The success of the NBA middle class in the playoffs - Zach Lowe

[Mr October]

I posted this article in the Gortat thread, and thought it really needs its own thread.

Zach Lowe wrote an excellent article on the success of the middle class of the NBA, especially at playoff time.

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-2014-the-power-of-the-pretty-good-guys-gortat-ariza-courtney-lee/

[Mr October]

In today's NBA just about everyone wants to build around a team of 2-3 superstars, surrounded by minimum guys, rookie contract guys, and vets willing to take a 3 million dollar discount deal ( like Battier, Ray Allen or our own James Posey).

We look to the Miami Heat, to some degree the Thunder, and to some degree the Spurs as formulas for success. The contract signing for players in the 5-12 million per year range usually get criticized.

This article and this playoffs are illuminating the value of a good middle class player.

As i mentioned in the Gortat thread, i find it interesting just how many teams are succeeding with mediocre centers in these playoffs.

[Celtics18]

TP October,

That was a good read that more or less echoes how I've felt for a while.  "All in for a Superstar through the draft and/or by running your team so on the cheap that you can get afford to get one in free agency" seems to be all the rage among NBA execs, fans and media members these days.

Unfortunately, those once-in-a-generation type superstars don't come along everyday.  They come along, well, once in a generation.  If you don't have Kevin Durant or Lebron James, I'd prefer to see my team try to build a winner with good players that are actually available, rather than just give up, cross a lot of fingers, and hope . . . and hope . . . and hope. 

Kudos to teams like the Grizzlies, the Wizards, the Mavericks and the Blazers.  Those guys may not be legitimately in the mix for a title this year or in the near future.  But they are good, fun teams who have a shot of stunning some bigger superstar teams in the playoffs. 

I'd love to have the opportunity to be a supporter of a team like the Memphis Grizzlies.  Heck, right now I am a supporter of the Memphis Grizzlies. 

[D.o.s.]

Lowe's turning into a bit of a trend chaser -- I believe he was one of the writers decrying the treadmill of mediocrity earlier this year.

[Donoghus]

This Washington team, in particular, with its mix of youth & vets has been a blast to watch this postseason so far.  Wouldn't be shocked to see them in the ECF against Miami.

[guava_wrench]

TP October,

That was a good read that more or less echoes how I've felt for a while.  "All in for a Superstar through the draft and/or by running your team so on the cheap that you can get afford to get one in free agency" seems to be all the rage among NBA execs, fans and media members these days.

Unfortunately, those once-in-a-generation type superstars don't come along everyday.  They come along, well, once in a generation.  If you don't have Kevin Durant or Lebron James, I'd prefer to see my team try to build a winner with good players that are actually available, rather than just give up, cross a lot of fingers, and hope . . . and hope . . . and hope. 

Kudos to teams like the Grizzlies, the Wizards, the Mavericks and the Blazers.  Those guys may not be legitimately in the mix for a title this year or in the near future.  But they are good, fun teams who have a shot of stunning some bigger superstar teams in the playoffs. 

I'd love to have the opportunity to be a supporter of a team like the Memphis Grizzlies.  Heck, right now I am a supporter of the Memphis Grizzlies.

The Wiz are built around a #1 pick, John Wall. Portland is build around Aldridge, a #2 pick. Let's not get carried away.

The Mavs are proof that you can get a superstar later in draft (as are the Celtics due to the same draft), but I think the original point I am responding to is confusing 2 separate things. No one is saying that you can't field a competitive team without a superstar. People are saying that the teams getting rings have, in general, a top 5 player in the league. Building a 'winner' can mean different things. It can mean the Spurs over the past decade plus, or it can mean Phoenix during Nash's tenure. I would be fine with either.

I am fine with just competing, so long as we do it with a focus on the future since we are not yet a good team.

[Celtics18]

TP October,

That was a good read that more or less echoes how I've felt for a while.  "All in for a Superstar through the draft and/or by running your team so on the cheap that you can get afford to get one in free agency" seems to be all the rage among NBA execs, fans and media members these days.

Unfortunately, those once-in-a-generation type superstars don't come along everyday.  They come along, well, once in a generation.  If you don't have Kevin Durant or Lebron James, I'd prefer to see my team try to build a winner with good players that are actually available, rather than just give up, cross a lot of fingers, and hope . . . and hope . . . and hope. 

Kudos to teams like the Grizzlies, the Wizards, the Mavericks and the Blazers.  Those guys may not be legitimately in the mix for a title this year or in the near future.  But they are good, fun teams who have a shot of stunning some bigger superstar teams in the playoffs. 

I'd love to have the opportunity to be a supporter of a team like the Memphis Grizzlies.  Heck, right now I am a supporter of the Memphis Grizzlies.

The Wiz are built around a #1 pick, John Wall. Portland is build around Aldridge, a #2 pick. Let's not get carried away.

The Mavs are proof that you can get a superstar later in draft (as are the Celtics due to the same draft), but I think the original point I am responding to is confusing 2 separate things. No one is saying that you can't field a competitive team without a superstar. People are saying that the teams getting rings have, in general, a top 5 player in the league. Building a 'winner' can mean different things. It can mean the Spurs over the past decade plus, or it can mean Phoenix during Nash's tenure. I would be fine with either.

I am fine with just competing, so long as we do it with a focus on the future since we are not yet a good team.

Well, we are going to have a high pick in a deep draft this year.  Let's make that pick, and our later first round pick, and let's start rebuilding this thing, then.  This was supposed to be the year to go lottery chasing.

We've done it!  We succeeded!! 

Now, it seems a bunch of fans are getting cold feet and saying "well, let's not get carried away.  We are not quite ready to see our team try to win again just yet.  Let's wait . . . just a little longer . . . Competing is just too painful."

[sofutomygaha]

Yeah, I think this is a pretty weak angle. Memphis made a good move trading a usage guy for a 3-and-D guy, but the case that the Rockets are failing and the Wizards are succeeding because of how they prioritize mid-tier talent is pretty weak.

The Rockets are mostly losing because their superstars are mercurial and a terrible fit with one another, not because two middling vets would be holding it down where Francisco Garcia and Terrence Jones are failing. They are also staked to a shootout strategy, which has very high variance. To make matters worse, they are running into a buzz saw in an opponent whose strengths match up perfectly with their weaknesses.

The Wizards are winning because John Wall and Bradley Beal are arriving, Nene is (somehow) healthy and playing at his peak potential for the first time in years, and Chicago is held together with duct tape. I think Marcin Gortat is a fun guy, too, but this is getting silly.

[D.o.s.]

It's also worth noting that the Wizards and the Grizzlies spent many, many years being bad before they became good. The Blazers and Mavericks also have owners who are willing to spend money to keep teams together for strings of first and second round exits (and in Portland's case totally rebuild the team's image and squad after a solid decade of mediocrity).

[celtic -_- pride]

The blazers are legit contenders. I don't see how you can discount them ? They match up well with whomever they're playing in the next round too. The wizards and mavs on the other hand I don't see being legit nor the hawks. While it's looking like Miami is going to get an easy pass to the finals this year the west is incredible right now. Blazers/Miami finals.

[Mr October]

Lowe's turning into a bit of a trend chaser -- I believe he was one of the writers decrying the treadmill of mediocrity earlier this year.

Eh, i dont see it as trend chasing. I think he is simply reporting on what he sees and is trying to paint a broad picture of what works for certain teams.

[Mr October]

The blazers are legit contenders. I don't see how you can discount them ? They match up well with whomever they're playing in the next round too. The wizards and mavs on the other hand I don't see being legit nor the hawks. While it's looking like Miami is going to get an easy pass to the finals this year the west is incredible right now. Blazers/Miami finals.

I cant figure out the Blazers yet, and admittedly haven't seen enough of them this year. I had previously associated them with being a hot/cold jump shooting team, living and dying by their outside shooting game. Is that still true this year? Or do they have enough inside stuff to relieve the cold shooting spells?

Right now, if the Clippers aren't too distracted, I am really feeling them making a big run this year. They have the whole package. Inside, outside, multiple shot creators, depth, speed, length, toughness, star power, etc.

And to tie into the original topic of this thread. When the Clippers matched the Jordan contract, he was thought of as an over paid middle of the road player. At the time they had 1 all star and were a lottery team year after year. Interesting food for thought. There are multiple ways of building a title contender.

[Moranis]

You mean a 5-10 million dollar player is generally better than someone on a veteran minimum contract.  Shocking.  Stop the presses.  The World is ending.

And let's not kid ourselves here, those type players do not make teams contenders, sure they can make a difference in a series, but a team full of them is not getting anywhere near a title and probably doesn't even make the playoffs like say Phoenix (which is what they are with Bledsoe being hurt).

As an overall criticism of the piece he also only looked a few discreet examples.  I mean where was the praise for Marvin Williams of the Jazz, Aaron Afflalo & Jameer Nelson of the Magic, etc. 

[celtic -_- pride]

The clippers are the deepest team in the league. I really don't like particular players on their team so I can't root for them. The blazers do fall in love with jumpshots but they have the ability to attack the rim. LA is starting to play in the paint more as well. They also have great individual defenders in batum and Mathews. Lopez is the key to that team. But I remember Ainge saying he wants to build a pistons style lineup when they had their recent championship team. I do believe we need an allstar on this team that's not rondo. A bonafide scorer is a must and a dirty work type 5. Lopez is that 5 for the blazers. Deandre is that for the clippers.

[D.o.s.]

Lowe's turning into a bit of a trend chaser -- I believe he was one of the writers decrying the treadmill of mediocrity earlier this year.

Eh, i dont see it as trend chasing. I think he is simply reporting on what he sees and is trying to paint a broad picture of what works for certain teams.

Poking around, it seems like Lowe wasn't one of the writers I was talking about -- kudos to him for avoiding that nonsense.