Western Dominance Manifest

It’s a phenomenon that baffles and upsets many NBA fans, one that is difficult to explain, and difficult to demonstrate, but its also a universally accepted fact: The East is least, the West is best. Since Jordan hung up his sneakers, the NBA has had to struggle with the reality that basketball is just played better in the NBA’s western half. Today, the all-NBA teams were released, and surprise, surprise, not one of the players on the first team plays for an eastern conference squad (Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Tim Duncan, and Amare Stoudemire). That’s not surprising, these are the five best players by position in the league right now. What’s surprising to me is how natural it feels. At no point in reading those names did I think, ‘wow, that’s kind of unfair that the east is unrepresented.’ It’s gotten to the point that it is just natural that the best players, and thus the best teams, are all located out west. But wait, you argue, two out of the last three championships were won by teams in the Eastern Conference. True though this may be, it had more than a little to do with the fact that while the Lakers (in 2004) and Mavericks (in 2006) were busy fighting through the Western gauntlet, the East’s elite face little competition in the first round, and often breeze through round two as well. The fact is, the West features more quality teams and players all the way through (well, at least seeds 1-8) whereas the east features duds every year (looking at your Orlando Magic).

Don't, Don't, Don't Believe the Hype

Between now and Thursday, when the Mavs and Warriors battle again, there is going to be a lot of talk about Dirk, and how he ‘elevated his game,’ ‘silenced critics,’ etc. I think this says a lot about the relationship the media has with the NBA and how powerful they are in influencing how the game is sold. The media is trying to spin the series to tell us fans a story. It’s a story of emotion, where the emotionally charged Warriors are out-emoting the scared Mavs. Dirk Nowitzki, the erstwhile MVP is being bashed because he lacks the ‘fire’ to elevate his game. He is compared to the great scorers of all time and falls short, not because of a deficiency in his game, not because he is easily defended, but because of his ‘passion,’ his ‘drive,’ his ‘confidence.’ Then, like manna from heaven (from the league’s perspective), Dirk puts together his best game of the series in a do or die situation, and a new chapter is added to this heavily constructed story. Columns will come out tomorrow applauding Dirk for silencing the critics, ignoring the fact that the people writing these columns are the very critics he silenced. Folks, most of the people whose stuff you read (yes, even Bill Simmons) are writing for mass media outlets, most of which have close financial ties to the NBA. And so they spin, taking a complex series and telling it as a nice, neat, narrative.

Basketball, like all sports, is in large part a game of intensity, emotion does factor heavily into what these players do every night. That said, 67 win teams do not lose to 42 win teams on intensity alone. Make no mistake people, Dirk Nowitzki is as competitive as most. Not everyone is Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, or Steve Nash (to name a few), but if you don’t think Nowitzki plays with fire than you aren’t watching closely enough. What’s hurting the Mavs is not an emotional deficiency, it has to do with a combination of a brilliant coaching job on the part of Don Nelson, the unique nature of Nowitzki’s game, and the fact that the Mavs just don’t match up well with the Warriors.

Don Nelson is of a unique mold among coaches in that he needs teams that can play to his style, he doesn’t coach to a team’s strengths (see Knicks, 1995). However, when blessed with the right type of lineup, he is among the best strategists in the game. When he was with Golden State the first time, and definitely during his stint with Dallas, Nelson was great at running the team in a way that emphasized his team’s ability. Add that to the fact that he is intimately acquainted with the Mavs’ personnel, and you have a recipe for a great coaching job. I could cite a number of things that he has done to hurt the Mavs, but let’s focus on how he is defending Dirk.

When people claim that Dirk Nowitzki redefined the 4 position, they say it because he has a unique playing style. Dirk is slow, he can be explosive off one dribble but does a poor job creating his own shot off the dribble. Despite his size, he plays best while facing the basket, and because of this can be very ineffective on the low block. And, of course, Dirk’s stroke combined with his size makes his shot nigh unstoppable. To play down his deficiencies, the Mavs usually run a 1-4 set, which means that Dirk gets the ball in the middle of the floor, while everyone else spreads out along the base line (1 player at the top, 4 players at the bottom). Usually teams isolate their scorers on one side or the other. The problem with isolating the middle of the floor, like the Mavs do, is that it means that a double team can come from anywhere. Nelson knows this, and he has the personnel to exploit this weakness in the Mavs set. He has doubles coming from all over the floor, forcing Nowtizki to make a decision: He can try to pass out of the double team, a tough prospect because the middle of the floor is a difficult place to pass out of effectively (and Dirk is not a terrific passer). Another option is to use his dribble to commit to one side, which is exactly what the Warriors want Nowitzki to do. Once they get Nowitzki to put the ball on the floor, they have him at his most vulnerable. Turnovers and bad shots ensue. These tactics are effective, they take Dirk off his game, and THAT is when the mind games start, that is when the confidence begins to eek away. It is not emotion that is dictating this series, it is strategy.

And regarding whether Nowitzki actually ‘elevated his game’ in the fourth tonight, undoubtedly Dirk played his best fourth quarter tonight, but very little of what he did was different from other games. Those two big threes he hit in the last few minutes? They looked eerily similar to the two he hit at the end of game 4. The difference? These came a few minutes earlier, where as Dirk’s hot shooting in game four was too little too late. So, when you read that Dirk has found his fire, regained the competitive spirit, or whatever hyperbolic statement ESPN.com throws at you, think really hard before you buy into the hype.

Whose Your MVP?

I realize this might open up a can of worms, but I can't remember an MVP race where so many people are so unsure of who to pick. Someone has to win it, just like somone has to win the Eastern Confrence, but the makeup of candidates this year is hardly as clear cut as in years past. This is not the year 2000, where Shaq's dominance overrode everyone else's season. Nor do we have a situation like 1997 or 1998 where it was clear that Karl Malone and Michael Jordan were playing basketball at a level unlike anyone else in the universe. Nor does this year resemble last year's MVP race where there was a legitimate debate between those arguing for the scoring kings (Lebron and Kobe [and Gilbert?]) and those arguing for the more complete (offensive) statistics (Steve Nash) (though as we will see, I believe that Dirk was the true MVP last year). In those years there was an MVP tier, sometimes occupied by a single player, sometimes by two, and sometimes by many players for many different reasons. This year? I don't see anyone playing at a level so high that he just blows everyone else out of the water.

Most people are saying that the race is between Nash and Nowitzki, and this is likely the case. Those are the two best players on the two best teams and they are both having great seasons.

Dirk makes for an interseting case. I believed then, and still believe, that Dirk was last year's MVP, but because his scoring paled in comparison to Kobe's, and because he didn't have history on his side like Nash, he mostly got left out of consideration. This year, his scoring is down two points, but otherwise his stats are the same. If his stats weren't impressive enough last year (and I think they should have been), then you cannot argue that they are good enough this year. What Dirk has on his side is the best record in the NBA, the idea being that the best player on the best team has a certain right to the trophy. People make this argument every year, but how often is it the case? Every time the best player from the best team won MVP in recent history (Jordan in '96 and '98, Shaq in '00, Duncan in '03), they also hadthe benifit of truly being among the most dominant players in the league. Looking at the list of NBA MVP's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Most_Valuable_Player_Award) I see no case in recent history when a player won it simply because of regular season success. Certianlly, team quality counts for something. The MVP doesn't, and shouldn't go to a player on a bad team (which is why #24 is absent in this discussion). But while team quality is always a factor, I don't think it is ever the factor in determining the NBA's MVP.

So what does Dirk have on his side? He is among the few players in the league (along with Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Garnet, and Arenas) who have displayed flashes of dominance that the MVPs of old possessed. Of the two main candidates, I think Dirk is the one who most fits the profile of dominance I outlined above. This, not the Mavs record, is what I believe the German has going for him. Dirk's offensive (and newly found defensive) abilities take over games much in the same fashion as Iverson did in 2001 or Garnett did in 2003. The difference between Dirk this year and those players in those years is that Dirk is not always the man on the court like they were, his team's offense doesn't always run through him. Still, 9 times out of 10, when he needs to, Dirk can provide moments of uber ball.

Nash's numbers are for the most part simliar to last year's, he's avereging one more assist, shooting slightly better from the field and slightly less well from the line. In general, though, the numbers are where they were the year before. Though I would argue that Nash is still getting better, the jump between last year and this year is not nearly as great as the jump between '05 and '06. Nash is having an MVP type season, yet for his supporters/detractors, the arguments have gone far beyond who is the best.
Scoop Jackson (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/070409) wants to aruge that Nash shouldn't win it for history's sake. I think that is garbage. The MVP is the MVP, let history sort itself out later. If the MVP truly means most valuble player, then Nash deserves the award as much as anyone. Numbers aside, no one is more important to the way his team functions as Nash. But I'm not sure 'valuable' is always the operative word in the voting process. As I've mentioned above, when I look back on recent MVPs, I picture figures who dominated the basketball realm. Much like the way Jordan did, or the great MVP centers of the past fifteen years (Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq). Duncan and Garnett were another pair whose numbers and game changing proformances were just so mind blowing, they practically took the award for themselves. I would argue that no matter what the pundits say, it is this sense of dominance that voters most look to when choosing the MVP. And the fact is, despite a handful of players who have moments of such dominance (like Dirk), I don't see a single player who has maintained that level of play for the entire season. If I am right, and the MVP is largly determined by a player's domination over the rest of the league, then I think we are witnessing a dearth of candidates.

Most of the league's best teams (including the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Raptors, Pistons, Bulls, and Jazz) play truly unselfish ball. Some of those teams have a universally acknowledged "best player," (Duncan, Dirk, Nash, Bosh), but none of them have one guy who is 'the man' night in and night out. Why is this? I'm not sure and its certianly a question worth thinking about. But what this means is that when the media votes on its MVP this year, it will have to use a different paradigm than in years past.

So whose my MVP? Lets split the trophy in two and send half to Canada and half to Deutchland.