2020-21 NBA Awards (MVP)

My awards criteria. 1) Player must be in the top 100 in either Minutes Played or Games Played. This gives a pool of 150 players. (Notable players left behind: Lebron James, Joel Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, James Harden, Nikola Vucevic, CJ McCollum, Jamal Murray, Kevin Durant, Caris LaVert, Gordon Hayward, Christian Wood, Kelly Oubre, Kristaps Porzingis, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Anthony Davis, Marcus Smart, Aaron Gordon, etc.) 

2) Players must be in the top 20 in either FGA, 3FGA, 2FGA, FTA, Total Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks, or Points. (Notable players left behind: Kawhi Leonard, Paul George (*), Malcolm Brogdon, Micheal Porter Jr., Dillon Brooks, Darius Garland, Harrison Barnes, Denis Shroder, etc.)

3) This leaves a pool of 81 players. I more or less discarded at least one player per team to create an MVP for each team. (Notable players left behind: Kevin Huerter, Jaylen Brown, Joe Harris, PJ Washington, Andrew Wiggins, Tim Hardaway Jr, Ja Morant, Duncan Robinson, Khris Middleton, Jrue Holiday, Lonzo Ball and Brandon Ingram, RJ Barrett, Enes Kanter, Pascal Siakim, Russell Westbrook, etc.)

4) From the pool of team MVP's, surely we can find the league MVP. 

Trae Young (Hawks), Jaysun Tatum (Celtics), Kyrie Irving (Nets), Zach LaVine (Bulls), Terry Rozier (Hornets), Collin Sexton (Cavs), Luka Doncic (Mavs), Nikola Jokic (Nuggets), Jerami Grant (Pistons), Steph Curry (Warriors), Domantas Sabonis (Pacers), Ivaca Zubac (Clipper), Jonas Valenciunas (Grizzlies), Giannis Antetokounpo (Bucks), Anthony Edwards (Wolves), Zion Williamson (Pelicans), Julius Randle (Knicks), Damian Lillard (Blazers), De'Aron Fox (Kings), Fred Van Vleet (Raptors), Rudy Gobert (Jazz), Bradley Beal (Wizards). Lakers, Magic, Rockets, Thunder had no MVP candidate and I couldn't decide on Heat, Sixers, Suns and Spurs. (**)

So....who's the MVP? Well there are some limitations to the above methodology. The Sixers MVP is Joel Embiid, not Simmons or Harris; likewise, the Wolves MVP is Karl-Anthony Towns, not the rookie PG. I'm not sure who the Clipper MVP is but I'm certain it's not Ivaca Zubac. The Laker MVP is....not nobody. I can live with no candidates from Thunder, Rockets and Magic because these three organizations did virtually nothing to win games. But to miss on playoff teams like the Sixers, Clippers and Lakers is clearly awkward. (***)

Okay here's the case for Embiid (though he didn't play enough for my liking): top 15 in Points scored, top 18 in True Shooting Percentage (only Curry, Jokic and Zion scored more Points), #2 in FTA (on 86% shooting), #2 in PER (behind only Jokic), #2 in Usage (behind only Luka), #15 in Total Rebounds, #33 in Steals + Blocks, and was the clear MVP of a #1 seed. Also, he's a fun watch and has even toned down the pointless quick 3's he used to indulge in. 

I didn't find anyone else to add back into consideration. (****)

MVP: Nikola Jokic (Nuggets) #1 in PER (31.3), #3 in Points, #6 in Minutes Played, #14 in FTA (87% shooter), #3 in Assists (#5 in Turnovers, though the asst:to is still pretty great), #5 in Total Rebounds, #15 in Steals + Blocks, #15 in True Shooting % (only Curry outscored him) and was the clear MVP of a #2 seed. Nice work. He's been the man all year long. 

The rest of my top ten: Steph Curry (Warriors), Joel Embiid (Sixers), Giannis Antetokounpo (Bucks), Julius Randle (Knicks), Kyrie Irving (Nets)(*****), Luka Doncic (Mavs), Zion Williamson (Pelicans), Damien Lillard (Blazers), Rudy Gobert (Jazz)

(*) Did you realize that for the 2020-21 NBA season, Paul George finished in the top 20 of only one counting stat: Turnovers. 

(**) Couldn't decide: 

(Heat) Bam Adebayo v Jimmy Butler. Adebayo scored more points on more attempts and was in the top 20 in Rebounds (Off, Def and Total) and FTA while playing more minutes in more games; Butler's asst:to ratio is pretty phenomenal and his 2FG% and FT% are excellent; both are top quality in Steals and Blocks with Adebayo having the slight edge on Butler. But Adebayo is turnover prone, while Butler is really bad 3-pt shooter. My gut is to take Adebayo's overall contribution but Butler's presence is clearly commanding and decisive. Hard to choose. 

(Sixers) Ben Simmons v Tobias Harris. The Good: Simmons is a good assist man and a great defender; Harris is a good shooter from all over the floor, way more of a scorer than Simmons and he also out rebounded Simmons this season. The Bad: Simmons is a terrible FT shooter (and ought to get to the line a lot more anyway), he's clearly reluctant to shoot and a bit turnover prone; Harris is a solid player on both ends but nothing superlative compared to his peers. (Yeah: the problem here is that neither of these guys is the Sixer MVP this season, but here I'm leaning toward Harris, I think he actually contributes more all around than Simmons)

(Suns) Devin Booker v Chris Paul v Deandre Ayton. Booker is the better scorer (top 20 in 2FGA and FTA, good percentage on both), though he is turnover prone and an overrated 3-pt shooter. Paul (as always) sports a legendary asst:to, his Steals plus Blocks is high level and his scoring is still reliable. Ayton is killing on Rebounds and Blocks, shoots a good percentage and doesn't seem foul prone. The three all played similar minutes in similar games. Booker is the filler upper, Paul is the brains of the operation, but Ayton deserves his share of the credit for being a dependable defensive bedrock (the poor man's Gobert but much better on offense). This team is more a 3-headed monster than most folks notice and picking their MVP is tougher than I would've thought. 

(Spurs) Dejounte Murray v DeMar DeRozan. Murray is among the league leaders in Assists, Steals and Defensive Rebounds but is not a particularly good 3-pt shooter and feels like he should be getting more Free Throws. DeRozan is still a good scorer inside the 3-pt line and outpaces Murray by a large margin on FTA and Assists. (Both sport very impressive asst:to) Murray played more minutes in more games but scored far fewer points and while he doesn't do anything badly, his production still lags DeRozan. Similar to Adebayo and Butler, both of these guys perform their tasks well enough that it's hard to see who is actually more valuable.  

(***) Also, Nikola Vucevic (Bulls/Magic) had a really good season but no one noticed because it was split between two teams that did nothing this season. Too bad, he's not gonna get any MVP votes this year when he deserves to at least be in the conversation: #3 in Total Rebounds, #11 in Points, #18 in PER, #23 in Usage, #22 in True Shooting %, all while surrounded by non-playoff rosters. Almost certainly the most underappreciated player in the league right now. Bonus: I think this was the sneaky best transaction of the season: we obsess over the worst contract in basketball, but I would submit that Vucevic over the next 3 years is arguably the best contract in the league and the Bulls made a brilliant move snapping him up. 

(****) Lebron, I hear you say. Lebron only played 44 games and, of course, he was Lebron. But his team finished 7th and needs a real coming together to look dangerous in the playoffs. So what exactly am I supposed to be putting on my all-NBA team? This guy? Why? Yeah, even upon deeper consideration I can't put Lebron wildly ahead of Jonas Valenciunas--yes, I realize Lebron is a better player but in this particular season his performance was not all that noteworthy. He's not getting on my MVP ballot and I don't see how he had a top 15 season this year, so inclusion on all-NBA team is just some kind of hero worship. 

Karl-Anthony Towns has nice stats, he's a nice player. Good shooting percentage at all levels, reliable rebounder, decent defender, decent playmaker, I like his game. But this is Anthony Edwards' team now, you realize that, right? Edwards is still raw but he's enormously promising--don't be shocked if he turns into Giannis....yeah, I said that--and Towns (and Beasley and Russell and this year's draft pick) needs to get himself oriented to the new paradigm. So does Towns deserve to be on my MVP ballot? Nope, not this year. I like him, like his game, think Minnesota is strangely promising, but nothing Towns did this season puts him ahead of Nikola Vucevic on my ballot. 

(*****) Kyrie Irving finished in the top 20 in Points without finishing in the top 20 in FGA, 3FGA, 2FGA or FTA. Uh....that doesn't even seem possible... 

(******) Next year's MVP candidates to keep an eye on: De'Aaron Fox (Kings), Bam Adebayo (Heat), Dejounte Murray (Spurs), Domantas Sabonis (Pacers), Nikola Vucevic (Bulls), Jaysun Tatum (Celtics)

2020-21 NBA Playoffs

End of the NBA season (*), time for pointless predictions. 

I'll take the Pacers over the Hornets and Wizards over Celtics tonight. Then I'm thinking Celtics over Pacers.

I'll take Grizzlies over Spurs and Lakers over Warriors tomorrow night. Then I'm thinking Warriors over Grizzlies.

I'll do the full playoff predictions by the end of the week. Getting pretty excited for the playoffs!

(*) I've been scouring the season stats for the last few days and I'm not quite ready but I'd be pretty surprised if I ended up with something other than: MVP: Nikola Jokic (Nuggets), DPOY: Rudy Gobert (Jazz); 6th Man: Jordan Clarkson (Jazz); COY: Quin Snyder (Jazz), GMOY: Sean Marks (Nets); still kicking around ROY (think I'm leaning toward Tyrese Hallburton (Kings) but not sure yet).

2021 NBA Pointless Trade Idea

(This would technically be for next year, as I'm using 2021-22 payroll here. I believe, though, this could be executed as soon as the Championship is done in that free for all few period before the draft (although I might be wrong about that). At any rate, this isn't for right now but for the summer.)

Cavs get: Brandon Ingram (4yr/$130m), Eric Bledsoe (2yr/$37-ish), Steven Adams (2yr/$34m)

Pelicans get: Kevin Love (2yr/$60m), Taurean Prince (1yr/$15m), Larry Nance (2yr/$20m), Cedi Osman (3yr/$21-ish)

I gotta say: this is totally motivated by the frustration of watching Ingram try to ballhog on Zion, who is the most unstoppable offensive force in the league right now. Zion is James Harden, but fun to watch. Trying to pair him with Ingram is just going to make my head hurt. You're not getting rid of Zion, so how do you move on from Ingram?

If the Cavs believe that Ingram can be the kind of scorer that Ingram's contract suggest he can, then it'll be worth it to pair him with Garland and Sexton for the long term. Add in Jarrett Allen, then rotate vets for defense, bench, assists, corner 3's, etc., and that's a promising nucleus. 

Also, the Cavs get off their four biggest contracts: an overpaid vet who needs a change a scenery, a nice wing defender on an expiring contract, an exciting down low defender that isn't really part of the future plans, a nice but unspectacular SG (that needs a change of scenery). So no big loss on or off the court. Does getting back two crappy vets (Bledsoe and Adams) make it worth it? I'd say it does. Adams is making a cringe-inducing $27m this year, but that goes down to two years of $17m each next year; not great, but not uncommonly expensive. As for Bledsoe, the second year of his deal isn't guaranteed, making his $18.1 due next year into a (sorta) expiring deal which might be attractive to some playoff squad (*). In both cases, they can still give you minutes and if they get crowded out by the youth movement, then so be it. So instead of 2yrs to Love and Nance and 3yrs to Osman, it's now just 1 year of Bledsoe and maybe 2 years of Adams in order to lock down a good young scorer for 4yrs. This move would be decisive for the Cavs, if you think Ingram can be a top flight scorer (eh, it's possible) and that he meshes with Garland and/or Sexton (also possible), then this shores up their future core, along with Jarrett Allen. And it gets them off declining contracts in favor of workable contracts while ushering out the old world, ushering in the new.

The Pelicans get rid of Ingram (he has to go) and Bledsoe (don't need him, he can go) and Adams (best years are probably behind him), to bring some help for Zion. Kevin Love needs a rebuild, to be rejuvenated and a defensive wingman that can go get rebounds and knock down a 3 is exactly what Zion needs. Larry Nance provides defensive help and a fun offensive partner for Zion to work with. Taurean Prince gives worthwhile minutes off the bench if nothing else (and is very trade-able). Cedi Osman is an Evan Fournier-ish SG can that knock down 3's on the move. These all are better for Zion than Ingram (ball hog), Bledsoe (unreliable), or Adams (clogs the middle). Also, I think these are more trade-able contracts as they mature, so nothing is locked in as much as Ingram is now. 

I know this deal looks like trading too much for too much, but the numbers are eerily perfect (Pelicans $64.5m/Cavs $64.9m) and I really do think the potential of these players and these contracts benefits the opposite teams more than the current ones. Also I feel like both teams are making a roughly equal gamble: is Ingram worth the long term money and can Love be a top flight player again? They're both currently coming up with negative answers but they could swap their questions to find new answers.  

I like this deal, I think it benefits both teams, make sense for all the players and the contract situations should transfer nicely. Call it in. 

(*) It's only a matter of time before Bledsoe ends up back with the Clippers, don't ya think? $18m for the new Lou Williams? Totally sounds like something the Clipper brass can talk themselves into. 

2021 Masters

I'm really not much of a golf guy, I've got enough sports going on. But I love the Masters and I like really digging into it the way I just dug into the NCAA tourney. Something about springtime makes me want to appreciate nature from indoors. On Thursday and Friday I watched ESPN+ for holes 4,5,6 and then 15,16. It's an interesting way to watch, to perch at a coupla holes and watch everybody that passes through rather than following a specific group or getting random highlights from around the whole course. On Saturday and Sunday, I mostly watched the CBS coverage (seeing new holes was liked I unlocked the next level of the game!), but I'd go back to the ESPN+ from time to time. 

On Thursday, Justin Rose killed it on the back nine, jumped out to the early -7 lead. He had the best Thursday and he rode that to a top-10 finish. Nice work.

Hideki Matsuyama (*spoiler alert* the dude that won) was there at (-3), as was Will Zalatoris (-2) just behind him. I don't watch much golf, gotta admit, I didn't know either of these dudes. But they were both better on Saturday than Friday and that's why they were both still in it on Sunday. 

On Friday, Zalatoris was really good again, Tony Finau made a run, and Justin Rose just kinda hung around. Matsuyama was under par but didn't really shine out. Bubba Watson and Tommy Fleetwood were the two that I felt might make a run but neither of them ever really got into the mix.  

Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlory, and Patrick Cantlay were some of the heavier hitters that didn't make the cut. Patrick Reed and Bryson DeChambeau made the cut but never really felt like they were gonna make a run. 

On Saturday, there was a rain delay of a coupla hours in the middle of the afternoon. The early golfers had already finished, so this mostly just hit the top of the table guys. After the delay, Matusyama went nuts on the back nine. Something about the rain changed up those greens and he was murdering his approach shots, sticking 'em on the green like Eastern European gymnasts. It was on the back nine on Saturday where he ran off left everybody. 

Schauffele was good, too, on Saturday, not as good as Matsuyama but pretty much, along with Zalatoris, the only one that had a shot at catching up with Matsuyama. 

Worst final round: Francesco Molinari. Ahhh, man, got off to a bad start and just looked like he wanted to be just about anywhere but playing golf on this day. He was rough to watch. 

On Sunday, I gotta admit: I didn't think Matsuyama would hold up. I thought, like Justin Rose on Thursday, he just got hot at the right time and he wouldn't be able to hold it. In my defense, he did go +1 for the day and when he bogeyed the 1st hole, I thought the collapse was coming. But he righted the ship and shot quite well, extending his lead for a while, and even his bogey on the 18th was pure defense, the smart play to use the cushion to avoid a bigger mistake. He really clamped down on Sunday and it was an impressive win. I didn't think he was gonna do it and he flat the fuck out did. 

Unfortunately, Matsuyama dominated so well that the only real moment of drama on Sunday was Xander Schauffele going in the drink on 16. At -10 he was really the only one that had a shot at catching Matsuyama and he had to make a big play at 16. Hey, man, ESPN+ showed me all week long that 16 was murdering people and I figured Matsuyama would play it safe, maybe even give up a stroke. Schauffele thought he had a chance to make up ground and he went for it...and it did not work. He rolled off into the water (a recurring image of the 2021 Masters) and his +3 on 16 knocked him out of the running. 

I was really impressed with Will Zalatoris, a dude I had never heard of before. That guy was in it to win it all the way and I respected that. He was kinda up and down, especially down the stretch but he hit some big shots, thought he acquitted himself admirably. Jon Rahm went hog nutty on Sunday, shooting -6 after going E in each of the first three rounds (a kinda strange accomplishment); he had the newborn kid thing going, maybe it kept him cautious during the week allowing him to rip it on Sunday. Good stuff! It got him a top 5 finish when I otherwise didn't much notice him. Jordan Spieth tied for 3rd....uh, I don't remember even seeing him once throughout the whole thing (how does that happen?).  

Phil Mickelson was fun to watch throughout, not like he was gonna turn up on Sunday but he had a coupla nice runs in him on Friday and Saturday. And I dug seeing Fred Couples, Jose Maria Olazabal ("a delightful man" the ESPN+ commentators pointed out...about 100 hundred times in the two minutes he was on screen) and Bernhard Langer, dudes that were around when I was a kid.

Felt like more of a crowd than I've seen on TV in a while, and that's encouraging.

2021 NCAA Final Four (the after)

(2) Houston 59-78 (1) Baylor

Houston started slow, Baylor just kept hitting shots. Not a bad game, Baylor took control quickly and kinda squelched out Houston. Good run for Houston, good season, they dominated most everyone they played til the Final Four, that's not bad. 

Baylor is good, man, I'm really beginning to appreciate what good on-ball defenders they are and what good shooters they are. They're a surprisingly deep squad, too. 

(11) UCLA 90-93 (OT) (1) Gonzaga

Amazing game! Back and forth, buzzer beater finish, two good scoring squads just wailin' on each other for 45 mins. Everyone played well, everyone shot well, every possession was fascinating. A great game, a great watch. UCLA caps a long strange trip just missing a shot at the Championship. 

Gonzaga shows all the doubters that they can hang with anyone, that being pushed won't destroy them. 

(1) Baylor 86-70 (1) Gonzaga

Going in, I thought Baylor would be the toughest team Gonzaga has seen all season (perhaps in many seasons), a team that would not shrink from the undefeated #1 team, everyone's pick to win it all, and would score enough to hang no matter how well Gonzaga executed. I wouldn't have been shocked by Baylor stealing it late, but I figured Gonzaga would control throughout, even if the game felt tighter than anything they've had in a while. I still felt Gonzaga would handle Baylor and (most likely) outscore them. Gonzaga really is good; Baylor has a lot of good athletes; but I figured Gonzaga's ball movement would create more quick shots and Gonzaga would win on volume and free throws. 

Yeah, it took about two minutes to chuck the pre-game forecast out. Baylor came to play. That on-ball defense shook Gonzaga and the way Baylor was drilling 3's and getting offensive rebounds, it felt like Gonzaga was outmanned and in for a struggle. With about 8 mins to go in the 1st half, Baylor was up 38-19. 

From there, Gonzaga had a decent run before halftime, whittled the lead down to 10 and showed the path for a way back into the game: patient offense, quit turning the ball over, lure Baylor into fouls, hit your FT's, get every rebound, pray Baylor stops nailing these 3's. Baylor shot too well, played too hard in the 1st half, in the 2nd half they'd wither, fall into foul trouble and Gonzaga would make up the deficit to steal the W.

And for Baylor the game plan was also clear: keep hitting 3's (and get ready for the trophy presentation). 

Gonzaga had a chance to salvage the season, go out strong and smart and steal back the Championship they thought they'd already earned. But they couldn't keep their roll going after halftime: Gonzaga missed FT's, Baylor kept hitting 3's, that was ball game. 

Baylor came to play, then lapsed a little before halftime, then clamped down in the 2nd half.  Nice W for Baylor, really a smooth game from them from the jump, they were all great, everyone was hitting shots, everyone made plays on defense, they avoided foul trouble in the 2nd half, which just heightened the advantage they already possessed in bench depth. So outside of a lull before halftime, Baylor straight dominated this game in every way. All hail, they were really good all year long and flat took this tournament for themselves, a fun team to watch, and by the Final they were really humming.(*)  Good work.

(*) Reminded me of the 2019 NCAA football championship when Clemson dusted off Alabama. 

Bama had been #1 all year long, everyone assumed they would crush every other team, except possibly Clemson. You knew Clemson had talent but their schedule is just not as interesting as Alabama's, so you couldn't tell how good they actually were. They were the only team that even had a shot at hanging with the Tide, so...could they? Answer was 'yes', Clemson straight f'n flayed Alabama, while we all just gaped and went 'oh shit...'. Not necessarily a shock that Clemson won the game, but the ease with which they controlled every second of the game (while slicing and dicing the consensus favorite) was jarring and impressive.

Everyone knew Baylor was good and they were ballin' in the tourney, but until you actually saw them out there with Gonzaga, it was real easy to think Gonzaga was the better team. Actually, they were both really good teams, but head to head Baylor's defense just kept Gonzaga from getting anything going and the way Baylor drilled 3's....looking back on it, the fact that Baylor only won by 16 seems kinda weird and just highlights Baylor's dominance: Gonzaga actually shot the ball pretty well and were still never in the game.

2021 NCAA Final Four (the before)

(2) Houston - (1) Baylor (-4) (o/u 132.5)

Just noticed that Houston has only played double digit seeds ((15) Cleveland St, (10) Rutgers, (11) Syracuse, (12) Oregon St), feasting off the upsets that got handed to them. I like Houston, I think they're a nice team, I think on any given night they can be a really great team and maybe they have that in them. But they haven't seen anyone nearly as good as Baylor in many weeks now and I gotta think that catches up to them. Baylor is a really good team and they have the weakness of some really good teams: they got overconfident and slow down before the game is won. I can see a scenario where Houston gets hot late and steals it. But I think Baylor makes FT's and wins going away. I'll say Baylor 71-60 (Baylor and the under)

(11) UCLA - (1) Gonzaga (-13.5) (o/u 135.5)

Frankly, UCLA should've lost to Alabama and Michigan, Abilene Christian was a gift, BYU is nice but not an overly impressive win and Michigan St was as bad as they've been in years, so UCLA's run has been pretty lucky so far. Gonzaga doesn't win with luck, they win by being better at every position and every phase of the game. So...yeah, I can see UCLA putting up points to keep it from being a blowout, but I'm expecting Gonzaga to be in control throughout. I'll say Gonzaga 78-66 (UCLA and the over)

2021 NCAA Elite Eight (Day Two)

 (6) Southern Cal 66-85 (1) Gonzaga

Southern Cal had the worst opening 5 mins imaginable and the game was pretty much over by the first TV timeout. All the talk was of Southern Cal's great big men but they didn't get going at all, nor did USC shoot well, defend well, etc. Felt like Gonzaga might get a scare here but the only real danger is they win too huge and TV ratings falter, otherwise they're in good shape. 

(11) UCLA 51-49 (1) Michigan

Michigan had many chances down the stretch and could not buy a basket in the final minute. Felt like Michigan was the better team throughout but too many unforced errors kept UCLA (re: Juzang) in the game. Juzang was great, not sure I got much else from UCLA. Their sludgy defensive style kept Michigan from developing much attack but outside of Juzang, UCLA has no attack at all. For years the NBA Spurs were the model of efficiency, night in night out their average was better than everyone else's average and they beat most everyone just by being better than everyone; their one weakness was an expectedly great performance--a statistical anomaly--by one individual star (Shaq, Dirk, Chris Paul, for example). Is Juzang enough to upset Gonzaga all by himself? (I don't see it happening; but I am shocked and amazed that Juzang isn't rocketing up the NBA draft mocks--are you nuts? This kid is a top 5 pick!)