the numbers:


team ranking in team ranking in
scoring offense W/L
=============== ===============
scoring champs in English
Div. I 77-86 (22 teams)
mean 4.15 6.15
median 3 4

Of course, that team has to be decent in the first place. I am not asking
Pele + 10 Joe Stiffs to win the World Cup. But a team with decent supporting
cast (like the caliber of the Bulls'), add a great individual scorer, say,
Maradona (whose fame in soccer is no worse than Jordan's in basketball), it's
going to rule.

>On the contrary, a great individual player ( scorer if
>you will) can make more of a difference in basketball.

Individual scoring in basketball not as significant as in soccer.

If you score more in basketball, it just means you score at your
teammates' expense. Team scoring cannot multiply two-fold or 1.5-fold,
unless you accept Prakash's premise that Chicago can raise its scoring
average to 219.99 points. Check out the stats I collect in the other article.

You get a scorer who can score 10-15 goals in the Italian League,
it's a completely different story. Even with Maradona, Napoli only
manages ~50 per year (have scored 47 in 30 games so far, with 4 games
left), and that's contention for the league championship. So you tell me
how much difference he makes.

BTW, if you want to continue this discussion, let's stay at rec.sport.soccer.

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 3, 1990, 10:39:06 PM4/3/90
to
In article <6n8...@unify.uucp> ni...@unify.UUCP (Nico Nierenberg) writes:
>I think all of this points out the problems with the MVP concept. Aren't
>we trying to determine who the NBA's best player was this year? In other
>words given an expansion draft with no limitations who would be your first
>pick. I can tell you that my answer would be MJ.

There is another pitfall on this selection criteria, "Who you take in
a hypothetical draft should be the MVP". In other words, the Heismann
trophy should be awarded in April and the Wooden Award should be awarded in
June, both to the #1 draft picks.

Who you take in the draft is based on his potential to produce, who
wins an award is based on how much he has already produced in a
specific time frame.

Who do you take if you want to build a Final Four team? Who else
but Pat Ewing? Why did they give the 1985 MVP to Ed Pinckney?

Who do you take if you want to assemble a team for the NBA playoffs? Who else
but Jordan/Magic/Bird? But why did they give the playoff MVP to Joe Dumars,
James Worthy and Cedric Maxwell?

Who do you take to build a baseball team? Of course Will Clark, the
best natural talent, but why did they give the NL MVP to Kevin Mitchell?
The World Series MVP to Dave Stewart?

Because Mitchell had a better season, Dumars had a better series, Pinckney had
a better Final Four, that's why they deserved the awards.

Award has LITTLE to do with who the better player is, even obscure players
like Keith Smart, Rick Dempsey, Darrell Porter, Mark Moseley have deservedly
won MVPs.

Samir K. Misra

unread,
Apr 4, 1990, 4:06:18 AM4/4/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>, l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor) writes:
> Quiz: which team has the best head-to-head against the Lakers in the past
> 7-8 years?

Milwaukee Bucks.

--
(` _ . |\ /| . (` _
_) (_\ |V| | |] | \/ | | _) |] (_\ sa...@cvrc.med.upenn.edu
_______| |___|\_ | |______|\____

Prakash Narain

unread,
Apr 4, 1990, 1:03:56 PM4/4/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:

All right. Let us start afresh. You say that Michael Jordan is such a great
offensive player that his team will not win a championship unless he brings
down his scoring average. You provide the example of Wilt Chamberlain to
show the precedent. You say that Wilt did not win a championship until he
brought down his scoring average in 1967.

You also say that:


>Against the good of the team? What good? The good of the regular season
>is for you to develop the system and the rotation for the real season.
>If you think you are doing good for the moment, you are just doing bad
>for the playoffs and in the long run.

I will respond to this later.

>>Well, I don't care about Wilt and what he did.

>Well, you don't have to care about Wilt, nor Bernard King. When there
>are obvious precedences but you choose to put your head in the sand, you
>are welcome to. That just makes your arguments nonsense.

I don't care about what Wilt did because it does not consolidate your
statement in any way. Bernard King and the Knicks did not win the
Championship with Bill Cartwright. So how do you claim that Chicago
will win a championship if they go to Cartwright more often? You think
that you are offering a precedent. Actually you are talking through
your regular hole.

`Wilt won a championship in 1967 when he brought down his scoring average.'
He, as I remember, averaged 0.1 more points in 1967-68 season. Guess who
won the championship. Also, following your algorithm, he lowered his
scoring average to about 20 points in 1968-69. Guess who won the title
again. So your claim about lowering the scoring average is full of shit.

As for your claim that scoring has to be distributed for a team to win
a championship, what happened to Golden State in 1975(?). Rick Barry
averaged 30.6 points per game that year and was the second in the league
in scoring. The next scorer on the team was Jamaal Wilkes who averaged
14.x points per game. How did they win the championship? Now go and
check up Barry's point average next year. He averaged around 24. By
your algorithm, Golden State must have won the championship. Well, they
did not.

You make these claims and offer precedents that are full of shit. That
is why I don't care for them.

>>As for Michael bringing down his scoring average, if he does that with the
>>kind of supporting cast he has now, Chicago will not be the whipping boys
>>just for the Pistons. They will be the whipping boys of the rest of the
>>league.

>Well, all your arguments are based on one premise: Cartwright,
>Paxson, Pippen, Grant, King, Armstrong are all stiffs belong to the CBA.
>Even if they are going the opportunities to produce, they will suck eggs .....
>That's why they have to go to MJ all the time. He has NO choice.

Last night the Bulls played Indiana. Pippen scored 21 points and Cartwright
scored 16. Michael had 5 assists in the first quater itself. So it is not
that they have decided that they will not rely upon these guys to score.
That is your misinformed opinion. That fact is that Jordan's supporting
cast has a tendency to vanish at times. In your opinion, the Bulls should
continue providing them the shots even if the team loses. That is idiocy.

I saw Doug Collins drooling over the prospect of going to Bill Cartwright.
He said that they will try to establish a low post game in every outing.
Well, they got away from it very soon. Phil Jackson also started the
season saying that Bill Carwright will be involved a lot more. What
happened? Doug Collins openly stated that the Bulls do not have enough
of offensive fire power. So his philosophy was to slow down the game
and keep it close till the fourth quater. Then he asked Michael to win
it. Phil Jackson has openly stated that Pippen is not a good scorer.
So he has to be smart and opportunistic if he wants to score a lot of
points.

With your idiocy, I would not be surprised if you are questioning the intent
of both the coaches. Well, I think that their intent was fine and they
actually want (wanted) to win. As for questioning their judgement, they
both arrived at the same conclusion. So there must be something to it?
You would say that you know better. I say that you are thinking with your
head up your backside.

>Hey, you are free to speculate, since I can't prove it or disprove
>it. But if you can speculate, so can I.

Go ahead and speculate. You can speculate and I can say that you have your
head stuck up your asshole. Disprove my claim.

> Edward Lor


Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball
Subject: Re: K.C. Jones
Summary: Once more, into the bench!
Message-ID: <53...@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 90 19:16:47 GMT
References: <53...@microsoft.UUCP> <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 32

From: pa...@microsoft.UUCP (Paul GOODE)

>In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>, l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor) writes:

>> Another myth: KC didn't have a bench to work on.

>> Well, the subs in those two years were:
>> 87: Daye*, Sichting*, Roberts#, Kite#, Vincent#, Walton*, Henry
>> 88: Paxson*, Roberts#, Gilmore*, Lewis#, Lohaus, Acres#, Minniefield

>> However, don't tell me had KC tried to develop them in the regular season, they
>> still could not have contributed more minutes in the playoffs.

>Again, develop what? Lewis was a rookie; the Celtics were not the only
>team in the league to allow limited rookie play. Kite, Vincent, and Acres?
>Your talking about three players who wouldn't be in the league if it wasn't
>for expansion; no one else has developed them, either. My recollection of
>Roberts that he got his minutes. What were his avg. minutes per game?

But how does that matter Paul? Starters means starters. A player either
starts or he does not. If he starts, he must be good.

>As for your earlier list list, Walton played as much as his feet would
>let him, and Artis Gilmore was washed up, there for insurance only. In
>any case, neither hardly required developing. Sichting, as you pointed
>out, got minutes. Daye is out of basketball, so apparently no one else
>thought him worth developing, either. How much has Paxson helped the Celts
>this year? And, oh, we both know that Walton hadn't started too many games
>for San Diego during the years that they held his contract, so your
>classification of him as a "starter" is a bit disingenuous. Also, I
>believe that Gilmore was out of basketball when the Celts picked him
>up.

What Eddy did not mention was that Daye was picked up by the Celts when
he was waived by the Bullets. Sure, he started there. He was great and
so they cut him. Gilmore was also picked when he was cut by Chicago (?).
Paxson had back spasms in '88 and hardly saw any time. As for Roberts,
he saw a lot of playing time in Milwaukee. But then they had to choose
between Roberts and Kristkowiak and not between Bird and Roberts.

This idea of going through the regular season as if it is a time to
develope a good balanced rotation has come out of Eddy's backside. Sure,
every coach would like to have ten top class players each with the
individual capability of Michael Jordan. But what do you do when this
is not the case? Eddy would fold the tent and say that I am not going
to try and win unless I get an eight (nine?) man balanced rotation.

K.C. hardly played his bench players. So everyody hollered about how this
is not right. But now that the Celtics are playing much better in the
second half of the season, what do we see? We see that Bird and Mchale
are starting, playing heavy minutes, and doing the bulk of work.

With his five starters and not much else approach, K.C. won a lot of games.
The Celts dominated the Eastern conference and made the finals in each of
his years except the last one. I am not a great advocate of K.C. but
the approach to coaching cannot be cut and dried into `develope a nine
man balanced rotation or quit'. Each team is in a different situation
and has to do the best in that situation.

>Paul

Prakash

Gidi Avrahami

unread,
Apr 4, 1990, 12:47:15 PM4/4/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
> [in reply to Prakash Narain]

>Well, all your arguments are based on one premise: Cartwright,
>Paxson, Pippen, Grant, King, Armstrong are all stiffs [...]

>My speculation is: Given the opportunities, the Chicago supporting cast
>can be very productive.

I don't know who claimed what, but in yesterday's game vs Indiana,
(Bulls won 109-102) the numbers were --

Jordan 8-19 12-12 29 (plus 10 assists)
Pippen 8-13 5-6 21
Cartwright 7-9 2-2 16
Grant 6-11 3-4 15
Paxson 5-9 0-0 11
Armstrong 4-5 2-2 10
(...)
Totals 41-74 25-27 109

Now, beating Indiana may not be a big deal, but compare this to
the Cleveland game -- again, a solid Chicago lead almost evaporated
in the fourth quarter when the Pacers had an 8-0 spurt to get within
one. However, the next four points came on Pippen free throws and
a Paxson jumper, and Indiana couldn't get closer.

To the extent that we can learn anything from this one game, I'd say we
learn here that --
- Cartwright et al are not stiffs.
- Chicago wins more easily when the scoring is balanced
- The team shot 55% while Jordan shot 42%, so his decision
to get assists rather than shoot the ball was justified
- This game, not the Cleveland game, is The Right Way
- The Bulls know it, too

And now, afew obligiatory mispelings... Hi there Siamak, are you
having fun yet?

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 4, 1990, 9:47:07 AM4/4/90
to
In article <1990Apr3.1...@hellgate.utah.edu> mehr...@cs.utah.edu (Gautam Mehrotra) writes:
>>Quiz: which team has the best head-to-head against the Lakers in the past
>>7-8 years?
>>But I know because I am a diehard fan of all other sports teams (football,
>>baseball, hockey) in that area, and that NBA team is my second favorite.
> Washington Bullets ??? -- just a guess !
Yep!

To have the best record against the Lakers, it has to be an Eastern Conference
team, since the Lakers feast on the Western Conference.

The last 8 years (since the 1983 season), the Lakers vs the Bullets:

1983 1-1
1984 1-1
1985 1-1
1986 2-0
1987 1-1
1988 1-1
1989 1-1
1990 1-1
-----
9-7

In comparison:
vs Boston 10-6
vs Milwaukee 10-6
vs Phila 11-5

So when the Lakers visit the Capital Center, it's almost a guaranteed loss.

Since the Lakers were the best team in that span, does it mean the Bullets
were the 2nd best? Hey, they gave the Lakers fits.

Dale Chase

unread,
Apr 5, 1990, 1:24:53 PM4/5/90
to
But, wait a minute. What about the obvious answer, Detroit? They,
too, were 7-9 since '83 in the regular season. And if you throw in
playoffs, they are 14-13.

Gotta give Washington credit, though. Not only have the Bullets given
the Lakers fits at the Capitol Center, last year at the Forum they
lost in overtime after Magic made a 45-footer at the buzzer in
regulation to tie the game.

The Bucks was another good answer, at 6-10 vs the Lakers. They split
this year and in '89 (also coming close to getting a sweep at the
Forum, Sikma missing a 3 at the buzzer to tie), swept in '88, split in
'85 and '87. And if you go back two more years, they swept in '81 and
'82, while Washington was 1-3 and Detroit was 0-4, giving Milwaukee the
edge over both.

<>Dale
R-a-m-b-l-i-nnnnnnnnnnnnn
Apostropheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Bucky Ransdell

unread,
Apr 5, 1990, 3:30:20 PM4/5/90
to
I wrote that earlier in the year the Bulls made a commitment to get
the ball to Cartwright one of every three half court possessions, and

>From what I saw the Bulls were sticking with that strategy earlier this
>season. In recent games it has been obvious that they have abandoned
>it, intentionally or otherwise. In my opinion their half court offense
>has suffered as a result.

In article <91...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> s...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Rooz Eftekhari ) writes:
> Again I think it is time for people to wake up and
> smell the coffee, or some glue or anything. First off,
> it might help to realize that Jordon & Co. have been
> tearing up the league in their last 12-13 games.
> There performance may not be a lesson in the team
> concept of basketball. However, I have always thought
> that the whole point is to win.

First off, the only reason I give a shit about the Bulls is because of
Jordan, so I'm happy to see him score as many points as he can. I'm
aware that the Bulls have been on a great winning streak lately, and
Jordan has been going crazy. But they've also really sucked from time
to time during that stretch, and if they don't correct some problems
they don't have a chance of making the Finals.

They recently beat the Cavs at Cleveland in OT and Jordan went for 69.
That's a good win, but the game should not have been that close. The
Bulls had a substantial lead and let the Cavs back in it as their half
court offense went down the toilet. I'd love to see the Bulls win the
Championship and Jordan get 50 a game, but I just don't think they can
advance to the Finals if they don't get more production out of some
other people.

edward.lor

unread,
Apr 5, 1990, 8:49:41 AM4/5/90
to
In article <1990Apr4.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> nar...@castor.csg.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Prakash Narain) writes:
>I don't care about what Wilt did because it does not consolidate your
>statement in any way. Bernard King and the Knicks did not win the
>Championship with Bill Cartwright. So how do you claim that Chicago
>will win a championship if they go to Cartwright more often? You think
>that you are offering a precedent. Actually you are talking through
>your regular hole.
Well, as far as I know, Chicago didn't win any championships with Jordan
either. So they must be extremely stupid to go to Jordan so much.

So, from which part of your body did you come up with this reasoning? can't be
your brain.

>`Wilt won a championship in 1967 when he brought down his scoring average.'
>He, as I remember, averaged 0.1 more points in 1967-68 season. Guess who
>won the championship.

Yep, but so what? His team still finished with the best regular season record,
8 games better than Boston, 6 games better than St. Louis, i.e. best team
throughout the season. They also came within 1 game of reaching the finals.
That's still better than the Bulls in any of the past 5 years, isn't it?

How close have the Bulls come to achieve that? How close do they come to win
62 games in a season and lead the league? Wait until they get the best record
in the league and still fail to win the championship before you pout.

>Also, following your algorithm, he lowered his scoring average to about
>20 points in 1968-69. Guess who won the title again.

Well, when he was teamed with Elgin and West, and coached by a van Breda Kolff
who detested him, he had no choice. Then again, his team was 3 points from
winning it all. How close have Jordan come?

>As for your claim that scoring has to be distributed for a team to win
>a championship, what happened to Golden State in 1975(?). Rick Barry
>averaged 30.6 points per game that year and was the second in the league
>in scoring. The next scorer on the team was Jamaal Wilkes who averaged
>14.x points per game. How did they win the championship?

Well, they won the championship by something called an "upset". You understand
what it is?

That season, the 60-22 Bullets beat the 60-22 Celtics in the Eastern
Conference Finals, which was billed as the real final. Golden State wasn't
given any chance at all in the final. Afterall, why should a team finished
12 games behind had any chance?

OK, so the Bullets choked, what else do you expect from KC Jones?

>Now go and check up Barry's point average next year. He averaged around 24.
>By your algorithm, Golden State must have won the championship.
>Well, they did not.

Well, they were the best team throughout the season (best record), weren't they?
except another 7-game upset in the conference Finals by Phoenix.

I guess you really love rare occurences. Just because a sub-.500 1-man team
can reach the final (it happened once in the past 20 years), it's the way to
build a champion.

And just because teams finished with best regular season record, with more
balanced scoring, failed to win the championship a couple times, it's NOT
the way to mode the team.

Maybe you like unorthodox ways to do things. Maybe you base all your BS on MJ
defying all odds (so far he hasn't).

>You make these claims and offer precedents that are full of shit.

Aren't yours? You mentioned a lot of regular season scoring average, but
didn't even mention how the 75 Warriors, 76 Warriors and 68 Sixers fared
throughout the season. And you even have the nerve to give such stupid
examples and think it's reasonable rebuttal. Next time, maybe you should try
the 1989 Miami Heat, they got very balanced scoring ......

>That fact is that Jordan's supporting
>cast has a tendency to vanish at times. In your opinion, the Bulls should
>continue providing them the shots even if the team loses. That is idiocy.

Where do you draw the line by NOT continue providing them the shots?

If a player is shooting .500, does it mean he has to interleave every miss
and hit? Sometimes a player is cold in the first quarter or first half
or even the first three quarters, but still contributes in the 4th. Even
Jordan has that tendency, then why does he still deserve the opportunities
in the 4th quarter game in game out?

"Because the supporting cast has a tendency to vanish", that's why
Jordan has to take all the shots from the 2nd quarter on ......

Just another moronic excuse only you can think of.

>As for questioning [Doug Collin's and Phil Jackson's] judgement, they


>both arrived at the same conclusion. So there must be something to it?

Well, arriving at a conclusion after how long? 1 week? If Collins is so good
at his judgement, why is he working at TBS right now?

That must be the same kind of conclusion that got Dale Ellis traded, and Fred
Roberts pinned on the bench.

>Go ahead and speculate. You can speculate and I can say that you have your
>head stuck up your asshole. Disprove my claim.

So if your claim is just another fart, why does it need any disprove?

Nico Nierenberg

unread,
Apr 5, 1990, 8:16:03 PM4/5/90
to
In article <23...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> l...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (edward.lor,mt,) writes:
>In article <6n8...@unify.uucp> ni...@unify.UUCP (Nico Nierenberg) writes:
>>I think all of this points out the problems with the MVP concept. Aren't
>>we trying to determine who the NBA's best player was this year? In other
>>words given an expansion draft with no limitations who would be your first
>>pick. I can tell you that my answer would be MJ.
>
>There is another pitfall on this selection criteria, "Who you take in
>a hypothetical draft should be the MVP". In other words, the Heismann
>trophy should be awarded in April and the Wooden Award should be awarded in
>June, both to the #1 draft picks.

Ok Ok I'll modify it. (This is the trouble with a newsgroup read by
computer types). The precise algorithm is who would you pick first if
everyone was going to play exactly the way they played the previous year.

>
>Who you take in the draft is based on his potential to produce, who
>wins an award is based on how much he has already produced in a
>specific time frame.
>
>Who do you take if you want to build a Final Four team? Who else
>but Pat Ewing? Why did they give the 1985 MVP to Ed Pinckney?
>
>Who do you take if you want to assemble a team for the NBA playoffs? Who else
>but Jordan/Magic/Bird? But why did they give the playoff MVP to Joe Dumars,
>James Worthy and Cedric Maxwell?

Gee, it seems to me that Bird wasn't in the playoffs. If you use my
newly modified algorithm then you would pick based on the assumption
that they will always play like they did during the series. On that basis
it would have been tough to pick Magic unless you like having a guy
in street clothes on the bench.

[Additional good points deleted]

Duane Stanley Kobayashi

unread,
Apr 6, 1990, 11:14:54 AM4/6/90
to
In article <37...@rtifs1.UUCP> w...@babar.UUCP (Bucky Ransdell) writes:
>First off, the only reason I give a shit about the Bulls is because of
>Jordan, so I'm happy to see him score as many points as he can. I'm
>aware that the Bulls have been on a great winning streak lately, and
>Jordan has been going crazy. But they've also really sucked from time
>to time during that stretch, and if they don't correct some problems
>they don't have a chance of making the Finals.
>
>.... I just don't think they can advance to the Finals without
>getting more production out of some other people.
>

The Bulls have won the last 21 of 24 games with losses to
Detroit, Sacramento (at home!), and Utah. And yes I agree, they do need
to correct some problems in order to reach the Finals but its a far cry
to just say that they need to get more balanced scoring. If such is
the case you have to look at their present roster and conclude they have
the talent to reach the finals. Now I don't believe that the Jordanaires
are stiffs by any means but you have to honestly conclude that they are a
player short of serious contention. Let's take stock.

Mr. Bill - Will never be a dominating center but getting ~15 ppg ~8rpg
would be the sheer limit of his performance. You've got to be pleased
with production anywhere near those totals. His biggest contribution is
basically trying to prevent dominating centers from tearing up the Bulls
inside which he does adequately well.

Horace Grant - Suffered the most in Doug Collins tyranny and actually
regressed from his rookie year. He's kind of a tweener between the
forward spots and is at his best in the open floor game. Improvement
this year has been substantial and could improve to an ~18ppg scorer in
the future. Bulls offensive scheme should give him more opportunities
in the low post where his quickness can be impressive.

Scottie Pippen - Supposedly the second best scorer on the team but I
think that's optimistic. His high scoring games usually occur when the
open floor game is in vogue that night. In the half court sets, his
shooting bogs down and cannot be truly relied upon. His defensive
presence however makes him one of the key figures on the court.

John Paxson - Probably the best shooter on the team, ironically at the
point, but is just a little too slow to keep up with most NBA guards.
Would be more effective coming off the bench.

Rookies - Stacy King and B.J. Armstrong are quality players with bright
futures.

Significant Others - Will Perdue? No explanation necessary. Craig
Hodges? Unfortunately, his defensive liabilities (esp. against Detroit)
outweigh his offensive talent.

Overall, the talent level is good enough to be one of the better teams
in the league but not enough to overtake the leagues elite (i.e. LA and
Detroit). If you've watched the Bulls games during the year, the
glaring weakness is the absence of a swingman between the 2 & 3 spots
(should have been Kenny Battle). As a result, backcourts of
Armstrong/Paxson/Hodges (all around 6') exist and are easily overrun.
If the Bulls can acquire or draft a shooting guard/small forward who can
create offensive opportunities and play decent defense, I will be the
first to proclaim them as a serious contender to the crown. As it is,
Pippen and Jordan are forced to play major minutes and will eventually
wilt toward the end of the playoffs. The addition of that swingman will
allow Jordan and Pippen to cut their minutes to ~36 a game and an even
better team concept will surely follow.


D-man

Paul GOODE

unread,
Apr 6, 1990, 8:22:37 PM4/6/90
to
In article <1990Apr2....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, bha...@delta.uucp (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
> > Edward Lor
>
> I prefer that the MVP go to the best player in the league - here
> Jordan.
>
> So if you think the above is not a worthy argument I'll go along with
> you, but then note you have no leg to stand on if you claim Magic
> deserves the MVP. The MVP then should go to the *best* *player* in the
> league, & I don't think anyone will argue who that is!!!!!
>
If I was starting a basketball team and could have my choice
of any player in the league to begin it with, I'd choose
Magic Johnson. I guess that makes him, IMHO, the best player
in the league.

Furthermore, if the same powers that were so generous with
Magic's services offered me another player of my choice,
I'd take Akeem Olajuwon. Then I'd take Jordan, although
I'd think long and hard about Karl Malone. After Malone,
I'd choose from among Bird, Barkley, and Chambers.

Notice something: I'm not saying that Michael Jordan can't
play basketball; I'm only saying that he's the third best
player in the known universe. I'm also not saying that you
can't make a persuasive case for Jordan, and I'm not
questioning the sanity of anyone who thinks he should
be MVP.

Incidentally, I'm neither a Lakers nor a Bulls fan.

Paul

0 new messages