RealGM

MATCHUPS

Snakebites v. bryant08 - WESTERN CONFERENCE
TMACFORMVP v. All In the Name - EASTERN CONFERENCE

Best of luck to all competitors, myself moreso.

I'd also like to introduce Warspite as a judge. I'd hope penbeast would be able to remain a judge, as he'd also have more time to prepare something instead of being rushed into the spot. I don't know the availability for sherkin on this one, but rocdogg, and Gremz are very much appreciated for getting their results in a timely fashion.

Also, those that would like the peer voting for all those that posted two writeups to judge on the series as well, we could discuss that on the General Discussions thread, as it would provide more opinions.

Emotionally conflicted as I am taking a Larry Bird lead team up against a team that has Magic Johnson AND Joe Dumars, you're going down, bryant08.

Snakebites wrote:Emotionally conflicted as I am taking a Larry Bird lead team up against a team that has Magic Johnson AND Joe Dumars, you're going down, bryant08.

It is a good thing I have to be impartial.

For full player stats, please view the following link:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=340&t=970536

TMACFORMVP has done a great job running this thing and also built a fantastic team. This writeup was very challenging.

All In The Name vs. TMACFORMVP

PG: Terry Porter (31) / Michael Cooper (9) / Jason Terry (8)
SG: Michael Cooper (14) / Manu Ginobili (29) / Grant Hill (5)
SF: Grant Hill (30) / Bruce Bowen (18)
PF: Kevin Garnett (41) / Clifford Robinson (7)
C: Shaquille O'Neal (41) / Arvydas Sabonis (7)

Brent Barry and Rick Mahorn fill out the bench and could see spot minutes if needed (Barry in last-second shooting situations; Mahorn if a big is in foul trouble or things aren't quite “physical” enough).

vs.

PG - Steve Nash (36) - Jeff Hornacek (8) - Dwyane Wade (4)
SG - Dwayne Wade (32) - Joe Johnson (16)
SF - Ron Artest (30) - Dennis Rodman (14) - Joe Johnson (4)
PF - Kevin McHale (32) - Dennis Rodman (16)
Cc - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (40) - Jeff Ruland (8)


I will break this writeup into two main sections (one primarily quantitative, the other primarily qualitative):


Quantitative:

Assist-turnover ratio is a very important offensive statistic. When considering minutes played, my team averages 1.99 AST/TO, while TMACFORMVP's team averages 1.74 AST/TO. Now, on the surface, this may not seem like much of a difference, but it is actually a significant edge in my favor. According to espn.com's stats (which date back to the 2000-01 season), my ratio would be the 4th highest during this span, while TMACFORMVP's would be tied for the 26th highest. Furthermore, my team's assist-turnover ratio is 14.4% higher than TMACFORMVP's. hat is a substantial difference. To put this into perspective, the team with the 6th highest assist-turnover ratio this season, the Raptors, has an assist-turnover ratio only about 11.9% higher than the team with the 18th highest assist-turnover ratio, the Heat. Essentially, my team is absolutely phenomenal in terms of AST/TO; while TMACFORMVP's is merely very good. This is important, because this particular statistic happens to be very telling. In fact, this season, of the top 15 teams in the league in AST/TO, 12 of them are also in the top 15 in points per 100 possessions.

As for the 3 teams in the top 15 in AST/TO and bottom 15 in points per 100 possessions, there is a simple explanation: 2 of them (the Hornets and the Bucks) are ranked 2nd to last and dead last in FTM/FGA, while the other (the Clippers) is also in the bottom half of FTM/FGA (17th overall).

This general trend holds true year to year. Last season, for example, 6 of the top 10 teams in AST/TO were also in the top 10 in points per 100 possessions. Where did the 4 teams that were not in the top 10 in points per 100 possessions rank in terms of FTM/FGA? 20th, 26th, 27th, and 30th.

Take it back another season (2007-08). The top 10 teams in AST/TO all ranked in the top half of the league in points per 100 possesions.

My team, though, is fantastic at drawing fouls and, as a result, averages .297 FTM/FGA, which would be good for the 3rd highest ratio in the past decade.

This is a perfect segue into my next point. Basketball statistician Dean Oliver identified shooting, turnovers, rebounding, and free throws as the “Four Factors of Basketball Success.” Basketball-Reference, in turn, measures these four factors with the following statistics: eFG%, TOV%, ORB%, DRB%, and FTM/FGA. So the offense four factors are eFG%, TOV%, ORB%, and FTM/FGA.


I have already calculated my team's FTM/FGA to be .297 (when adjusting for rotational minutes), an outstanding number. TMACFORMVP's team averages .289 FTM/FGA. This is also very good, but, again, my team is better in this department (about 2.8% higher).


Now let's look at ORB% (again factoring in minutes played):

All In The Name:
PG: 2.2
SG: 3.4
SF: 3.6
PF: 8.4
C: 10.8
average: 5.7

TMACFORMVP:
PG: 2.0
SG: 4.0
SF: 7.8
PF: 11.5
C: 8.1
average: 6.7

So, in this category, TMACFORMVP does hold an edge (about 17.5%). Still, as I will show later, I more than make up for this in DRB%.


My team has an eFG% of .524. My opponent's eFG% is .541. So while TMACFORMVP has the advantage in this category, it's only about 3.2%.


The final offense factor is TOV% (the lower the better). My TOV%, .126, is 13.1% lower than my opponent's, .145. This is a huge difference. My team's TOV% is very good; TMACFORMVP's is very bad. Here's where our TOV%'s would rank in the NBA for the past 10 seasons:

All In The Name: tied for 7th, 10th, tied for 7th, tied for 2nd, 4th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd, tied for 6th, 2nd

TMACFORMVP: tied for 26th, 27th, 29th, tied for 17th, tied for 24th, 24th, 20th, tied for 21st, 23rd, tied for 18th


Unfortunately, the defense four factors are much harder to predict. The only one I can really get a reliable measurement of is DRB%. Here is how we stack up:

All In The Name:
PG: 9.0
SG: 13.8
SF: 17.1
PF: 26.7
C: 24.5
average: 18.2

TMACFORMVP:
PG: 10.3
SG: 10.8
SF: 19.0
PF: 22.3
C: 21.5
average:16.8

So my team's average DRB% is about 8.6% higher.

So although TMACFORMVP has the better offensive rebounding team, my superior defensive rebounding more than makes up for this, swinging the overall rebounding edge in my favor:

Team ORB% - Opponent DRB%:

All In The Name:
PG: 7.0
SG: 9.8
SF: 9.3
PF: 15.2
C: 16.4
average: 11.5

TMACFORMVP:
PG: 8.1
SG: 7.4
SF: 15.4
PF: 13.9
C: 10.7
average: 11.1

TRB%:

All In The Name:
PG: 5.5
SG: 8.5
SF: 10.5
PF: 17.9
C: 17.8
average: 12.0

TMACFORMVP:
PG: 6.3
SG: 7.5
SF: 13.4
PF: 17.1
C: 15.1
average: 11.9


So what does all this mean? Again, the four factors of basketball success are shooting, turnovers, rebounding, and free throws. We can get a good idea of both offensive and defensive rebounding, but, as I said, it is difficult to measure the other three factors defensively. Nonetheless, here are my findings so far:

Shooting: Both teams are very good offensively. Slight advantage for TMACFORMVP.

Turnovers: My team is very good offensively; TMACFORMVP's team is very bad offensively. Major advantage for me.

Rebounding: Both teams are very good offensively and defensively, with a slight offensive advantage for TMACFORMVP and a slight defensive advantage for me. Combining the two, I have a slight overall rebounding advantage.

Free throws: Both teams are very good offensively. Slight advantage for me.

Therefore, my team clearly comes out ahead offensively and is also superior in the only defensive category I can easily measure.


Games Played (accounting for minute distribution):

All In The Name: 94.9% (77.9 games per season)

TMACFORMVP: 89.6% (73.5 games per season)

This may not be a major factor, but it's worth noting that my players played more games in their selected seasons.


As previously stated, the ability to make free throws is a crucial factor of success. Similarly, simply drawing fouls is beneficial. It puts your opponent's players in foul trouble, allows your team to get in the bonus early, and lets you dictate the pace. While I feel that my team can excel at any tempo, I 'd prefer to keep the game at a slower pace with more half-court play, and my team's ability to draw fouls will let me do that. Here are each team's free throws attempted per game, adjusting for a pace factor of 100.

All In The Name: 43.9

TMACFORMVP: 36.8

My team is clearly better at getting to the charity stripe, and, thus (we can assume) is better at drawing fouls.


Usage percentages (adjusted per minutes played):

All In The Name:
PG: 19.72
SG: 23.65
SF: 21.27
PF: 27.04
C: 28.14
average: 23.96

TMACFORMVP:
PG: 23.27
SG: 28.51
SF: 20.45
PF: 19.08
C: 24.90
average: 23.24

Our usage percentages are extremely close. Both, though, will have to decrease (the average usage percentage per position must equal exactly 20). I believe my team will be more effective in achieving this. In a league like this, most players will obviously be getting less touches than they usually do. Additionally, Kevin Garnett will play a different role for me than he did with the Timberwolves. He will still be an integral part of the offense, but, unlike with Minnesota, he will not have to carry the team on his back. He will be taking less shots. This works out perfectly for me. KG will have no problem deferring to Shaq in the low post and operating more as a passer, often playing hi-lo with Shaq.

My opponent, though, will have a tougher time adapting. I am assuming that one of his major changes will have to be decreasing the touches of Nash and/or Wade. In their three selected seasons, the starting SG next to Nash averaged a USG% of 15.97 while the starting PG next to Wade averaged a USG% of 17.43. Nash and Wade will have to play off-ball much more than they are accustomed to. And while they are both great players who will certainly still do well together, their talent is not maximized when they are in the same backcourt. Both players are at their best when handling the ball, creating shots for themselves or others.

In Nash's 6 seasons in Phoenix (including this season), he has done best when the starting SG is spotting up from downtown (which is not the case with Wade). Their 3PTM / FGM were as follows:

.325
.464
.500
.555
.277
.332

Nash had MVP-caliber seasons in all but one of those seasons (.277, last season). This was clearly his worst season in quite a few years.


During my selected seasons for Bruce Bowen and TMACFORMVP's for Nash, the two faced off against each other 21 times, with Bowen often defending Nash. In Nash's 450 other games during these seasons, he averaged 17.0 PPG, 10.1 APG, 3.1 TOPG, and 3.3 AST/TO with a 50.0 FG% and a 43.9 3P%.

Against Bowen, though, Nash fell to 16.6 PPG, 9.5 APG, 3.9 TOPG, and 2.4 AST/TO with a 45.6 FG% and a 41.4 3P%.

In Wade's selected seasons, he played against Bowen 5 times. In these contests, Wade's APG decreased from 7.0 to 6.0, his TOPG increased from 3.9 to 5.2, his AST/TO fell from 1.8 to 1.2, and his FG% dropped from 48.9 to 45.9. And although he scored slightly more PPG (27.8 compared to 26.0), it took him 4.1 more shots per game to do it.


Finally, here are some adjusted player stats. Kareem's longevity was incredible and he was still an awesome player in the early 80s, but he was no longer at his peak. Also, you must consider the pace that most teams played at back then. Adjusting to a pace factor of 100, here are the per 36 minutes stats of the starting centers:

Shaq: 28.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 2.7 blocks, 0.6 steals

Kareem: 23.6 points, 9.4 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 2.8 blocks, 0.8 steals


For what it's worth, here are some other per 36 minutes stats (again, adjusted to a pace factor of 100):

Porter: 18.9 points, 3.7 rebounds, 6.7 assists, 0.1 blocks, 1.7 steals

Manu: 24.0 points, 6.0 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 0.6 blocks, 2.1 steals

Hill: 21.6 points, 9.1 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 0.6 blocks, 1.7 steals

Garnett: 23.5 points, 13.9 rebounds, 5.7 assists, 1.7 blocks, 1.5 steals


Nash: 19.4 points, 4.0 rebounds, 11.8 assists, 0.1 blocks, 0.8 steals

Wade: 26.9 points, 5.4 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 1.0 blocks, 1.9 steals

Artest: 19.5 points, 6.1 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 0.6 blocks, 2.1 steals

McHale: 22.7 points, 8.6 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.8 blocks, 0.4 steals


adjusted (pace factor of 100, per 36 min) playoff stats:

Shaq (58 games): 28.0 points, 13.6 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 2.3 blocks. 0.5 steals, 55.2 FG%

Kareem (32 games): 23.9 points, 9.9 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 3.1 blocks, 1.0 steals, 54.3 FG%

Garnett (24 games): 22.7 points, 13.5 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 1.9 blocks, 1.3 steals

McHale (56 games): 22.0 points, 8.0 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 1.7 blocks, 0.4 steals

Porter (41 games): 19.1 points, 3.8 rebounds, 6.0 assists, 0.1 blocks, 1.2 steals, .496/.396/.841, 3.02 AST/TO

Nash (36 games): 22.0 points, 3.9 rebounds, 12.3 assists, 0.2 blocks. 0.4 steals, .484/.391/.906, 3.06 AST/TO

Manu (50 games): 22.3 points, 5.9 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 0.4 blocks, 1.6 steals

Wade (41 games): 26.7 points, 5.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 1.0 blocks, 1.8 steals

A couple of things I'd like to point out. Nash obviously averages more assists, but, other than that, Porter has a very similar statline (including shooting percentages). Also, Manu's stats are fairly close to Wade's.


Qualitative (still some numbers, though, sorry math haters!):


Rebounding:

As I've already shown, the rebounding battle should be fairly close, perhaps with a slight advantage to me.


Offense:

Like usual, my offense will be focused around my big men. The hi-lo game with KG and Shaq will be the mainstay of my offense. McHale was a very good defender (although I wouldn't say he was great), but he will have trouble slowing down KG. Garnett can create his shot so well from the high post and might just be the best post-entry passing power forward of all time. He also has a great jump shot, and, as long as McHale's arms are, KG also has a huge wingspan, so McHale's length won't bother him as much as it would most players.

And, although Kareem was a great defender, he simply will not be able to stop Shaq once he gets the ball down low. Shaq's strength and physicality is just too much for Kareem to handle (Kareem is known to have “struggled” against players like this, Moses Malone, for example), and he will dominate offensively.

TMACFORMVP chose a past his defensive peak Ron Artest. Sure, he is still a very good defender, but he's not as quick as he once was and Hill will be able to blow by him. Hell, Hill put up 23 points on 10-13 shooting against Artest last season (one of TMACFORMVP's selected seasons)! And, as I mentioned last round, a peak Hill was the type of player who could not be contained.

In his selected seasons, Hill played against the Bulls 9 times. Chicago featured Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and TMACFORMVP's own Dennis Rodman as their defensive stars. Hill's stats during those contests:

22.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 7.1 APG, 46.6 FG%

And as a second/third option in this offense, Hill will no doubt be even more efficient.

I'm assuming that my opponent will put Nash on Cooper or Bowen whenever possible, thus masking Nash's defensive deficiencies. Cooper and Bowen probably won't light up the scoreboard, but they will be able to hit plenty of open shots and won't be at all bothered by Nash.

This leaves Dwyane Wade guarding Terry Porter for much of the game. Porter could dominate a game or playoff series. In fact, in the 1992 playoffs (one of my selected seasons for Porter), Porter had two consecutive playoff series with the following statlines:

Against Phoenix (5 games): 25.8 PPG, 8.4 APG, 5.6 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 54.3 FG%, 41.2 3P%, 1.4 3-pointers made per game, 81.0 FT%

Against Utah (6 games): 26.0 PPG, 8.3 APG, 4.0 RPG, 1.0 SPG, 54.8 FG%, 52.9 3P%, 3.0 3-pointers made per game, 85.2 FT%

Those are superstar numbers. Porter was a very underrated player. Now, as a 4th/5th option (4th in the starting lineup, but probably 5th when you consider Manu), his scoring will go down, but his efficiency will go up. And considering his remarkable efficiency as is (47.5 / 40.8 / 80.1), that's scary.

Keep in mind that TMACFORMVP selected Wade's second, third, and fourth seasons in the league. At this time, he was a great help defender but wasn't the on-ball defender that he is today. Wade gambled quite a bit and could be burned at times, and Porter will be able to take advantage of that.

Also, Nash will sometimes be forced to guard Porter or Jason Terry, both of whom are very capable scorers. I just showed some of Porter's numbers, and, in 10 games against Steve Nash during my selected seasons, Jason Terry averaged 20.8 PPG on 48.7% shooting (45.5% from downtown).

Manu will also be a big part of my offense. His deceptive style, combined with his ability to both shoot from the outside and drive to the rack works great against a gambling defender, like Wade. In fact, in Manu's selected seasons, he played 5 games against Wade's Heat, averaging 19.2 PPG (24.3 points per 36 minutes) on 58.9% shooting.

Manu also has great success against Joe Johnson. In their selected seasons, they played each other 8 times. Manu averaged 24 PPG (27.5 per 36 minutes) on 58.6% shooting.


Defense:

At his peak, Shaq was an excellent defender, leading the league in defensive win shares in 1999-00. Kareem will still get his, as his skyhook works against any defender, but Shaq can hold his own and will not need help guarding Kareem.

We really like our forward matchups defensively, as both Artest and McHale have a tendency to be black holes offensively, and Artest also can be somewhat of a chucker, shooting only 43.1% from the floor in his selected seasons. And while McHale is a very efficient scorer, Garnett's tenacious defense will cause him problems, not letting him get comfortable down low. Garnett is also possibly the greatest pick-and-roll defender of all time, which will be important against a team with Nash at the point.

As I alluded to earlier, when it comes to the Nash-Wade backcourt, the whole will be less than the sum of its parts. They are both used to having the offense revolve around them. I also have two of the greatest perimeter defenders ever, Cooper and Bowen, to relentlessly guard them for much of the game.

TMACFORMVP will also have difficulty spreading the floor. Nash, of course, is a terrific shooter, but other than him, we really aren't too afraid of our opponent's outside shooting. The only other players seeing significant time who might occasionally make a 3 are Johnson and Artest, but even they are not particularly effective from downtown.


Again, TMACFORMVP, you have an awesome team, but we believe we will win this very difficult matchup.

The Snakes vs. Toronto Huskies – Western Conference Final

Check out my awesome roster/stats (GOAT roster page):
viewtopic.php?f=340&t=970536#p21716508

Depth Charts

Artis Gilmore (30) - Jack Sikma (18)
Karl Malone (34) - Jack Sikma (14)
Vince Carter (24) - Eddie Jones (24)
Joe Dumars (32) – Dale Ellis (10) – Eddie Jones (10)
Magic Johnson (34) - Mookie Blaylock (14)

vs.

Alonzo Mourning (35) – Bill Laimbeer (13)
Buck Williams (36) – Larry Bird (12)
Larry Bird (26) – Adrian Dantley – Dan Majerle (10)
Ray Allen (33) – Dan Majerle (10) – Adrian Dantley (5)
Gary Payton (36) – Fat Lever (12)

Introduction:
It’s clear these are two very well built teams just by looking at them. The Snakes roster is full of toughness, grit, defensive ability and the killer instinct. My roster is built around a superstar duo in Magic/Malone and strong supporting pieces with various skills with Dumars, Gilmore, Sikma, etc. Both teams have pretty short benches which are not uncommon at this stage of the playoffs and both have the depth to use guys currently not even in the rotation to play a specific role if needed. As always, this series will come down to the areas of efficiency/execution on both ends of the floor, ability to take your chances on the fast break and create in half-court sets, as well as rebounding. Good luck to Snakebites, I really do believe this is a mouth-watering prospective matchup, but one my squad does hold the advantage in.

Defensive gameplan:

Dumars on Payton
Carter/Jones on Allen
Magic on Bird
Malone on Buck
Gilmore/Sikma on Mourning

Above is the breakdown of who I plan to use in my man-to-man defense, subject to change depending on the situation. Joe Dumars has the size and defensive ability to not allow Gary Payton easy back-down opportunities and ensure he’s putting up contested jumpers.

I decided to use Vince Carter on Ray Allen because Ray is just one of those players who creates without the ball in his hands. He’s tough to stop, and using a guy like Joe Dumars is overkill because all you can do with a guy like Allen is keep up with him in motion, especially on his cuts, and get a hand in his face. I’m going to give Vince Carter the chance to defend Allen because he’s young (at least in the years selected), ridiculous quick and athletic, as well as extremely hungry.

Larry Bird is fantastic, there’s no stopping the guy. His shot is a weapon, he can put it on the floor and drive, work with his back to the basket. After thinking about it for a while, I decided to go to Magic Johnson for a few reasons. Defense is has so much to do with effort and the competition between Bird and Magic will definitely get Magic’s juices flowing. He’s also got the size to limit Bird’s game back to the basket game which at least takes away one of his options offensively. Magic can keep a hand in his face and simply make it tough on the guy with his size. I believe I’ve got the talent to ensure Larry Bird can’t win this series single-handedly, if the Magic matchup doesn’t go well for us, I’ll try different defenders, possibly a guy like Horace Grant on Bird.

Up top, I’m not worried about Buck Williams frankly, I’ll guard him man-to-man and no problems should arise from putting Malone or possibly Sikma or Gilmore on him. With Mourning’s game, I’ve got to be a little more careful. I like Gilmore’s length inside and Sikma’s post defense is solid as well. I believe I’ve got the remedy to many problems that would be created normally by The Snakes, but the defense on Larry Bird will be crucial to our success. If he’s contained, we’ve got a great chance to win this series. As a team, I also want my players being ready to go off a turnover/rebound, to go and get a score in transition.

Offensive gameplan:

Half-court play often defines the playoffs. Slow, methodical, picking apart of your defender. While that’s fine and dandy, I’ve got the perfect team to take advantage of a rebound or turnover on the defensive end, and run The Snakes absolutely ragged down the floor. Looking at The Snakes roster, it’s full of tough defenders who can get under your skin in the half-court. I want to make Larry Bird, Buck Williams, Alonzo Mourning have to chase back after establishing position offensively to try and wear them out/create easy buckets. Who better to lead the break than Magic Johnson? I’ve got athleticism out the wazoo on my roster, so why not take advantage? Of course the half-court is extremely important as well though, because you won’t always be operating in situations where you can run the ball up. I’ve got options with the Magic/Malone pick and roll, Malone in the post, Vince Carter/Joe Dumars as secondary playmakers as well. My offense can work half-court, full-court, day, night. It doesn’t matter, Magic Johnson/Karl Malone surrounded by shooters and fantastic support (Gilmore, VC, Dumars) right down to key bench players like Jack Sikma, Mookie Blaylock, Eddie Jones is just pure unstoppable.

Why will the Huskies win?
- Shooting. Sikma, Jones, Ellis, Blaylock, Dumars, Carter, Malone (from mid-range) are all great shooters in some form or another. Quick ball movement and creativity from many positions will often lead to open jumpers, and having killers like that is perfect for this scenario.
- Rebounding 5 positions deep. Boxing out isn’t a job for just your 4s and 5s, but everyone on the floor has to box out and ensure guys stay off the offensive glass.
- Magic Johnson. There’s no answer for the guy, he’s simply the greatest PG to ever play the game and I have the luxury of putting him on Larry Bird defensively. Simply unreal and I’m sorry, but even The Glove doesn’t stand a chance against this guy.
- The fast break. Easy buckets in transition cause the opponent to get fatigued and get into foul trouble. They excite the crowd and can help shift/build momentum.

Conclusion
- Good luck to Snakebites, thanks to the judges and all you guys who helped me with some advice on my team, even during bidding

I have to say, All In the Name has been the most pleasant surprise of this game. Not because of the team he's built, or anything like that, but with his original post count, there was speculation if he would be active enough. Not only has he proven that, but he's proved to be arguably the most reliable poster in this competition, that has a great knowledge, and feel for the game. You can tell from some of the guys immediately in terms of who "get it," and "who don't." He definitely has that "it" and in doing so built a magnificent team, that's perfectly thought out.

It should be a great, and long series. And may the best team win, which I fully intend to do so.



LINEUPS

All In the Name
Terry Porter (31) / Michael Cooper (9) /
Michael Cooper (14) / Manu Ginobili (29) / Grant Hill (5)
Grant Hill (30) / Bruce Bowen (18)
Kevin Garnett (41) / Clifford Robinson (7)
Shaquille O'Neal (41) / Arvydas Sabonis (7)

v.

TMACFORMVP
PG - Steve Nash (36) - Jeff Hornacek (8) Dwyane Wade (4)
SG - Dwayne Wade (32) - Joe Johnson (16)
SF - Ron Artest (30) - Dennis Rodman (14) - Joe Johnson (4)
PF - Kevin McHale (32) - Dennis Rodman (16) -
Cc - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (40) - Jeff Ruland (8)

As always, I'm never a strong believer in head to head matchups determining a series, though, we also do understand, with players so evenly matched, that it's almost inveitable to avoid a certain head to head matchup. In this writeup, in general, I'll try to address the main points in what determines the outcome of the series, with particular interesting matchups, that are bound to happen. Without further a due:

REBOUNDING

- (stats adjusted for minutes played)

Terry Porter (31) - 3.5 rebounds per game (34.1 minutes per game) - 3.1 rebounds
Michael Cooper (23) - 3.2 rebounds per game (28.2 minutes per game) - 2.6 rebounds
Grant Hill (35) - 8.8 rebounds per game (40.2 minutes per game) - 7.6 rebounds
Kevin Garnett (41) - 13.6 rebounds per game - (39.3 minutes per game) - 14.1 rebounds
Shaquille O'neal (41) - 12.4 rebounds per game - (38.5 minutes per game) - 13.2 rebounds
Manu Ginobili (29) - 4.3 rebounds per game (28.8 minutes per game) - 4.3 rebounds
Bruce Bowen (8) - 3.2 rebounds per game (31.7 minutes per game) - 0.8 rebounds
Clifford Robinson (7) - 4.3 rebounds per game (34.6 minutes per game) - 0.8 rebounds
Aryvdas Sabonis (7) - 8.7 rebounds per game (27.1 minutes per game) - 2.2 rebounds




Steve Nash (36) - 3.7 rebounds per game (35.0 minutes per game) - 3.8 rebounds
Dwyane Wade (36) - 5.2 rebounds per game (38.3 minutes per game) - 4.8 rebounds
Ron Artest (30) - 5.8 rebounds per game (37.1 minutes per game) - 4.6 rebounds
Kevin McHale (32) - 8.8 rebounds per game (37.4 minutes per game) - 7.5 rebounds
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 10.0 rebounds per game (36.9 minutes per game) - 10.8 rebounds
Dennis Rodman (30) - 16.5 rebounds per game (37.5 minutes per game) - 13.2 rebounds
Joe Johnson (20) - 4.4 rebounds per game (40.5 minutes per game) - 2.1 rebounds
Jeff Ruland (8) - 10.8 rebounds per game (34.7 minutes per game) - 2.8 rebounds
Jeff Hornacek (8) - 4.4 rebounds per game (36.1 minutes per game) - 0.9 rebounds



It's pretty similar, as All In the Name points out, we have the edge on the offensive glass, while his team has a slight edge on the defensive boards, but overall if anyone were to have the advantage, our players are the better rebounders for the minutes they're receiving, thus making our team better defensively.

FRONT COURT PLAY

I think it's widely accepted that All In The Name's squad has the best front court play in this competition. Our goal is to prove, that our team, while maybe not as explosive is not too shabby either, and can most definitely hold their own. We feel if we can do that, our sizable edge in the backcourt, and overall perimeter play will lead us to the victory.

We're not going to stop Shaq, obviously not, but All In the Name's squad won't have success in stopping Kareem either. There's not much to say, other than both of these greats will beat each other up. Kareem, while past his prime, is still the 2nd best offensive C in this competition, an MVP, and has three year peak averages of 25/10, with elite defense, and supreme efficiency. He's arguably the most fundamentally sound center left in this game. He's faced the likes of Hakeem, and played him well enough, and that's far past his prime. To put this in perspective, this "Kareem past his prime," also won a finals MVP AFTER the years I've chosen. Imagine how good one would be, to be considered far past his prime, and win Finals MVP, with another HOF in his prime playing as well.

The whole "Kareem struggles against physicality," thing is garbage. I'm not saying All In the Name claimed that, but I mean in general. I've even heard critics say that he struggled against an aggressive defensive guy like Dave Cowens. Kareem only averaged roughly 32/16/5 on 50% in that series. Kareem won't do much to Shaq, not because he's not a great defender, in fact he's even better than Shaq, but because Shaq is that good. But the same case, for when Shaq comes up to defend Kareem.

On KG, All In the Name conceded that he would have a lesser role, and while we stop another All-Time great, we feel we have the best options to contain him, especially in the first regard considering KG was never a scorer that would blow up in your face. McHale is a multiple time All-Defensive player, and proven he can defend the bigger guys, and the perimeter guys, so he's fully equipped to defend Garnett, whether he's out on the perimeter. Off the bench, we have the most versatile defender in the game in Rodman proving to have defended anyone from PG to C.

Barkley, whom is a considerably better offensive player than Garnett, has gone on to say nobody has played him tougher than Kevin McHale. Again, we won't stop him, but if anyone was equipped to slow him down, it would be our team.

On the other end, McHale will be guarded, by Garnett. KG being the competitor and defensive player that he is, should do an admirable job, but once again, much like the Shaq, and Kareem matchup, McHale should still get his touches, and points. He was one of the most skilled, and gifted offensive PF's of all time. Some call him a black hole, which I don't get, as he was ridiculously efficient from the floor, came off the bench when his team asked of him, and was an integral second option on multiple championship teams.

I'm not writing this to prove that my frontcourt is better, but with Kareem, and McHale being all time greats in their own right, there's no frontcourt actually assembled that can completely outplay the frontcourt my team boasts. We feel if we can hold our own in this department, then our play, the rest of the roster would lead us to victory.

The Grant Hill matchup is the intriguing one. I feel sometimes his peak before he got injured was overrated. Not saying he wasn't a great player, because he most certainly was, and a definite superstar, but the whole "next MJ," comparisons take it a bit too far. His game didn't really improve all that much in his first six seasons, while an exceptional all round player, not a threat to beat you from the outside (and with Shaq, that's crucial, arguably moreso than any other C in the league history). He's not much a closer, and he's more like KG, a cerebral offensive player, that's not ridiculously pressed to explode.

We'll have our hands full, as he could do many things on the floor, we'll use Artest offensively to try to attack him a bit defensively, but his energy will be exerted more on the offensive end. We had to pick and choose, between which Artest we wanted. One that was crazy, but a superstar defensive player, and inefficient offensive player, OR, one that's a surprisingly efficient three point shooter, and lesser defensively. We chose the latter, and he's proving more, with the current Lakers squad, with an extended supporting cast, he's looking more like his old self defensively. Not to that extent, because he has lost some quickness, but there's also a reason why the Lakers defensive numbers have jumped up across the board.

And with Rodman off the bench, playing thirty minutes, he'll also take on the challenge of guarding Hill, and while we won't convince anyone from saying he'll stop him, he's the best option anyone at this point in the competition can. Rodman is the same man, that made Larry Bird look terrible in one of their playoff series together. And we'll force him to beat us from the outside, because Grant Hill is NOT a proficient three point shooter.

With KG, not being a floor spacer either, we can easily help a bit more with Rodman/Artest, downlow on Shaq, and with their prowess, be able to recover if Hill were to step in. One could argue it's the same affect, with our team and Wade, but we'd like to point out, that O'neal takes up considerably more space in the post. Even if we dare Hill to shoot, KG, being more an 18 and in foot player, and Shaq in the paint, he's almost forced into that role at times. Kareem was very effective playing outside the post, and a very good passer, and solid shooter from mid-range.

Much like All In the Name's team, we possess two shooters, in Nash, and Artest, Nash being one of the greatest of all time, arguably the best, but having that third shooter in the lineup is not so crucial to us because of Kareem's versatility on offense, compare to Shaq, who takes up nearly entire the whole space on the floor in the paint.

BACK COURT PLAY

As we've already stated, we feel our frontcourt is fully capable of holding their own, and where we take the edge, is the difference in perimeter play. Cooper serves as an elite defensive player, but offensively, he wasn't a large volume three point shooter, and not a threat to beat you offensively.
Porter was a fine player, but in this case, he's used primarily as a spot up shooter. In this series, Wade is far, and away the best perimeter player in this series.

Cooper is only playing fourteen minutes at the SG position, and seven more at PG. I'd presume those minutes are also when Wade would be getting his stretch minutes at the PG. That means, for fifteen minutes on the floor, that Wade would be guarded by Manu Ginobili.

- Manu is a good defender, but that's in a team aspect, slightly overrated to the defensive prowess of the San Antonio Spurs. This is where we'll take advantage, Wade will have his way, both offensively and defensively. It's similar to the competition last round, in facing Brandon Roy, where Wade has a supreme advantage on both ends of the floor.

We also feel, Cooper wouldn't be able to contain Wade (nobody can, but moreso in general), Cooper has been prone to letting quicker players get the best of him, relative to the more flat footed scorers of the 80's, among Dantley, King, and etc. Drexler, whom is a very similar player to Wade, Dwyane being possibly even more explosive offensively, normally had his way with Cooper, including multiple thirty point games, including one 43 point game. His stats are as follows (21 game sample size)



There's also the case, that Bowen who is playing minutes at the SF, another one of those, even moreso, offensive threats that are not to be worried about, or in other words, a one dimensional defender, hasn't had success against Wade, whenever the two have matched off. His stats are as follows (9 game sample size, I understand Bowen was older in 2009, but this also includes Wade's rookie season, in which he only dropped 14 against him):



Kind of like a modern day, Drexler v. Cooper matchup, in which Wade, should definitely have the edge, regardless of who is guarding him.

The same is the case with Steve Nash. Porter is a good defender, but not one disruptive enough to change, or have a legitimate impact on what Steve Nash wants do on the floor. Aside from being arguably the greatest shooter of all time, with godly percentages from the floor, Nash will also be orchestrating our offense. Meaning, when he has the ball, he'll be finding Kareem, and McHale in spots they like it, run with Wade in transition, or knock down the open three pointer off the dribble penetration of Wade in iso situations.

If Cooper, in these situations would be on Nash, that just means, it's more like Wade is being covered by either Ginobili, or Porter, making the job easier on Wade. If, All In the Name were to choose to put both Bowen, and Cooper in the game, then having two offensive liabilities in the lineip, in a competition like this spells doom. Another modern day comparison, though noted as not as good a defender, or player in general, is Chauncey Billups, who's been regarded to doing a better job on Nash.



His assists do go slightly down, but it's obvious that a player of Billups caliber, defensively, really had no bearing on what Nash was able to do offensively. Not to mention, the Pistons team up until last year (in which Billups was not on the team), was a defensive juggernaut, AROUND Chauncey as well. We completely expect, both Nash, and Wade to have their way in this series, both due to the lack of complete offensive, or defensive game that the likes of Porter, Cooper, Ginobili, and Bowen bring.

Against Bowen, he did struggle in 2008, but in 06, and 05, Nash not only did not play well, but his numbers went up.



20.5 points per game, 10.3 assists per game on .539 FG%, and .400% from distance.

We'll make you pick your poison, if you choose to put either Cooper/Bowen on Nash, then Wade will run free (regardless he will, but even moreso), if you do vice versa, Nash will pick apart the defense, with both his shooting and passing ability. If both were to be in the game, we've already expressed how comfortable we are with Wade, and Nash orchestrating the offense, and they're likely to get the better of two players that would be offensive liabilities in this series. There's no way to spin it, but our backcourt will thoroughly outplay All In the Name's in every aspect of the game.

We feel, if we can hold on our own in the front-court, our overwhelming edge in the backcourt will help us prevail.

DOWN THE STRETCH

In any close series, execution down the stretch will be key. In this case, we feel we can execute better, both offensively, and defensively to win this series.

- O'neal, for all his greatness, is still a horrible FT shooter, and a below average pick and roll defender. With the majority of plays involving picks in the NBA, we'll expose that, despite Garnett's prowess in that department, and on offense, make Shaq earn it from the line. On the other hand, Kareem is both a better recovering defender, and a better FT shooter, that can at the very least, be entrusted in to hit his FT's a solid rate.

- KG unfairly got the reputation of a guy that couldn't close out, but unfortunately, for the most part of his career, he was a first round virgin, that wasn't able to help his team advance past the first round. It's a team game, and I don't blame him for that, I mean look at my monkier, but it's well noted that KG isn't a guy that would close out a game for you. I know I'm fully aware of that Game 7, against the Lakers, but I'm talking more in general, on a consistent basis, taking over the game down the stretch.

- Hill is in the same boat, except he still is a first round virgin. The Pistons team were no good as well, just like the Timberwolves, and Garnett, but Hill still wasn't able to lift his team to even greater heights. It's also noted, while he isn't a choker, he's not neccessariley the perimeter star you want closing out games, without that experience, in a competition of this depth, and magnitude.

- Cooper, Bowen, Ginobili, and Porter are all fine players, that have won on the biggest of stages, but as role players. In this game situation, they're not the type of players you'd expect to get the ball, and create in the final minutes.

On the other hand, Wade is a proven clutch player. He was the NBA Finals MVP, with one of the most historic, and clutch performances of all time. He consistently took over down the stretch, and always among the top fourth quarter scorers in the NBA. Everyone, and most definitely All In the Name knows how dynamite Wade is down the stretch.

Nash's reputation is widely discussed, as he's yet to win a championship, but he's never been known as a player that was not clutch. And being that primary closer for his current, and past Suns team, Nash is not new to any sort of playoff experience. And as noted, Kareem is not a liability, like Shaq can potentially be when he's in the game for the final stretch, in fact, McHale, Kareem, and Wade all being champions at least once in the chosen seasons.

Bottom line is, we feel we can execute better, and possess better options down the stretch to take a game, in the winding minutes of a close game.

DEFENSIVE/OFFENSIVE COMPARISON

--> Offensively, All In the Name noted our "lack" of three point shooting. I don't mind the argument, but as he notes Nash is an amazing shooter, I feel it's wrong to dismiss both Artest, and Johnson, both of whom make more threes, at a higher percentage than both of the starters my opponent boasts. Artest shoots 38% from downtown, and JJ 40% himself during the three year peak chosen. Leave them open, and they'll hit the shot.

And as we pointed out, Cooper not being a volume three point shooter, and Porter really being the only major floor spacer, spacing is a bigger problem for my opponent to the sole fact that Shaq takes up considerably more space in the post. Having that spacing around his C, is more important to his team, than it is to ours, just due to the amount of space both of our centers take in the post. Manu is a solid shooter, much like Artest percentage wise, so in affect we'll both have two floor spacers on the floor at all times. But to me, personally, potentially having a better floor spacer at that three would be much more beneficial to the offense.

Efficiency wise, Shaq, and Kareem are similar. Edge to Shaq due to the fact he gets to the line more. McHale is clearly more efficient than McHale, when we factor in volume and scoring FG%. TS isn't so much needed, considering neither attempted threes. When we look at the perimeter stars, Wade is more efficient than Hill, much like the Kareem, and Shaq comparison, very similar, and could go either way, but the amount of times, Wade heads to the line, makes him the more efficient player. Porter is efficient, but Nash is at an all time level, that edge in terms of efficiency would go to us. Then it comes down to Cooper, and Artest. Both are used more in a role, primarily for their spot up shooting, Artest being the more prolific shooter, on better percentages. For Cooper being sold as a major floor spacer, he shot 36%, which is average, and didn't make one three per game. That may be due to era differences, but nonethless, that's not impressive.

Again, we have to reiterate, Porter is the only legit shooter on the perimeter, the main reason, we're keeping Wade on him, as his role will be primarily spot up shoot, Wade has the size and shot-blocking ability, and athleticism to at least contest his shots.

Defensively, it doesn't get much better than the frontcourt both of our team boasts, McHale and Kareem versus, Shaq and Garnett. We feel Kareem is better than Shaq defensively, but KG enough an advantage to potentially give them the edge there. We feel we have the edge defensively on the perimeter.

Cooper, and Bowen versus Rodman, and Artest. In terms of offensively, both are clearly better than their counterparts, but just as good as them defensively, Rodman being the best defender among the group. Wade's defense in the now-a-days isn't all much different from the years I've chosen, in terms of blocks and steals, they're virtually the same, and Wade when his mind is to it, is a very good man defender. That didn't change over the course of a few injury prone seasons, and he'd have the edge over his counterpart in Hill.

BENCH

We feel we have the edge here. Manu Ginboili is proven off the bench, but we feel both he and Johnson are comparable in terms of what they bring to the table. Some shooting, playmaking and ability to create for themselves. Aside from Ginobili, Sabonis, and Robinson don't play many minutes, similar to Ruland. Both are bigs with size, and passing ability, while Robinson provides some defense, and spacing, but not enough minutes to counteract the problem of spacing.

In that sense, since Robinson wasn't much a rebounder, his role would be to space the floor for seven minutes. Like that on our team is Hornecak, provides the same role, and is an even more efficient and prolific three pointer. And then the prized possession, is Dennis Rodman. He's not much a scorer, but he's the best rebounder, and I'd venture to say the best defender in the game.

Off the bench, we have Johnson to counter Ginobili's production, Hornecak to outshoot Robinson, Ruland to match up with Sabonis, but our biggest edge comes in the Rodman and Bowen matchup. I think our bench accomplishes the goal more in compliments, and shooting, with defense, rebounding, and toughness.

CONCLUSION

Overall, All In the Name has built a magnificent team. In getting Garnett to play with Shaq was arguably the best move in this competition. And again, it's really exciting to know that there's now another poster that can become a "regular," and dominant force in these competitions. Should be a long, and extended series, that can go either way, but due to the fact that we can at the worst keep the boards at a standstill, if not have the edge, provide better spacing for the team we've created, and have better matchup advantages, than their players do against ours, we feel good.

Mainly, the strategy for All In the Name is to dominate the inside, and hope that overweighs the lack of perimeter options. In most cases that's true, and an effective strategy, but we feel a frontcourt of Kareem and McHale can hold their own, and with perimeter defenders of the likes of Artest, and Rodman against Hill, that and our perimeter play of Nash, Wade, and JJ will eventually give us the edge in the series, as they should thoroughly win the matchup in all aspects of the game.

Once again, best of luck, and truly may the best team win. Looking forward to this one.

Toronto Huskies vs the, uh, SNAKES!

Artis Gilmore (30) - Jack Sikma (18)
Karl Malone (34) - Jack Sikma (14)
Vince Carter (24) - Eddie Jones (24)
Joe Dumars (32) – Dale Ellis (10) – Eddie Jones (10)
Magic Johnson (34) - Mookie Blaylock (14)

vs.

Alonzo Mourning (35) – Bill Laimbeer (13)
Buck Williams (36) – Larry Bird (12)
Larry Bird (26) – Adrian Dantley (22)
Ray Allen (33) – Dan Majerle (12) - Fat Lever (3)
Gary Payton (36) – Fat Lever (12)

Overall Picture:

This is perhaps the most interesting matchup I've ever faced in one of these games (not that I'm a seasoned veteran by any measure). Its an interesting twist on the classic Magic/Bird rivalries of the 1980's and I've had a lot of fun delving into it. Hope the judges will do the same with this matchup.

Offensively:

Make no mistake about it. Though my team is noted by my opponent for its grit and incredible defense, that is not all this team is about. We also feature an extremely well balanced and efficient offensive machine with a terrific anchor and first rate supplementary pieces. We have the most versatile and potent scoring threat remaining in this competition anchoring our offense in Larry Bird, and while we don't believe we need him to carry our offense by any stretch of the imagination, The Huskies have presented little to make us believe Bird will be significantly hindered in his ability to score. Magic may have the size to cover him, but he lacks the quickness and overall defensive ability to take him man to man, a hard task he will be called upon to attempt. Bird could do it all offensively, and we see no evidence here to suggest that won't be on full display in this series.

The issue is made worse by the fact that his other perimeter defenders, whether they be the excellent Joe Dumars, the solid Eddie Jones, or Vince Carter, will be thoroughly occupied guarding my other potent options at the perimeter positions, Gary Payton and Ray Allen. We absolutely love Joe Dumars ability to play great team defense, but as good an overall defender as he is Payton was noted for his ability to back down just about any guard, and his overall strength and power. Dumars will have his hands full and Payton, while forced to work, will still be able to initiate offense with his balanced overall game. Eddie Jones may do well against Ray Allen, but, as I noted in my previous matchup, that makes him largely unavailable for help anywhere else on the court, and his teammates will have their hands full with my potent perimeter offense. Overall, my opponent's perimeter defense is not without merit, but with what we have starting and solid offensive options coming off the bench as well (Dantley, Majerle, Lever), we feel that our offense, always largely based on the 1-3 spots, and with plenty of range, will be able to thrive against the Huskie's defense.

In the front court, though these is not the core of our offensive production, we still have very efficient offensive weapons. Alonzo Mourning, though not noted for prodigous offensive assets, was a very efficient player in the low post and will see plenty of looks from drop off passes coming from either Payton or Bird as they penetrate the defense from the outside. Buck Williams won't be relied upon to be a major offensive force, but he will also score efficiently with garbage opportunities and putbacks from his terrific offensive rebounding ability. We also have Bill Laimbeer, a terrific and efficient mid range shooter to help spread the floor and provide additional kick off the bench. Of course, the ever versatile Larry Bird will see a handful of minutes at the 4 as well. While the 1-3 spots will always be the core of our offensive attack, the front court provides a terrific complement to the rest of our attack.

Defensively:

One word: Magic. That is our biggest concern here, and its not particularly close. But more on that later. Now, we'll address the rest of the team.

Karl Malone wasn't known as a terrific playoff performer, nor was Artis Gilmore (particularly in selected years), and both will be handled extremely well be two of the better man defenders at their positions (Zo and Buck), along with solid defenders off the bench such as Laimbeer. Malone in particular presents a threat with his overall offensive skill set (though is midrange game, though extant, was not fully on display in selected years), but he's facing a great defender in Williams coupled with terrific help. He won't be contained entirely, but we feel we can do as good a job hindering him as anyone. Sikma has more of a playoff rep, but we don't particularly dislike the matchup there either. Dumars could create some problems when up against Allen, but not so much that it isn't surmountable in other ways, and a good team defense helps us there as well. Blaylock and Ellis are matched well by rock solid man defenders in Lever and Majerle. Our defense on the interior is frighteningly imposing and our perimeter defense both in the starting lineup and off the bench complements that strength terrifically, and we believe ANY offense will have its hands full scoring with our lineup wreaking havoc.

No, the major issue is Magic. Much like Bird, there isn't really a single player anyone in this game can label a "Magic stopper", so I won't insult anyone's intelligence in that regard. We do feel, however, that if there is someone who may have a case to hinder Magic, its Gary Payton. He has the size and incredible defensive tenacity that no other point guard has in this game. One player noted for giving Magic some trouble in a playoff setting is Dennis Johnson. Though Magic had strong head to head stats against Dennis in the regular season, he was forced into making key mistakes by the man in the playoffs, Gary Payton is a more tenacious, and outright better overall defender and player than Dennis Johnson, and has a great chance of giving pause to Magic at very key moments of the game. We believe this compares very favorably to the options bryant08 supplies against our superstar, Larry Bird.

A note on rebounding: If one hopes to get out and run with Magic Johnson, it is very critical to control the rebounding battle. The front court rebounding battle is essentially a wash. The past his prime Artis Gilmore still has an edge over Mourning in the rebounding department, which is mostly negated by a similar edge Buck Williams holds over Karl Malone. Laimbeer is essentially a wash with Jack Sikma, with Laimb perhaps enjoying a minor edge. Bird is nearly as good a positional rebounder as Sikma at power foward as well. On the perimeter, the only player the Huskies boast with a large advantage on the boards relative to his position is, of course, the great Magic Johnson. We, however, also boast a terrific rebounding point guard tandem in Payton and Lever, to go along with the best rebounding perimeter player in this game, Larry Bird. Overall, we feel we get better rebounding output on the perimeter than our opponent. Added to the issue is Buck Williams' forte, offensive boards. Having him as a threat on the glass will reduce fast break opportunities, as will the teams inability to block shots effectively when Gilmore is out of the game. Overall, we may enjoy a minor rebounding edge (though it is fairly close, he may have a slight edge up front while we hold a slightly larger edge in the 1-3 spots in terms of rebounding), but we are confident we can curtail their ability to control the boards, and, by extension, coupled with are great defense, will be able to keep them from controlling the game via the fast break.

Overall, this matchup truly is a battle of the titans, and one we had a ton of fun looking at. We feel we have the decided edge in terms of defensive prowess and that our well balanced and efficient offense matchups up well enough with theirs that we should be able to carry the day. Additionally, we feel we have a better matchup with their superstar than they do with ours, and that should give Bird the edge in the battle of the superstars, which, if history is any indication, this matchup could ultimately come down to in the clutch.

Thank you to the judges for consideration and thank you to bryant08 for presenting a challenging matchup.

TMACFORMVP wrote:REBOUNDING

- (stats adjusted for minutes played)

Code: Select all

Overall Rebounding - 48.7 rebounds per game

Code: Select all

Overall Rebounding - 50.5 rebounds per game

It's pretty similar, as All In the Name points out, we have the edge on the offensive glass, while his team has a slight edge on the defensive boards, but overall if anyone were to have the advantage, our players are the better rebounders for the minutes they're receiving, thus making our team better defensively.

While this may be adjusted for minutes played, it is not adjusted for pace. That is crucial. When pace is also taken into consideration, my team comes out ahead on the glass. I'll arbitrarily select a pace of 100 possessions per game for this matchup (note that the actual number doesn't matter so much; 100 is just easy to work with:

Terry Porter: 3.19 rebounds
Michael Cooper: 2.66 rebounds
Grant Hill: 8.85 rebounds
Kevin Garnett: 15.78 rebounds
Shaquille O'Neal: 14.25 rebounds
Jason Terry: 0.64 rebounds
Manu Ginobili: 4.81 rebounds
Bruce Bowen: 2.00 rebounds
Clifford Robinson: 0.95 rebounds
Arvydas Sabonis: 2.46 rebounds

Overall Rebounding: 55.59 rebounds

Steve Nash: 4.01 rebounds
Dwyane Wade: 5.41 rebounds
Ron Artest: 5.05 rebounds
Kevin McHale: 7.61 rebounds
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 10.41 rebounds
Jeff Hornacek: 0.99 rebounds
Joe Johnson: 2.41 rebounds
Dennis Rodman: 14.19 rebounds
Jeff Ruland: 2.54 rebounds

Overall Rebounding: 52.62 rebounds

So while it is fairly close, I have the superior rebounding team.

TMACFORMVP wrote:Barkley, whom is a considerably better offensive player than Garnett, has gone on to say nobody has played him tougher than Kevin McHale. Again, we won't stop him, but if anyone was equipped to slow him down, it would be our team.

Being a great player doesn't automatically make Barkley a great analyst. He averaged 25.8 PPG and 4.3 APG on 57.6% shooting in 24 head-to-head games against McHale (Basketball-Reference does not have all game logs prior to the 1986-87 seasons). All of those numbers are increases from Barkley's regular season stats during those seasons.

I'd also dispute the notion that Barkley is considerably better offensively than KG, but that's another story.

TMACFORMVP wrote:On the other end, McHale will be guarded, by Garnett. KG being the competitor and defensive player that he is, should do an admirable job, but once again, much like the Shaq, and Kareem matchup, McHale should still get his touches, and points. He was one of the most skilled, and gifted offensive PF's of all time. Some call him a black hole, which I don't get, as he was ridiculously efficient from the floor, came off the bench when his team asked of him, and was an integral second option on multiple championship teams.

McHale was an excellent player, but that doesn't preclude him from being a “black hole” offensively. He was a somewhat able passer but not a particularly willing one. Typically, this wasn't much of an issue because, as you mentioned, he was an extremely efficient scorer. In this series, though, I expect KG to defend McHale very well. Tim Duncan is not quite as good a post scorer as McHale, but he's close. And KG did a great job against Duncan in his selected seasons. In 11 games against KG, Duncan shot 42.9%. In 205 games against everyone else, Duncan shot 50.9%.

TMACFORMVP wrote:The Grant Hill matchup is the intriguing one. I feel sometimes his peak before he got injured was overrated. Not saying he wasn't a great player, because he most certainly was, and a definite superstar, but the whole "next MJ," comparisons take it a bit too far. His game didn't really improve all that much in his first six seasons, while an exceptional all round player, not a threat to beat you from the outside (and with Shaq, that's crucial, arguably moreso than any other C in the league history). He's not much a closer, and he's more like KG, a cerebral offensive player, that's not ridiculously pressed to explode.

Hill was not a threat from downtown, but he was still a very good mid-range shooter. Dwyane Wade is not a threat from outside either, and I'd say the Wade/Shaq duo worked out pretty well. And just because Hill was an unselfish player doesn't mean he wasn't explosive; he just had a different style than many wing stars. He could have scored more if he really had to, but he never took 30 shots in a game in any of my selected seasons. He did, however, have 27 triple doubles in these 3 seasons!

TMACFORMVP wrote:And with Rodman off the bench, playing thirty minutes, he'll also take on the challenge of guarding Hill, and while we won't convince anyone from saying he'll stop him, he's the best option anyone at this point in the competition can. Rodman is the same man, that made Larry Bird look terrible in one of their playoff series together. And we'll force him to beat us from the outside, because Grant Hill is NOT a proficient three point shooter.

Bird had one terrible series against Rodman, but, the year before that, Bird averaged about 27 PPG, 10 RPG, and 8 APG on 49% shooting in the ECF against Rodman's Pistons.

Hill put up about 23/9/7 on almost 47% shooting against the Bulls (who had not only Rodman, but MJ and Pippen, as well). It's not as as easy as simply "forcing Hill to beat you from the outside."

TMACFORMVP wrote:With KG, not being a floor spacer either, we can easily help a bit more with Rodman/Artest, downlow on Shaq, and with their prowess, be able to recover if Hill were to step in. One could argue it's the same affect, with our team and Wade, but we'd like to point out, that O'neal takes up considerably more space in the post. Even if we dare Hill to shoot, KG, being more an 18 and in foot player, and Shaq in the paint, he's almost forced into that role at times. Kareem was very effective playing outside the post, and a very good passer, and solid shooter from mid-range.

KG is a floor spacer. True, he's not a 3-point shooter, but his range extends right about to the 3-point line. He's a terrific shooter for a power forward, and he takes and makes plenty of jumpers. In fact, in his selected seasons, over 70% of KG's shots were jumpers.

Unfortunately, HoopData.com doesn't have stats before 2006-07, but the numbers it does have are very interesting. Since that time, Garnett has taken 5.6 shots per game from 16-23 feet and shot 45.1% from these locations. Those are great numbers. Compare that to some of your players.

Joe Johnson: 5.1 shots per game, 39.5%
Ron Artest: 3.7 shots per game, 38.9%
Dwyane Wade: 7.2 shots per game, 39.6%

So I'm not sure how you can say Garnett doesn't spread the floor.

TMACFORMVP wrote:Much like All In the Name's team, we possess two shooters, in Nash, and Artest, Nash being one of the greatest of all time, arguably the best, but having that third shooter in the lineup is not so crucial to us because of Kareem's versatility on offense, compare to Shaq, who takes up nearly entire the whole space on the floor in the paint.

Artest isn't all that great of a shooter. He makes a lot of threes because he takes so many, not because he's such an accurate shooter. Considering the league average of over 36% from downtown, his 38.2 3P% makes him nothing more than a decent distance shooter.

People often seem to think Shaq needs shooters around him to succeed. When talking about a peak Shaq, that simply isn't the case. I'd say Shaq was pretty successful during his selected seasons, as were the Lakers (3 straight championships). And yet those Lakers teams weren't very good from beyond the arc. They ranked 18th, 11th, and 6th in 3-pointers made, and 25th, 20th, and 15th in 3P%. In 1999-00, when the Lakers won 67 games, only one player made more than 60 threes (Glen Rice, and he only made 84), and no one shot over 37% from downtown (unless you count Tyronn Lue and his 8 attempts).

What's more, I do have very good shooters surrounding him (I'll get to that in a bit), making him even more effective!

TMACFORMVP wrote: - Manu is a good defender, but that's in a team aspect, slightly overrated to the defensive prowess of the San Antonio Spurs. This is where we'll take advantage, Wade will have his way, both offensively and defensively. It's similar to the competition last round, in facing Brandon Roy, where Wade has a supreme advantage on both ends of the floor.

Manu and Wade played each other 6 times during the overlapping seasons selected. Manu shot 56.2% while Wade shot 45.5%. And Manu averaged 2.7 TOPG while Wade averaged 5 TOPG. One of the only knocks on a prime Manu was that he couldn't stay on the floor for as long as the other elite wings. But when Manu was playing, he was almost as good as any perimeter player in the league. I won't say he was as good as Wade, but Wade does not have a supreme advantage on both ends of the floor against Manu. Their per 36 stats in those 6 games:

Manu: 24.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, 4.0 assists

Wade: 24.6 points, 4.5 rebounds, 5.8 assists

That's not just due to a small sample size. Per 36 minutes stats (adjusted to a pace factor of 100) during selected seasons:

Manu: 24.0 points, 6.0 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 0.6 blocks, 2.1 steals

Wade: 26.9 points, 5.4 rebounds, 7.2 assists, 1.0 blocks, 1.9 steals

Also, my team has plenty of great defenders, even more than the Spurs teams you referred to. 5 of my players were named to an All-Defensive team during their selected seasons.

TMACFORMVP wrote:We also feel, Cooper wouldn't be able to contain Wade (nobody can, but moreso in general), Cooper has been prone to letting quicker players get the best of him, relative to the more flat footed scorers of the 80's, among Dantley, King, and etc. Drexler, whom is a very similar player to Wade, Dwyane being possibly even more explosive offensively, normally had his way with Cooper, including multiple thirty point games, including one 43 point game. His stats are as follows (21 game sample size)

Code: Select all

24.0 points per game, 7.5 rebounds per game, 6.2 assists per game, on 46% from the floor.

Those numbers are a little misleading. Only 12 of those games came during Cooper's selected seasons. Cooper was named to an All-Defensive team in each of my 3 seasons, including one DPOY. But those stats include 9 games from seasons in which Cooper did not even make an All-Defensive team. He was still a great defender, but not as good as he was when I chose him. Drexler put up good stats against Cooper in those 12 games, but still not as good as his averages against everyone else.

Against Cooper: 22.6 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 6.4 APG, 3.2 TOPG, 43.1 FG%, 20.7 shots per game

Against everyone else: 24.5 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 6.3 APG, 3.0 TOPG, 51.0 FG%, 18.8 shots per game

So Drexler took about 2 more shots per game but scored about 2 less points per game.

TMACFORMVP wrote:We'll make you pick your poison, if you choose to put either Cooper/Bowen on Nash, then Wade will run free (regardless he will, but even moreso), if you do vice versa, Nash will pick apart the defense, with both his shooting and passing ability. If both were to be in the game, we've already expressed how comfortable we are with Wade, and Nash orchestrating the offense, and they're likely to get the better of two players that would be offensive liabilities in this series. There's no way to spin it, but our backcourt will thoroughly outplay All In the Name's in every aspect of the game.

This still doesn't address the issue of having such a ball-dominant backcourt. I posted the numbers in my writeup. Nash and Wade dominate the ball; their backcourt partner usually has a low usage rate. You've also got to find plenty of touches for Kareem, McHale, and Artest. No matter how you spin it, your players will have to adapt. Again, I posted the usage percentages in my writeup and explained how my players will adapt: KG will have a lesser scoring role, and the wings (such as Ginobili and Hill) won't handle the ball quite as much as usual.

For you, Nash will have to be more of a spot-up shooter and/or Wade will have to play more off-ball. Nash is still an amazing shooter, but you can find plenty of guys (such as Terry Porter and Jason Terry, two of my players) who will give you close to his three-point production if that's mainly what you're asking him to provide. It's that shooting combined with his ability to pass and create for others that makes him so effective. But if you have Nash play that role, then Wade becomes less effective. Like Nash, Wade is at his best handling the basketball. Wade can be pretty good coming off curls, hitting mid-range jumpers, but, again, you're not utilizing him properly if that accounts for a large portion of his shots. And, yes, Wade is athletic enough to probably get an easy layup or two off a feed from Nash, but we have great defenders covering Wade all game long and guys like KG and Shaq protecting the rim, so that shouldn't be too big an issue for us.

Of the 70 times a player has averaged 10+ APG in a season, only 6 times has the starting SG averaged 20+ PPG. This is not a coincidence. The Nash-Wade backcourt will not be as good as its overall talent level might indicate.

And that doesn't even delve into the issue of Nash being less effective in a half-court offense (which you'll be forced to play, due to my dictating the pace by drawing fouls).

TMACFORMVP wrote: - KG unfairly got the reputation of a guy that couldn't close out, but unfortunately, for the most part of his career, he was a first round virgin, that wasn't able to help his team advance past the first round. It's a team game, and I don't blame him for that, I mean look at my monkier, but it's well noted that KG isn't a guy that would close out a game for you. I know I'm fully aware of that Game 7, against the Lakers, but I'm talking more in general, on a consistent basis, taking over the game down the stretch.

As you said, KG's reputation was unfair. In 24 playoff games during his selected seasons, he averaged 25 PPG, 14.9 RPG, 5.1 APG, 2.1 BPG, and 1.4 SPG on 46.9% shooting as the clear #1 option.

TMACFORMVP wrote: - Hill is in the same boat, except he still is a first round virgin. The Pistons team were no good as well, just like the Timberwolves, and Garnett, but Hill still wasn't able to lift his team to even greater heights. It's also noted, while he isn't a choker, he's not neccessariley the perimeter star you want closing out games, without that experience, in a competition of this depth, and magnitude.

Also, as you noted, Hill's teams didn't advance past the first round in spite of him, not because of him. In 8 playoff games during his selected seasons, he averaged 21.9 PPG, 7 RPG, and 4.8 APG on 47.2% shooting.

TMACFORMVP wrote:- Cooper, Bowen, Ginobili, and Porter are all fine players, that have won on the biggest of stages, but as role players. In this game situation, they're not the type of players you'd expect to get the ball, and create in the final minutes.

We have a few different options down the stretch, but we'll probably go with a lineup of Porter-Manu-Hill-Garnett-Shaq late in games. 4 of those guys have good mid-range jumpers, and 2 can knock down threes. And most importantly, all are great passers. The ball movement would be awesome, and we don't feel the need to rely on just one guy, even in the clutch.

Still, Manu is extremely clutch. He is great in late-game situations, creating for himself or others. In 2007-08 (his best season), he ranked 4th in points per 48 minutes of clutch time (behind only LeBron, Kobe, and Dirk) and was the only non-PG in the top 10 of assists per 48 minutes of clutch time. He also shot 57.4% from the field in the clutch (one of only 4 guards above 55%) and 93% from the line.

I'm also assuming Nash would be in during clutch situations. He'll probably have to defend Porter, and we love that matchup. As I've already shown, Porter can dominate games offensively, and Nash is a defensive liability.

TMACFORMVP wrote: --> Offensively, All In the Name noted our "lack" of three point shooting. I don't mind the argument, but as he notes Nash is an amazing shooter, I feel it's wrong to dismiss both Artest, and Johnson, both of whom make more threes, at a higher percentage than both of the starters my opponent boasts. Artest shoots 38% from downtown, and JJ 40% himself during the three year peak chosen. Leave them open, and they'll hit the shot.

And as we pointed out, Cooper not being a volume three point shooter, and Porter really being the only major floor spacer, spacing is a bigger problem for my opponent to the sole fact that Shaq takes up considerably more space in the post. Having that spacing around his C, is more important to his team, than it is to ours, just due to the amount of space both of our centers take in the post. Manu is a solid shooter, much like Artest percentage wise, so in affect we'll both have two floor spacers on the floor at all times. But to me, personally, potentially having a better floor spacer at that three would be much more beneficial to the offense.

As I mentioned earlier, Shaq will dominate games with or without shooters around him. Still, let's take a closer look at each team's 3-point shooting.

Adjusting for pace and minutes played:

All In The Name: 6.1 3PM; 15.9 3PA; 38.2 3P%

TMACFORMVP: 5.4 3PM; 13.6 3PA; 39.4 3P%

Both teams are about average in terms of volume and very good percentage-wise. Honestly, my edge in makes per game probably outweighs my opponent's slight edge in accuracy, but it's close.

Looking at the rosters I agree 100% that these are the 4 best teams left without a doubt and I realy like the Huskies and Snakes. However each team has a critical flaw and achiles heal that could realy could undermind its ability. IMHO a few late rd changes could have easily made all of these teams better. Its also very interesting for as I have had Magic/Dumars as my starting backcourt and KAJ/McHale as my frontcourt in past ATLs.

Its very interesting because each team has a square peg and is trying to put it in a round hole.

Nash is on a slow paced half court team

Cooper is starting but doesnt seem to be playing much in the 2nd half. Either the sub patterns are crazy or hes not playing SG after the 10min mark of the 3rd.

VC is maybe the 4th best SF on that team but hes starting. What I would give to see the 1st scrimmage after Nique is told that although hes the 2nd best player on the team hes loseing 30mpg to VC. It would be a masascre and complete domination. Its my estimation that Bird and I could sit down and find 30 SFs that would play him better than VC. A 3 guard offense is always going to struggle against a surpeme SF and theres maybe nobody better than Larry Fn Bird.

The Snakes simply dont have the starting bigman that can step out and play the Robert Parish role. The Snakes with Sikma instead of Buck or with a shotblocking PF like Nance would be darn near unstoppable. As it is they either great spacing with poor shotblocking or great shotblocking with poor spacing.

more to come....

All In The Name wrote:Being a great player doesn't automatically make Barkley a great analyst. He averaged 25.8 PPG and 4.3 APG on 57.6% shooting in 24 head-to-head games against McHale (Basketball-Reference does not have all game logs prior to the 1986-87 seasons). All of those numbers are increases from Barkley's regular season stats during those seasons.

I'd also dispute the notion that Barkley is considerably better offensively than KG, but that's another story.

That was only a tidbit I added in towards the end, not as some sort of primary source to my argument. In fact, I lowly think of Barkley's opinion in today's NBA, but it's interesting to note that he does praise so highly of what McHale apparently did to him defensively.

And you know better than I do, that those stats are flawed, as those head to head stats run into the 93 season, when McHale had declined far before that. Example being the last matchup between the two, Barkley dropped 37, while McHale had only 6 points in 17 minutes of play. If you concentrate to more the years in which I've chosen for McHale:

19.8 points per game

It would still be on sky high efficiency, because that's the way Barkley was, but there was a noticeable drop in his points per game average the course of those seasons, at 25.5 to barely grazing twenty per game. And what you say about those being above his season averages is wrong. In the season basketball-reference displays, Barkley puts up nearly 25.6 points per game on 57.1% from the floor. That's nearly the same exact stats you posted.

But anyways, all of that is moot, as I should have worded better, that Barkley was a considerably better scorer than Garnett. And I don't think that's arguable. The primary source of the argument was that, Kevin McHale, and all world defender, and Dennis Rodman would be as good a duo one could potentially boast to defend Garnett.

You, yourself stated that Garnett would be played in a somewhat different role, from the high post. It makes him more potent as a passer, but less potent as a scorer, despite his very good mid-range jumpshot, because contrary to belief, while Garnett may not be the true essence of a post player, his bread and butter play, is him backing down, and reverting to the fadeaway jumpshot from mid-range.

All In the Name wrote:McHale was an excellent player, but that doesn't preclude him from being a “black hole” offensively. He was a somewhat able passer but not a particularly willing one. Typically, this wasn't much of an issue because, as you mentioned, he was an extremely efficient scorer. In this series, though, I expect KG to defend McHale very well. Tim Duncan is not quite as good a post scorer as McHale, but he's close. And KG did a great job against Duncan in his selected seasons. In 11 games against KG, Duncan shot 42.9%. In 205 games against everyone else, Duncan shot 50.9%.

No doubt, Garnett will have an effect on what McHale will do in this series, much like the effect both McHale, and Rodman will have on Garnett. But, this is not the best example, while Duncan is the most contemporary example, he was also a considerably lesser efficient player from the floor. For his career, Duncan has shot under 50% from the floor six times, including many other times, in which he barely was able to get to 50%.

And for their careers against Duncan, as Garnett doesn't really have a defensive peak, mostly for his entire career, Duncan was able to average roughly 46% from the floor. Not as impressive, because of the defense played on him, but better than the statistics you point out (and likely higher, as that includes that twelve game stretch in which you mention), and not as far away from his general FG%. McHale in the chosen season, shoots nearly 60% from the floor, nearly 10% higher than the season averages Duncan puts up nearly every year.

And I still don't buy that blackhole comment. I understand that he wasn't the best of passer, like a KG or Webber. But his "selfishness," never affected his teams. Normally blackholes are used in a derogatory term to players who hurt their teams because of their reluctance to pass the ball, well in truth, McHale was the second best player on multiple Celtic championship teams. And when you get the ball, in positions McHale did, and could score as efficiently as he could, I would advocate him taking the shot anytime he pleases.

All In the Name wrote:Hill was not a threat from downtown, but he was still a very good mid-range shooter. Dwyane Wade is not a threat from outside either, and I'd say the Wade/Shaq duo worked out pretty well. And just because Hill was an unselfish player doesn't mean he wasn't explosive; he just had a different style than many wing stars. He could have scored more if he really had to, but he never took 30 shots in a game in any of my selected seasons. He did, however, have 27 triple doubles in these 3 seasons!

That's the point, he's still not a threat from downtown, regardless of how you spin it. The Wade, and Shaq duo worked out well, because of the spacing around them, Jason Williams, James Posey, and even Antoine Walker hit the three at a nice stretch during that playoff run. Hell, even Wade in that finals run, shot nearly 38% from three. In this case, Hill plays, the sort of Wade role, but he even didn't have a sort of post-season, in which he showed, he was at least not a liability from downtown, and guys like Cooper being touted upon as one of the "shooters," shows the lack of spacing that's required.

It's true that he has a different game among most other wings, in this case though, that still doesn't prove to show he wasn't that type of explosive player. I mean, we've seen a guy like LeBron put up similar all around numbers, but display a far more ability to take over games down the stretch, and put up points in a hurry. In this case, that's OK, because he was a great all around player, but a player to put you on his back for stretches, and take over games, he didn't do as consistently as other wings.

All In the Name wrote:Bird had one terrible series against Rodman, but, the year before that, Bird averaged about 27 PPG, 10 RPG, and 8 APG on 49% shooting in the ECF against Rodman's Pistons.

Hill put up about 23/9/7 on almost 47% shooting against the Bulls (who had not only Rodman, but MJ and Pippen, as well). It's not as as easy as simply "forcing Hill to beat you from the outside."

In this case it's easier. Those teams were built around Hill, and with Porter, being the only lock down shooter, Shaq taking up space in the post, and Garnett sharing similar spots on the floor, Grant Hill by virtue of his team is forced out to the perimeter. Then when you have our attacking defense, daring him to shoot from the perimeter, he doesn't share that same freedom he had on those Pistons teams, to be able to slash and finish in the paint.

And I'd like to point out that the Rodman referred to in this post, isn't the same that I have. They are completely different players, and this Rodman is more bulkier, and a true PF, opposed to the more perimeter oriented Dennis that I have.

All In the Name wrote:KG is a floor spacer. True, he's not a 3-point shooter, but his range extends right about to the 3-point line. He's a terrific shooter for a power forward, and he takes and makes plenty of jumpers. In fact, in his selected seasons, over 70% of KG's shots were jumpers.

Unfortunately, HoopData.com doesn't have stats before 2006-07, but the numbers it does have are very interesting. Since that time, Garnett has taken 5.6 shots per game from 16-23 feet and shot 45.1% from these locations. Those are great numbers.

So I'm not sure how you can say Garnett doesn't spread the floor.

He's not a floor spacer in terms of being a three point threat. And when your SF, also has that same deficiency, something has to give. Garnett's a good mid-range jumpshooter, I never denied that, in fact he's very good (though I must say, he's gotten better with that shot, as he's aged), but you're trying to sell Hill as a guy that can step in and hit the mid-range shot, but Garnett will do the same too?

Shaq isn't like Kareem, in which he can go anywhere outside the paint. He just doesn't have that versatility, if Grant Hill were to be inside the three point, and KG be inside the three point line, with only one player on the outside being above average from the three point line, it allows our defense, not only to help, but force players outside their comfort zone, in this case the perimeter.

I also don't get bringing up guys like JJ, or Artest, both of whom are primarily three point shooters in the chosen seasons. And they have the percentages to back them up.

All In the Name wrote:Artest isn't all that great of a shooter. He makes a lot of threes because he takes so many, not because he's such an accurate shooter. Considering the league average of over 36% from downtown, his 38.2 3P% makes him nothing more than a decent distance shooter.

See, I don't get this. How can the spacing on my team be an issue, when Cooper is being sold as a good shooter? Artest, makes more threes, and hits them, as you pointed out, ABOVE league average. That alone makes him a better than "decent," three point shooter. And how else is one player supposed to make more threes, by taking more, regardless, Artest hits a large amount of threes, at an above league average percentage. Cooper does not.

Last season itself, Artest shot 40% from three, making over two per game. If the opponent is going to sag off Artest assuming he's just "decent," from outside, Artest will make them pay.

All In the Name wrote:People often seem to think Shaq needs shooters around him to succeed. When talking about a peak Shaq, that simply isn't the case. I'd say Shaq was pretty successful during his selected seasons, as were the Lakers (3 straight championships). And yet those Lakers teams weren't very good from beyond the arc. They ranked 18th, 11th, and 6th in 3-pointers made, and 25th, 20th, and 15th in 3P%. In 1999-00, when the Lakers won 67 games, only one player made more than 60 threes (Glen Rice, and he only made 84), and no one shot over 37% from downtown (unless you count Tyronn Lue and his 8 attempts).

At the worst case scenario, I'll say Shaq at least needs the threat of a floor spacer. From the likes of Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Kobe Bryant, Glen Rice, or others, they all had the threat to hit the shot from downtown. In reality case, Cooper may provide that, and Porter most certainly does, but Hill, and Garnett do not.

And ranking, both 11th, and 6th in three point makes is rather high, among the top 10 in the league. Not to mention, there were no other players that really liked the same spot on the floor, Hill is primarily an inside the arc player, and the same with Garnett. Cooper is a threat, but in a competition such as this, isn't one to worry about in terms of beating you in a series.

All In the Name wrote:Manu and Wade played each other 6 times during the overlapping seasons selected. Manu shot 56.2% while Wade shot 45.5%. And Manu averaged 2.7 TOPG while Wade averaged 5 TOPG. One of the only knocks on a prime Manu was that he couldn't stay on the floor for as long as the other elite wings. But when Manu was playing, he was almost as good as any perimeter player in the league. I won't say he was as good as Wade, but Wade does not have a supreme advantage on both ends of the floor against Manu. Their per 36 stats in those 6 games:

Come on, we know Manu didn't have the primary responsibility of guarding Wade in those matchups. There was a reason they had Bowen, and that's what he did, when he was on the floor. The stats are irrelevant, because Manu didn't guard Wade.

All In the Name wrote:Those numbers are a little misleading. Only 12 of those games came during Cooper's selected seasons. Cooper was named to an All-Defensive team in each of my 3 seasons, including one DPOY. But those stats include 9 games from seasons in which Cooper did not even make an All-Defensive team. He was still a great defender, but not as good as he was when I chose him. Drexler put up good stats against Cooper in those 12 games, but still not as good as his averages against everyone else.

Against Cooper: 22.6 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 6.4 APG, 3.2 TOPG, 43.1 FG%, 20.7 shots per game

Against everyone else: 24.5 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 6.3 APG, 3.0 TOPG, 51.0 FG%, 18.8 shots per game

So Drexler took about 2 more shots per game but scored about 2 less points per game.

Those stats, are a bit misleading as well. It's just like the Garnett stats you brought out, Cooper didn't magically become a better defender in the given season, and he'll certainly affect Wade's game, but not enough to change the outlook of the series. The bottom line was, in their respective careers, in which Cooper averaged nearly 30 minutes per game (higher than his average), Drexler's stats roughly remained the same.

All In the Name wrote:This still doesn't address the issue of having such a ball-dominant backcourt. I posted the numbers in my writeup. Nash and Wade dominate the ball; their backcourt partner usually has a low usage rate. You've also got to find plenty of touches for Kareem, McHale, and Artest. No matter how you spin it, your players will have to adapt. Again, I posted the usage percentages in my writeup and explained how my players will adapt: KG will have a lesser scoring role, and the wings (such as Ginobili and Hill) won't handle the ball quite as much as usual.

I felt you actually did me a favor in posting those stats, because it proved Wade's usage rate wasn't as high as some would have predicted. Yes, Wade, and Nash will need to handle the ball more, and yes, it could potentially reduce their effectivenes, but there's still no doubt, that primarily due to Nash's shooting ability it would work out.

And besides, I'd like to say here, that usage percentage is one of the most oddly calculated, an flawed stats there are on bball-reference. Let's pretend, I had got Chauncey Billups instead - then all of a sudden, this conversation doesn't come up. We look at the usage rate of Chauncey Billups, and compare that with Nash's, and they're darn near identical, and does the problem come up again?

It's all about perception, Nash has played with other six assist men, in guys like Diaw, or other players that require the ball in isolation situations like Michael Finley, and Dirk. We've seen Wade come off the bench in the olympic setting, I'm sure, he wouldn't to that in an actual NBA role, but his role isn't that on this team. It's to handle the ball a little less, using that off the ball game you mention, and athletic finishing ability, but primarily, doing what he does best, and that's the ball in his hands down the stretch to close the game out, with Nash acting as a decoy or three point shooter.

That's the bottom line, usage rating is a very flawed stat. I guarantee this argument doesn't come to fruition if I had Billups instead of Nash - yet their usage ratings are nearly identical. And, Wade, nor Nash, are selfish players, they'll still get their fair amount of action in terms of setting up the offense, or scoring for themselves, and enough of a point that it won't actually be a detriment to the team.

And with the lack of backcourt explosiveness found on arguably either end of the floor, both Nash, and Wade, even with their effectiveness taking a slight hit, then they'll still dominate, and completely outplay my opponents backcourt, by a LARGE margin.

That's the key to this series, we feel we can hold our own, in the frontcourt, while no matter how one were to spin it, our team has an overwhelming edge on the perimeter, specifically the backcourt.

All In the Name wrote:As you said, KG's reputation was unfair. In 24 playoff games during his selected seasons, he averaged 25 PPG, 14.9 RPG, 5.1 APG, 2.1 BPG, and 1.4 SPG on 46.9% shooting as the clear #1 option.

That's not the point, I'm specifically referring to down the stretch, with the inability to close out games. That doesn't have much to do with how overall type playoff performer he is. McGrady, who's regarded as the biggest playoff choker in this decade, puts up amazing playoff statistics, yet still shoulders the blame. That Game 7 against Utah, a couple seasons ago, would perfectly sum it up, he was having a great game, nearly 29 points, and 10 assists, but when the game got close down the 4th quarter, the attacking McGrady all of sudden settled for jumpshots, and the Rockets ended up losing.

His stats, were awesome for that game, but he didn't close it out. That's more what I'm referring to.

All In the Name wrote:Also, as you noted, Hill's teams didn't advance past the first round in spite of him, not because of him. In 8 playoff games during his selected seasons, he averaged 21.9 PPG, 7 RPG, and 4.8 APG on 47.2% shooting.

See, the same thing with Garnett, and McGrady example. The more point is towards the ability to close out games, not in general, the game as a whole.

All In the Name wrote:We have a few different options down the stretch, but we'll probably go with a lineup of Porter-Manu-Hill-Garnett-Shaq late in games. 4 of those guys have good mid-range jumpers, and 2 can knock down threes. And most importantly, all are great passers. The ball movement would be awesome, and we don't feel the need to rely on just one guy, even in the clutch.

We already feel, we've addressed the Shaq situation in the clutch, and his inability to hit FT's. Porter, and Manu may be in, but ultimately in the need of the bucket, I'd trust Wade more in a competition of this talent to lead me to the victory, over those two. There's really not anything more to it.

Manu may be clutch, especially compared to the reputation of the rest of the roster, but Wade is, not only better, but on a completely different level. The stats are nice, but sometimes it's more a matter of "getting it done." And the performances Wade has shwon on the highest of levels, and what he consistently does whenever he's been in the playoffs from the perimeter is something All In the Name's team cannot boast.

I'm also assuming Nash would be in during clutch situations. He'll probably have to defend Porter, and we love that matchup. As I've already shown, Porter can dominate games offensively, and Nash is a defensive liability.

This is kind of like the Finley, and Nash matchup from the last round. If Porter is the man, you rely on, despite his his "dominance," offensively, we'll take that. Nash at the worst isn't a horrible team defender, and we'll reiterate, take our chances with Porter beating us down the stretch. If he beats our team, with Nash (and then, he'd be forced to guard Nash, Porter was a solid defender, but not one enough to once again disrupt what Nash wants to do on the floor), Wade, and guys like Kareem that can stay on the floor, then kudos to him.

All In the Name wrote:As I mentioned earlier, Shaq will dominate games with or without shooters around him. Still, let's take a closer look at each team's 3-point shooting.

Adjusting for pace and minutes played:

All In The Name: 6.1 3PM; 15.9 3PA; 38.2 3P%

TMACFORMVP: 5.4 3PM; 13.6 3PA; 39.4 3P%

Both teams are about average in terms of volume and very good percentage-wise. Honestly, my edge in makes per game probably outweighs my opponent's slight edge in accuracy, but it's close.

Let's not look at the stats really fast, aside from the fact, that Nash is a better distance shooter than Porter, Artest over Cooper, JJ over Ginobili, and Hornecak over Robinson, is the fact, on who needs spacing more. And those are all the rotation players in this series, guys like Jason Terry, and Brent Barry are irrelevant as they're not playing in this series.

But, All In the Name's squad needs more shooting, because of how much Shaq takes up in the post. That's just the bottom line, the spacing isn't good, because, this particular squad NEEDS more spacing than my team does. Kareem doesn't take up that amount of space Shaq does, and can easily step out to mid-range, and be just as effective. I've never really even claimed my spacing is better, even thought it is, but because of the difference in need of spacing around my main guy, to Shaq, the difference is larger than one would expect.

While this may be adjusted for minutes played, it is not adjusted for pace. That is crucial. When pace is also taken into consideration, my team comes out ahead on the glass. I'll arbitrarily select a pace of 100 possessions per game for this matchup (note that the actual number doesn't matter so much; 100 is just easy to work with:

Eh, regardless though, based on raw numbers, whatever I've shown, or total rebounds, or adjusted for pace, the result is the same, the rebounding is somewhat equal, and not one that would decide the series. The frontcourt rebounding for All In the Name is clearly better, whiles ours in the backcourt is better. When we factor in Rodman, it makes up for the overall differential, I'd definitely say, having the best rebounder in the series is a factor, but overall, it admittedly, shouldn't be a factor that will affect the outcome of the series.

Conclusion

Overall, we stand true to what we said in our original writeup.

- Hill by virtue of his team is forced to the perimeter, thus taken out of his element. Then with Artest, and Rodman on him, we feel comfortable than most going into that matchup.

- The lack of spacing, and the overall lack of closing, is also an edge for us.

- Our bench not only gives us more versatility, and more production.

- No matter how well Shaq, and KG can play against two very good defenders, Kareem, and McHale will be able to hold their own. They won't outplay them, hell they may not even play them to a standstill, but they'll most definitely hold their own. That's the biggest key in this series, All In the Name's squad will beat majority of teams, because of the large discrepancy in the play of the frontcourt. The "lack," of backcourt is normally hidden because of that difference.

But in this case, we have a frontcourt that will be able to hold their own, and a backcourt that will completely dominate the opponent. And that's the turning point in the series.

Best of luck, All In the Name.

TMACFORMVP wrote:And you know better than I do, that those stats are flawed, as those head to head stats run into the 93 season, when McHale had declined far before that. Example being the last matchup between the two, Barkley dropped 37, while McHale had only 6 points in 17 minutes of play. If you concentrate to more the years in which I've chosen for McHale:

19.8 points per game

It would still be on sky high efficiency, because that's the way Barkley was, but there was a noticeable drop in his points per game average the course of those seasons, at 25.5 to barely grazing twenty per game. And what you say about those being above his season averages is wrong. In the season basketball-reference displays, Barkley puts up nearly 25.6 points per game on 57.1% from the floor. That's nearly the same exact stats you posted.

I can't seem to find the numbers for the 1985-86 seasons, but, in your other two selected seasons for McHale, Barkley played him 9 times. In these 9 games, Barkley averaged 24 PPG, 11.1 RPG, and 3.7 APG on 59.8% shooting. So I'm not sure where you're getting the 19.8 from. Regardless, Barkley's comments about McHale are irrelevant, because Barkley still played great against him.

And my statement about those stats being above his season averages is not wrong. In 24 games against McHale from 1986-87 to 1992-93, Barkley averaged 25.8 PPG and 4.3 APG on 57.6% shooting. In 500 games against everyone else, he averaged 25.5 PPG and 4.2 APG on 57.0% shooting.

TMACFORMVP wrote:But anyways, all of that is moot, as I should have worded better, that Barkley was a considerably better scorer than Garnett. And I don't think that's arguable. The primary source of the argument was that, Kevin McHale, and all world defender, and Dennis Rodman would be as good a duo one could potentially boast to defend Garnett.

As I've said, McHale was a very good defender, but he wasn't great, and he will not do much to stop KG. As for Rodman, he is a great defender, but you only have him listed for about 16 minutes per game at PF. Furthermore, as you said later in this post, the Rodman you chose was more perimeter oriented, and, while he could guard bigs, he was better at guarding perimeter guys.

TMACFORMVP wrote:You, yourself stated that Garnett would be played in a somewhat different role, from the high post. It makes him more potent as a passer, but less potent as a scorer, despite his very good mid-range jumpshot, because contrary to belief, while Garnett may not be the true essence of a post player, his bread and butter play, is him backing down, and reverting to the fadeaway jumpshot from mid-range.

Garnett is a versatile player; he'll still get touches in the low post. And he is a very effective high post scorer, with a phenomenal jab step. While he won't be quite as potent a scorer, he'll still be just as productive (if not more) offensively. We expect him to go from about 23.1 PPG / 5.6 APG / 50.1% shooting to around 20 PPG / 6 APG / 55% shooting.

TMACFORMVP wrote:No doubt, Garnett will have an effect on what McHale will do in this series, much like the effect both McHale, and Rodman will have on Garnett. But, this is not the best example, while Duncan is the most contemporary example, he was also a considerably lesser efficient player from the floor. For his career, Duncan has shot under 50% from the floor six times, including many other times, in which he barely was able to get to 50%.

Still, Duncan's FG% dropped 15.7% against KG in those seasons. If McHale's percentage were to drop that much, he would still be shooting 50.1%, which is very good, but nowhere near the uber-efficient percentages that make him such a good player. If KG can turn McHale into about a 50% shooter, then McHale is essentially giving you good post scoring (about 20 PPG) on moderate efficiency along with very good, but not great, defense. He won't give you much rebounding and, despite what you say, is still a black hole (as his own teammates called him). So basically a worse rebounding, better defending Al Jefferson. Still a nice piece to have, but nothing that really scares us, especially in a league of all-time players.

TMACFORMVP wrote:That's the point, he's still not a threat from downtown, regardless of how you spin it. The Wade, and Shaq duo worked out well, because of the spacing around them, Jason Williams, James Posey, and even Antoine Walker hit the three at a nice stretch during that playoff run. Hell, even Wade in that finals run, shot nearly 38% from three. In this case, Hill plays, the sort of Wade role, but he even didn't have a sort of post-season, in which he showed, he was at least not a liability from downtown, and guys like Cooper being touted upon as one of the "shooters," shows the lack of spacing that's required.

You bring up Williams, Posey, and Walker as the three-point threats during the championship run. During the 2005-06 playoffs, Williams made 1.1 threes per game on 27.4%, Posey made 1.6 on 42.2%, and Walker made 2.1 on 32.4%. My team will have no trouble matching that production (in fact, we can do much better, especially percentage-wise). With guys like Porter (1.6; 40.8%), Ginobili (1.7; 39.5%), Bowen (1.1; 40.3%), and Cooper (.9; 36.5%) playing major roles; Terry (1.8; 42.3%), Robinson (1.3; 37.6%), and Sabonis (.5; 33.6%) seeing playing time; and Barry (1.9; 43.1%) if needed, I'm not sure how 3-point shooting will be a problem for me.

TMACFORMVP wrote:In this case it's easier. Those teams were built around Hill, and with Porter, being the only lock down shooter, Shaq taking up space in the post, and Garnett sharing similar spots on the floor, Grant Hill by virtue of his team is forced out to the perimeter. Then when you have our attacking defense, daring him to shoot from the perimeter, he doesn't share that same freedom he had on those Pistons teams, to be able to slash and finish in the paint.

If anything, that should make it harder, not easier, to guard Hill. He has so many other weapons around him. As for the outside shooting, I think I've clearly shown that it will not be a weakness for my team. Besides, the 1997-98 Pistons were a terrible 3-point shooting team, finishing in the bottom 10 in makes and bottom 5 in percentage. And yet Hill had another great season, making 2nd team All-NBA. Again, this is a guy who is better when surrounded by shooters but is still great without them.

TMACFORMVP wrote:At the worst case scenario, I'll say Shaq at least needs the threat of a floor spacer. From the likes of Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Kobe Bryant, Glen Rice, or others, they all had the threat to hit the shot from downtown. In reality case, Cooper may provide that, and Porter most certainly does, but Hill, and Garnett do not.

And ranking, both 11th, and 6th in three point makes is rather high, among the top 10 in the league. Not to mention, there were no other players that really liked the same spot on the floor, Hill is primarily an inside the arc player, and the same with Garnett. Cooper is a threat, but in a competition such as this, isn't one to worry about in terms of beating you in a series.

For my team, you're only looking at starters; on the 1999-00 Lakers, you named mostly bench players. Fox, Horry, Shaw, and Fisher all primarily came off the bench that season. And just because those guys are big names doesn't mean they were 3-point threats.

You mentioned two starters: Rice (1.1 threes per game; 36.7%) and Kobe (.7; 31.9%) . If you worry about them to beat you from downtown, then what do you think of Porter (1.6; 40.8%) and Cooper (.9; 36.5%)?

And if you talk about Fox (.7; 32.6%), Horry (.4; 30.9%), Shaw (.2; 31%), and Fisher (.7; 31.3%) off the bench, then what about Ginobili (1.7; 39.5%), Bowen (1.1; 40.3%), Terry (1.8; 42.3%), Robinson (1.3; 37.6%), Sabonis (.5; 33.6%) and Barry (1.9; 43.1%)?

How can you possibly think my team's shooting is an issue but the 1999-00 Lakers were fine in that regard? My shooters are leaps and bounds better.

11th and 6th are pretty good rankings, but their percentages were not good. Those teams were not good three-point shooting teams; they were average at best.

TMACFORMVP wrote:Come on, we know Manu didn't have the primary responsibility of guarding Wade in those matchups. There was a reason they had Bowen, and that's what he did, when he was on the floor. The stats are irrelevant, because Manu didn't guard Wade.

Manu may not have had the primary responsibility of guarding Wade, but it's not as if he never defended him. And on the other end of the court, Wade was the main guy in charge of stopping Manu. So if Wade has “a supreme advantage on both ends of the floor”, how did Manu manage to put up around 24/6/4 per 36 on 56% shooting? Could it possibly be that, when both are on the floor, a peak Manu is almost as good as Wade?

TMACFORMVP wrote:I felt you actually did me a favor in posting those stats, because it proved Wade's usage rate wasn't as high as some would have predicted. Yes, Wade, and Nash will need to handle the ball more, and yes, it could potentially reduce their effectivenes, but there's still no doubt, that primarily due to Nash's shooting ability it would work out.

Really? Because only 7 players have ever posted a 3-year usage percentage as high as Wade's during those 3 seasons (32.4%). How much higher would some have predicted it to be?

TMACFORMVP wrote:Manu may be clutch, especially compared to the reputation of the rest of the roster, but Wade is, not only better, but on a completely different level. The stats are nice, but sometimes it's more a matter of "getting it done." And the performances Wade has shwon on the highest of levels, and what he consistently does whenever he's been in the playoffs from the perimeter is something All In the Name's team cannot boast.

Here's the thing. My team will play differently down the stretch than most. With a lineup of Porter-Manu-Hill-Garnett-Shaq, we have amazing talent at every position. With such great passing, we won't usually go to isolation plays. Instead, we'll run plays similar to those earlier on in the game, albeit more focused on the perimeter (not as many post-ups for Shaq). Just because most teams elect to give the ball to one player down the stretch and let him iso doesn't mean we have to. I understand the reasoning behind this, and it'll affect our play to some extent, but not as severely as other teams.

Plus, you can argue with the stats all you want, but Manu is a clutch player. He has "gotten it done" time and time again, in the NBA or internationally. And it's not like he's known for wilting in the playoffs either.

TMACFORMVP wrote:Let's not look at the stats really fast, aside from the fact, that Nash is a better distance shooter than Porter, Artest over Cooper, JJ over Ginobili, and Hornecak over Robinson, is the fact, on who needs spacing more. And those are all the rotation players in this series, guys like Jason Terry, and Brent Barry are irrelevant as they're not playing in this series.

But you're just arbitrarily pairing up players.

Nash is a better shooter than Porter, but Ginobili is better than Artest, Bowen is better than Johnson, Terry is better than Hornacek, and Cooper, Robinson, and Sabonis are all better than your complete lack of three-point shooters outside of those four.

See, I can do it too. And how is Terry irrelevant but Hornacek isn't when they're getting the exact same number of minutes?

Also, Joe Johnson is not a great three-point shooter. He's good, don't get me wrong, but that one year in Phoenix was a complete outlier. Other than that season, he has never shot over 38.1% from downtown.

When you actually look at the numbers, as I did in my last post, my team makes more threes while yours shoots them at a higher clip. Overall, I'd say the difference in volume outweighs the difference in accuracy, but, either way, it's close.



This will probably be my last post for this matchup. I'd like to thank the judges for reading all this and TMACFORMVP for running this competition. Again, you've built an awesome team, but I think I can take it down.

waiting for rebuttal before judging

r0cd0gg wrote:waiting for rebuttal before judging

I'm in the same boat. I've really been enjoying this stuff, will give it a couple more hours before decision time.

I will not be doing a second rebuttal, I feel we've already gone over the key deciding factors in this series, and anything more will keep beating on the dead horse, ultimately beginning to stretch the truth. We'll agree to disagree, on the factors such as shooting, or the validity of my shooters, such as JJ (outlier, or not, that was the year, he played off the ball with Nash, thus putting up the numbers he did, most definitely a better shooter than Bruce Bowen).

In the end, I stand by my statements, that my opponents team relies on their frontcourt heavily to win their matchups. In contrast, both Kareem, and McHale can hang with any other froncourt, thus holding their own in this matchup, while our back-court ultimately leads us to victory, with the other factors pointed out, such as lack of shooting, and a superior bench.

You've built a fantastic team All In the Name, and you've become one of my favorite posters throughout this competition, much respect earned. Truly, may the best team win.

Edit - This means, you guys can judge, lol.

All in the Name Vs TMACFORMVP

I have realy looked at this hard and whenever you have a Shaq vs KAJ matchup you realy need to watch some tape. I was able to watch some early 80s allstar games and KAJ reminded me of Duncan alot. Hes a little more athletic (He pinned a layup against the glass at the top of the square) but he is giving up girth to Shaq. I think Shaq should be able to put up similar stats to what he did vs the Spurs in 99. Still theres no doubt KAJ can still get his 20ppg on 58% and 76% FT is a big bonus. Shaqs ability to draw fouls and then punish backup bigs is nullified in every ATL. McHale and KG I have always felt are just about the same player but one is the offense and the other defense specialist. KG has that bad habit of disappearing and he would be the 4th option on this team but his rebounding and defense are unquestioned. McHale is the scoring machine with good defense. Both will be great elbow shooters and both will cheat to help there fellow Cs. The big deferance is that McHale is the 3rd option while KG is 4th. KGs offense is less important. If McHale struggles its a bigger effect on his team.
I personaly dont see a huge advantage for either team except AitNs team is much better on the boards and that will hinder TMacs fast break. Spacing is no problem for either team and both PFs believe they can use there length to cheat and both will be made to pay.
IMHO the Hill vs Artest is paramont and its a very interesting one. Cooper just doesnt have the strength and ability to lay with Wade and wont be on the court long enough to make a huge impact. Terry Porter played very well vs Stockton and Timmy but he was savaged by Isiah who won the Finals MVP. Porter will be able to score though because hes essentialy the SG with Hill and Cooper (who is a PG). Hill will have to break down the defense and kick out to Porter and that should be effective. Still Nash is going to make more 3s than Porter and Coop combined.

In the end this comes down to Hill/Shaq domination vs Wade/Nash. TMac has a awsome def frontcourt that should cover up alot.
Im going to vote for tmac because :
1.TMac has better team def 2. shoots a much higher FG% and has superior guard play.

TMACFORMVP Vs All In The Name: It's tough for one of you guys getting eliminated after all the work you both put in.

The big guys in the middle make for a good battle. I think we can assume that Shaq will be his usual self, even with the great Kareem on him. There will be a hinderence here, but Shaq is just that much of a force that he won't be held down. The thing I do like is the ability of Kareem to score against such strong defensive presences. He's not a 25 year old, but it's safe to assume he'll perform abmirably here.

McHale against Garnett is an interesting one. A McHale/Rodman duo looks extremely capable of staying with Garnett here. At the very least I'd assume their influence will make it extremely difficult for Garnett to find his rhythm. As for his defensive assignment, it's always tough to defend a guy liek McHale in the post. We've seen Garnett battle many great post players before pretty well, tough matchup again.

Artest's defense should never be overlooked. But it's always hard trying to stop Hill. That first step he has is deadly and has proven to be a dominant part of any offense. Prime Hill's overall ability on the offensive end will provide so many options for All In The Name here. Artes't offense will probably be much less of a focus point in this one.

The backcourt matchups is where I can see TMAC evening up the playing field. As option scorers alone, Wade and Nash are so much more effective than their counterparts. Their ability to share the rock is what might escalate their abilities to be effective here. Don't get me wrong, Porter has shown many times to be more than an adequate scorer when required, but not to the extent that will be needed here. Cooper's overall efficiency on the offensive end will help, but I highly doubt him to be a guy to look to.

Ginobili will be a tremendous boost off the bench, but Joe Johnson will bring a strong counterpart to that offensive plan. The same can be said for the wings and Centers off the bench. There are a lot that balance out in that regard both minute wise and production.

Rebounding edge goes to All In The Name as you guys pointed out. Freethrows will go the way of TMACFORMVP. Defensively I think it's pretty close here.

Tremendously even series. It looks to be frontourt domination against backcourt domination with McHale and Garnett somewhere in the mix. I'll give the vote to All In The Name on the back of Shaq's bruising play and option to use being a little too much here.

Snakebites vs Bryant08:

Bird against Magic again? Looks to be a treat.

Overall the last 4 teams are all tremendously built have to give you all credit for that guys.

Magic and Dumars offer great contrast. The great help defense to assist Magic's dominance was a great idea. They will work well on both ends of the court playing off each other. I'd imagine Payton will be a pest on Magic, somewhat in the Dennis Johnson mould. is numbers will still be great, just at a much higher workrate. I expect Dumars to perform on Ray. He was extremely capable in tough situations, and no disrespect to Allen but his defense is not enough to put a halt to Joe's work. A Payton/Allen combo as I mentioned before provides some options from all areas with solid chemistry. With Dumars being put on Payton, I think it allows Gary to encorporate his post up game on this series. Not to say Dumars isn't capable of handling it, but I think it will help guys like Bird and Allen to find themselves better looks from the outside. Allen might look to have big performance here and is a tough task for VC.

VC against Bird? I don't liek Vince's chances of being much of a gamechanger here. Bird's IQ on the defensive end is second to none, his size won't help the cause much either. On teh other end, Magic on Bird can be a worthwhile experiment. Perhaps the size equation willl prevent so many easy looks for Bird. What this does do however, will hinder the chances of Magic operating too many fast break opportunities. In honesty, it's Bird here. As such a clutch performer, I can't see his production dropping all that much.

Up front there are four tremedously efficient forwards/centers going at it. Malone/Gilmore will get the nod on the offensive end, but based on their opponents it will not be at it's usual high level. This isn't to say that specifically their FGs will be halted, I think it's more based on getting decent looks that could be the overall problem. Malone has the ability to take over, Artis has been known for it too. Williams and Mourning are not entirely required to play such major offensive roles though, and basing on their %s it's safe to say their opportunities will be taken.

The two big reserves for bryant08 are major. Jack Sikma can work defensively in the post or up top. Combine that with Eddie Jones' offensive defensive threat and the 6th and 7th men can have a major effect here. What I do like for Snakebites is Adrian Dantley's spark scoring from the bench. It will be more than enough to keep the defense busy when Bird is out of position or on the bench. Laimbeer is the other piece I like here. His defense and ability to disrupt offensive flow are quality tools to bring in.

While the defensive switches that bryant08 make look to help offset some serious domination for Bird, I'm a little concerned about mixing up in transition. Rebounding edge would probably go to Snakes.

Tough to call this one, I really like the perimeter chances for the Snakes in this one. I really don't want to split this one, but vote Snakebites.

Short and sweet...

Snakebites gets my vote even though I HATE Bird; A great defensive team that is built for titles.

I was waiting for All in the Names rebuttal but it didn't do enough to change my mind. This match up was the harder of the 2 to decide but with that last missed hack a Shack FT...

T-Mac gets the nod.

^^Am I allowed to break the tie?

Didn't see War's vote.