From the annals of silly sports punditry, I just heard Doug Collins explain that the Rockets are doing better because the team added "high-energy players" who've "revitalized Tracy McGrady." T-Mac's clearly an excellent player, but if you look at the numbers there's just no denying that he's performing below the peak he established during his first three seasons in Orlando. Houston didn't add players who revitalized McGrady; they've got a bunch of role players who are playing well so the team's winning more games than it did at the beginning of the season. McGrady, however, is playing just the same.
« Table | Main | The Experience to Pander »
Must Be the Star
18 Mar 2008 09:47 pm
Comments (31)
But can they beat the Celtics? My eyes are glued to the TV from now until the game ends.
One of the knocks on TMac was always that he didn't make his teammates better. He may have put up better numbers in Orlando (largely because he went to the rim more relentlessly than he does now), but I don't know if he was "playing better." The results are certainly speaking for themselves these days.
I don't know. TMac has more assists per game with the Rockets than he ever did with Orlando.
But all things considered the stat man Morey is starting to look like a good GM.
With all due respect, this sort of sports post by Matt always strikes me as sophomoric. Professional basketball is a segment of the entertainment industry, and for a long time, part of its chosen marketing strategy has been to promote certain designated "stars". Further, Collins is not a neutral observer, but rather someone who is a part of that industry, and he is being paid in part to help market the league in accordance with its marketing strategy. So, of course he promotes the designated stars, because that is part of his job.
DTM must be a blast to catch a game with.
which came first? teammates standing around expecting tmac to do something offensive (so to speak)? or teammates standing around waiting for tmac to do something offensive since they knew he was going to play 1 on 1 and try to "take over" anyway? it has been a long, slow process for this particular basketball player to get it through his head what it means to be a really good basketball player on a really good team. what it comes down to, you don't think of yourself being "the man." you know what you can do, and how it fits into what other players on the team can and will do. my theory is that the injury and timed missed earlier this season were a final push getting a stubborn star to subordinate his ego just enough to finally make a team better. and as far as stats go, stats are a function of approach. the right approach for a given player can generate team wins while obscuring the approach's success by creating a divergent stat set.
Barring a comeback, it looks like the winning streak will come to an end tonight. It'll be interesting to see how they respond. Personally, I think the doubts will naturally creep in and the team will fall apart down the stretch.
If there's anything worse than MSM coverage of actual news, it's MSM coverage of sports. Baseball is the worst, because despite all the statistical work and ingenious analysis out there, to pay attention to the popular press is often to hear from crazy old men complaining about "clogging up the bases" or even worse.
Celtics are smoking these clowns. Rockets are existing on a prayer and a dream. They blow. Leon Powe is killing these guys Leon Powe? Ha. Rockets suck. C's are the best
Boston sports fans are a scourge on this earth. The only things left after the nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches and Red Sox fans.
John McCain is pretty goddamned insane, but there's nothing more pathetic than people from sports backwaters complaining about the good fortune of Boston sports fans. I'm really sorry if you're from Milwaukee or Houston or San Diego or you're a Knicks fan, Mr. Insane, but your poor life decisions are not grounds for your over-the-top jealousy.
Heh.
Woody,
But that's the thing--I have no problem enjoying games, or generally talking about sports. I just think it is "silly sports punditry" when people like Matt criticize people like Collins on these sorts of grounds.
MoeLarryAndJesus-
It's not their good fortune I chafe at. You don't see me going around hating on the good people of San Antonio.
It's just that they're... how shall we say, a little too eager to share their good fortune with everyone else. Usually while employing a hideous accent.
A bad combo all round.
I don't want to be just another Boston sports fan accounted among the scourges of this earth, so I'll start by saying the Rockets aren't clowns and they don't suck; they pulled off an amazing accomplishment with their winning streak. They are are a very, very good team. The Celtics are just much, much better--maybe not twenty points better, but much better. The Celts are down twenty points yesterday to last year's champions and come back to win. Tonight they blow out the Rockets. They did so without Ray Allen and, for much of today's game, without Tony Allen--who, while he was in the game, embarrassed McGrady. Barring season-ending injury to Garnett, there isn't a team in the league that can't beat the Celtics in a series. Open your eyes, people; look beyond your disdain for Boston teams. This is an amazingly great team that can stop any other team in the league now. They give up the fewest points per game and win by the largest margin in the league, leading their only close contender in this category(the Pistons) by nearly a 50% advantage. And you can't stop them by stopping one or even two guys. They have the deepest bench in the league. Leon Powe--who didn't even play yesterday--scored over twenty today. I apologize for all overbearing, gloating Boston fans, but don't let those jerks blind you to a team of historic greatness.
It's not their good fortune I chafe at. You don't see me going around hating on the good people of San Antonio.
Yo, fuck San Antonio. I'll start it off.
Your poor life decisions are not grounds for your over-the-top jealousy.
I wake up every morning to sunny, 70-degree weather, beautiful beaches, and gorgeous women. I don't begrudge you your sports teams, Boston, but I think the decisions I've made to get to this point in my life far outweigh the advantages of the occasional conference championship.
Obviously, I meant to type: Barring season-ending injury to Garnett, there isn't a team in the league that can beat the Celtics in a series.
Thanks Beantown Brawler for reminding everyone how classy Boston fans are.
The Celtics are a better team than the Rockets. And their fans don't deserve them.
Thanks Tony Adams for being a humorless douche...
Rockets are wildly overrated and got lucky these past few weeks. Everyone who knows anything about basketball knows that. McGrady is past his prime and Battier is playing better than he actually is. Sorry that reality caught up with them but it did.
the truth about the rockets is somewhere in between. McGrady has been playing insane minutes the past two weeks which, given the chances of his back flaring up, can't be good, but can't be avoided with both Yao and Landry out. now they're in the midst of 4 games in 5 days, on the road, against playoff teams. I'm sure they will be ecstatic if they can break even the next two weeks, get Landry back and give McGrady some rest before the playoffs. If that doesn't happen, they will be a tired team going into the postseason which is also what did them in against Utah last year.
i have never understood the McGrady hating. he is a pleasure to watch in a FD sense, no matter how far he goes. JVG loved his passing skills and considered him a lock down defender when his body was okay.
Sorry, I'm not from Boston and didn't realize being a jackass was considered humor there. My bad.
Spoken like a true douche...thanks Tony. Mosey along please...
I wake up every morning to sunny, 70-degree weather, beautiful beaches, and gorgeous women. I don't begrudge you your sports teams, Boston, but I think the decisions I've made to get to this point in my life far outweigh the advantages of the occasional conference championship.
As a Boston resident and sports fan, I freely admit defeat in this argument. I LOVE the Sox, Celtics, and Patriots...but I fully admit the misery that is New England weather and acknowledge that the conspicuous lack of bikini models and aspiring actresses is a serious problem in the daily life of me and my fellow Massholes.
With that in mind, please stop bitching so much about the "Boston sports fan." We are miserable and difficult to be around because we are stuck in perennially awful weather with homely women. All the rings in the world won't cure the basic awfulness of our situation, so please, don't begrudge us a little obnoxious cheering when our teams do well. It is all we have.
Just curious Boston fans, do mature adults in Boston really call other people "douche"?
Classy...
Just curious Boston fans, do mature adults in Boston really call other people "douche"?
Answer: yes.
Haha, you get used to it.
Ugh the "mature adult" card...What a douchebag thing to say...
Go C's!
Most Boston sports fans aren't Celtics fans. The "Boston sports fan" is defined by having jumped on the Red Sox and Patriots bandwagons this decade when both teams transformed from perennial losers to regular favorites. In Boston, the Celtics run a weak fourth behind the Sox, Patriots and Bruins. A bad Bruins team will outdraw a bad Celtics team, and there have been a lot of bad Celtics teams lately.
The "Boston sports fan" isn't a Celtics fan, but is willing to jump the bandwagon of another winning team, much like Chicago was full of people twenty years ago who loved Michael Jordan but had never paid much attention to professional basketball. Do not confuse us long-suffering Celtics fans with these other people.
In Boston, the Celtics run a weak fourth behind the Sox, Patriots and Bruins. A bad Bruins team will outdraw a bad Celtics team, and there have been a lot of bad Celtics teams lately.
This simply isn't true. The Bruins and Celtics both drew 17,000 fans a game in 2006-07, when the Celtics had the 2nd worst record in the NBA, while the Bruins had roughly the 9th worst record in the NHL.
The Celtics ranked 20th out of 30 teams in the NBA in attendance in 2006-07. The Bruins ranked 25th out of 30 teams in the NHL in 2007. In short, the Celtics outdrew the Bruins despite being markedly worse in 2006-07.
It is true that the Sox and Pats dominate Boston sports, but the Celtics have been more watched and more talked about, despite being much worse. Anyone who turned in WEEI last year heard the occasional Celtics discussion...while the rare caller who tried to discussed the Bruins was laughed.
It's been a few years since I lived in Boston. It's a hockey town, not a basketball town. E.g., people care about college hockey, and don't care much about college basketball. If the Bruins have finally managed to squander their support, that's an impressive achievement on the part of Delaware North or whoever owns the team now.
That said, I question your facts. I can't quickly find good numbers on the interwebs, but I did find this, from the February 20, 2007, Boston Globe:
League and team personnel confirm that the Celtics rank only 28th of 30 teams in full-season-ticket revenue. (Even the Memphis Grizzlies, who have the second-worst record in the NBA, have more full-season-ticket-holders than the 5,100 Boston regulars.) But the Celtics have been creative in filling the arena with partial plans. They are second in the league in those packages and fifth in the league in group sales.According to the team, paid attendance is up 8 percent, a number no doubt enhanced by the offering of half-price tickets to "insider" fans a few days before marquee opponents come to town.
But maybe you're right. In any event, the larger point stands.
One more correction. Neither the Sox or Pats were "perennial losers" before their current succesful runs began.
The Red Sox have been perennial contenders now for FOUR DECADES! From 1967 on they've had only a handful of sub .500 seasons. The perception that they were lovable (or loathsome) losers was based on not winning championships before 2004, as opposed to sustained suckitude. It's actually one of the better reasons to hate Sox fans. They (we) moaned about not winning the World Series for 86 years, but the reality was we got to enjoy an entertaining playoff contender for year after year after year before breaking through.
The Patriots had sustained periods of success before this decade as well. The perception that they were a sad sack franchise is exaggerated because they tended to go the bottom of the league when they were bad. No hanging around the middle for half a decade with 6 or 8 win seasons. Their history prior to this decade was to alternate runs as a playoff contender with runs including multiple 1-3 win seasons.
Neither the Sox or Pats were "perennial losers" before their current succesful runs began.
Fine, perennial non-winners, if you prefer. Often good teams, but at their best just good enough to lose the big one.
Comments closed April 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's an open question whether part of a star "playing better" amounts to creating space and learning to trust his teammates with that space. See, e.g., Jordan, or post-Gasol (and pre-Gasol-injury) Kobe. I guess you could look at plus/minus numbers, but I'm not sure even that would give you the necessary information.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 18, 2008 10:04 PM