Welcome back to our interviews segment. Tonight, LBL correspondent Ernest “EJ” Kusnyer will interview Isaac, a longtime Listhost player but first-year in the League and a new GM.
EK: Hello. This is your first year, and you agreed to be a GM, are you ready for the responsibility to manage a team and the pressure to win?
IH: Hell yea.
EK: What do you expect from the League? Do you expect it to be more or less fun than IMs? More or less competitive?
IH: It’s going to be nice to play with some stakes (rather than usual tues-thurs listhost). Yes, I think it will be more fun (if everyone shows up), and more competitive because I played in a house league.
EK: What is your draft strategy for and after the 3rd round (the meaty part of the draft), if you don’t mind me asking.
IH: I feel as if I have a pretty good idea who the sleepers are so I think I’ll fare well there, and then towards the end I may just pick people who have very low commitment levels so I won’t have to worry about playing time.
EK: Will you make any draft-day deals? Also, if someone doesn’t work out during the season will you be quick to pull the trigger on a deal?
IH: Not at this point, no, I like my draft position and I think I’ll do well enough in it. Yes, I am definitely not hesitant to trade if need be, that’s the fun in being a GM.
EK: Do you believe in “pick for need” or “best available”?
IH: I have a specific kind of team that I am looking for so I will be picking for need most likely.
EK: Last one, what is the one thing we can expect from an Isaac Hur team each night regardless of how your team is composed?
IH: Up and down basketball with a harassing defense.
EK: Thanks a lot, and good luck this season.
IH: Thanks man.
Welcome to our series of interviews throughout the year, tonight is the first of many to come during the season. Tonight, LBL correspondent Tyler Haak will interview Wayne Tie, a veteran of the Listhost Basketball circuit.
TH: Is this your first or second year in the league?
WT: 2nd
TH: How was the experience last year?
WT: Good things: it was very competitive and it was nice playing with the same group of guys but only if your team chemistry was good.
Bad things: interest was clearly down towards the second half of the quarter; also, Top’s team drafted some crazy dudes; also, this year it should be less serious than last year because last year’s league was more like IM than pickup.
TH: What would make it better this year?
WT: Enforcing the draft rules, some sort of way to keep bad teams interested (i.e. give them new players), and if team chemistry is messed up teams should trade more.
TH: I hear your game has gotten much better, where do you expect to go in the draft?
WT: Below Taotao.
TH: Do you have a preference as to A) which GM takes you and B) what kind of team you’re on?
WT: Hopefully a big man GM because that would be more balanced. Or any team with Choi.
TH: Last question, what would you tell a GM your best contribution to the team would be?
WT: Warming the bench or clearing the sweat stains off the floor with Yilei.
TH: Thank you.
Two Sides of a Coin (Chapter 3: Pick for Need vs. Best Available)
Argument for Pick for Need
Tyler Haak
Basketball is a sport where there are hundreds of intricacies, and as such, hundreds of areas where a game can be won or lost. If a team is lacking in any area, it can and will be exploited, especially by a good opposing team. These weaknesses manifest and intensify over the course of a game, and even over the course of the season.
Someway or another, you have to be able to do everything in basketball as a team. Lack of speed and you get killed in the fast break. Lack of size and rebounding could hurt all season long. Lack of scoring and you will be pecked to death slowly. Lack of shooting and it will be so easy to play defense on the other team, clogging the middle and forcing you to low % shots. Lack of ball-handling and even a handful of turnovers will limit your otherwise effective offense.
After your first few picks, and after you know what kind of team you want to build and which players to build around, you have to find complementary players to this team, not just picking the best athletes or talents.
Let’s say you picked Ryan Williams in an early round. Now you are at a position where the available players are Dan Yang, Paymon, and Nick Layman. Dan Yang and Paymon are considered better talents than Layman, but you already have a player who dominates the ball like Ryan. Are there really enough shots between him and Dan? Or enough touches between him and Paymon? Maybe, but why risk it? Nick Layman fills in to provide many benefits for the team, and even rounds out some of Ryan’s weaknesses. He is a greater defender, rebounder, as well as a post threat, and a very good post passer. He complements Ryan’s game. If you took Matt Wonzer in the earlier rounds and would like to build around him, however, suddenly Dan Yang or Paymon make a lot more sense and Nick Layman does not.
This paradigm holds true in the later rounds as well. A player like Wayne Tie or Joe Doliner is particularly good at one thing, but might be lacking in other areas. If your team needs shooting at this point, picking a player like Doliner doesn’t make much sense here, and your team will struggle against teams that can defend the inside well. Pick Wayne, however, and all of a sudden you have many more options and the team is more balanced, making the other team have to play honestly. If you have all players who are scorers, though, and would otherwise be killed by lack of rebounding (especially in a fast-paced game you’re likely to play), Joe Doliner might be a necessity. With that shooting team, if you pick Wayne and you find a cold night, it will almost definitely be a loss, whereas with Joe, you can be highly competitive all year.
Picking based on your current team outlook is the best approach at any point in the draft. Have the right set of players and you can win any game with the right mindset.
Argument for Best Available
Ernest Kusnyer
This is essentially glorified pick-up ball, on a level where positions are not as meaningful as in higher levels. In the NBA, they are usually well defined. In Europe and college ball, they are slightly more blurred. The lower you go, the more players with completely unique skill sets and measurements there are. Here, you find that the players who are essentially best at playing stand out, regardless of position or playing style.
For pick-up, it’s not uncommon to see teams of all shorter players or all big men win consecutive games. The important thing is that they are all capable players and they play to their strengths.
There are several rounds where this is most relevant. Let’s consider an important draft position: the 4th round, or in other words, the 5th starter. Supposing you have a team of Emerson, Zain, and Walter Dempsey. You, as a GM, are a 3. It makes sense to take a center here, right? What if, and this is perfectly conceivable, all 3 centers that are projected as 3rd-5th rounders (David Muff, Joe Doliner, Evan Turner) are taken, since they are all valuable commodities? To find a legitimate 6 footer looking down, you find there might be players who are primarily outside players, too slow of foot, or play like guards. Why not take a solid 2-guard like Tommy Butterfoss or Steven Leiva here?
So you let Zain and either of these players platoon at handling the ball, and your guards are solidly set, able to keep up with or overplay other backcourts in the league. The GM and Dempsey become the forwards, and although you might be a bit undersized, you are many times quicker and more able in the open court than other teams’ frontcourts. Finally, you move Emerson to center. He is a bit shorter than the other teams’ centers, but his strength and versatility allow him to defend those players commendably. On the other end, his 3-ball and quickness can allow him to hurt his defender just as badly as or worse than the other team’s center can hurt him. All the while, you have not sacrificed much team height or team strength even though the individual pick was maybe 8 inches shorter. This team, all of a sudden, looks very formidable and certainly more effective than an alternative.
Any group of players can play and win pick-up ball. They just have to play to their strengths and know what they are trying to accomplish. A mismatch on one end almost always means a mismatch on the other end as well. Set the tempo, and maximize your opportunities, and allow the best players to win the game.
Debate:
TH: Don’t you think a glaring weakness is an open invitation for allowing the other team to exploit it and win easily?
EK: You have to think of it this way: one particular weakness will usually mean some particular strengths as well. You’re right in that a shooting team that goes cold with bad rebounding could be in for a long night, but consider this. That team (if they are bad at rebounding) might be undersized, and thus be quicker. If they just play half-court and miss shots all night, then yes they’ll lose. But if they use their quickness, adjust, and run on offense, they could easily be in the game. Then, their shots will heat up, and they can play to their style again. On defense, gamble for turnovers and quick rotations will make for a strong style of defense without needing much size. This is all provided that picking the best players allows you to do things like these.
TH: Why take that risk, though? A balanced team can attack an opposing team on offense and defense from any number of directions. If you are strong in every area, you can play a game that still maximizes your strengths, but you also have fewer weaknesses. Exploit every angle, and as Coach Boone said in Remember the Titans, “like Novocain, give it time and it always works”.
EK: What about the fact, that matching better players at all positions is an advantage in and of itself?
TH: I don’t think it’s possible to outmatch at every position, given the balance of the draft. Like you said, every mismatch is also a mismatch in the other direction. In one case, though, a mismatch leads to a severe team deficiency whereas in the other case no such deficiency exists.
EK: Would you agree that the expected values of both types of teams might be roughly equal, except one may be higher-risk, higher-reward and the other is lower-risk, lower-reward?
TH: I think that would be a fair assessment.
EK: Then wouldn’t it tip in the favor of my style if we could simply lower the risk?
TH: Sure, but I think your style inherently has risks that can be exposed.
EK: The best players available also insure the best basketball IQs and thus the best ability to capitalize on opportunities, I think by virtue of having better players, that already lowers the risk significantly.
TH: I don’t think best player means best IQs, although it is certainly correlated. I would also argue I could improve my style’s reward component to be higher with this logic: in a short game to 30 with lower FG% than typically found at higher levels of ball, each made basket is a significant event. Thus, solid possessions that lead to consistent scoring and stopping is already the best reward you could ask for, as no one can be expected to go on 10-0 runs and whatnot.
EK: That’s a good point, although I guess you haven’t seen Top play.
TH: Good point.
Two Sides of a Coin (Chapter 2: Stars vs. Depth)
Argument for Stars
Tyler Haak
No one can argue that basketball is one of the most teamwork-oriented sports. However, just because teamwork is paramount doesn’t mean great teamwork can’t be achieved by one or two spectacular players and an assortment of lesser role players.
The best teams at any level are usually formulated as such. There are usually 1-3 players who are all-around talents, who are better at every aspect of the game than other players at the same level. They can come in any form – point guard, wing, or big. Having these types of players is more than a luxury, it is a necessity. When it comes down to it, how good a player is determines whether or not he will outplay his adversary, and thus why not have the players that are better than everyone else?
Stars can usually create their own scoring and help everyone else score. They help out on the boards on both ends. Finally, they can shut down the other team’s best scoring options, or at the very least slow them down.
The other players can create good chemistry even if they have several, or even just one, fatal flaw(s). A star can help a big player who is not very mobile out by setting him up for easy scores underneath the basket. That player can then focus on boxing out and rebounding, or even just boxing out so his teammates can get the rebound. He can set picks on offense, and look to set up for offensive boards and put-backs underneath. This player could be in theory a serviceable player, but he would only succeed with the help of a great player. He would not able to help others if they didn’t help him. Or maybe you have a spot-on shooter who can’t create his own shot; a star who draws a double team or a rotation can bring out the best of that player.
How does this apply to the draft? I would strongly advocate trading 2nd and 3rd round picks for a 1st rounder, trading a 2nd and late rounder to move up in the 2nd round, or even moving up in the 1st round. Why? Players of Jerrell and Emerson’s caliber are completely unique and irreplaceable. Even an early 2nd rounder like Josh Ellis can be many times more valuable than a late 2nd rounder. Grab them while you can, and if you’re smart, you can round out your roster in the later rounds with some steals. A player like Marko Iwanic or Joe Doliner might not be able to create their own shot, but with a good player setting them up, they can be effective scorers in addition to being very good rebounders and defenders. Players like Danny Polaneczki or Marco Leon are great team defenders, and with the proper ball movement can be offensive weapons. A player like Sameer, if left open for 3s, is a steal in the later rounds.
So think about trading up. A good player who still plays with a team concept brings out the best in everyone. And if you can find steals in later rounds, your higher picks (which may just be spent on negative chemistry guys anyways) can become expendable.
Argument for Depth
Ernest Kusnyer
Football and basketball are the two truly “team” sports Americans are most familiar with. However, unlike the division of labor-intensive football, basketball is best played when all five players on the court are roughly equal in talent. This has shown to be, time and time again, the winning formula for hoops.
A team should utilize its resources to maximize its concentration on the best possible set of 5 players. Ideally, every player on the court should be able to score from at least a few options. Already, you have expanded your options so many times over. On defense, having good team defenders at all positions allow a team to minimize the options the other team has. Finally, a well-rounded team is usually a better team in both sides of transition. This makes the difference in easy baskets usually determine the outcome of the game.
A team that can go to any of its 5 players to initiate the offense can attack the defense from multiple directions. A good mixture of shots improve the team’s effective FG%, promote good ball movement, keeps the floor balanced, keeps players’ fatigues balanced, and can allow you to switch to different plays in a certain set is not working. On the other hand, defending a team that is predictable, particularly with good defenders, allow the defense to adapt and make the offense take a shot that the defense can live with.
What would I advocate for drafting? Balance out your top picks, either by trading down your 1st or 2nd rounder, and maximizing your number of 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th round picks. Also consider trading up your late 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks for a better spot in the aforementioned earlier rounds. This way you can have a team where every player can still create their own shot, and play a high level of defense.
A team with a player from the late first round, followed by several 2nd and 3rd rounders would be dangerous for any team to guard. That team could have a line-up like such: Luke Fiedler, Sean Knightly, Chris Chan, Walter Dempsey, and the GM. Who would you let get an open look or an easy opportunity? You won’t be able to shut them all down. Pick your poison. That team could run with just about anyone, and could easily win any game it plays.
Make a few deals to max out your strength in the early-middle rounds. That will build a balanced team with many strengths and fewer weaknesses. If good chemistry develops over the season among these very good players, that team will be even more dangerous still.
Debate:
EK: In terms of relativity, just because some of your players are better than mine, so too are my players better than yours. We could easily exploit this in our favor.
TH: The best players control the tempo though, and would seek to take advantage of his team’s strengths while minimizing the weaknesses. A good team defender like Drew Jackson, for example, could make up for his teammate’s shortcomings and still have his team be favorably matched.
EK: Let’s get specific though, the players in this draft are very deep. A team of nothing but 3rd rounders could easily (and have in the past) beat a team of Drew and others. Why wouldn’t they just do the same in the league?
TH: It’s possible for any of these teams to beat each other on any given day. Let me give a specific example. Rebounding. Only one person can come down with a rebound on any possession. If everyone does their job, it is an equal-sum game and thus the best player will come down with the rebound.
EK: A team of balanced ability can better control the flow on both ends of the court. If they have a good strategy entering a match-up, they can pressure the best player(s) on the other team and still negate the effectiveness of the lesser players.
TH: In terms of just talent, maybe. But a team with a great player could control how his team would respond to that situation. Basketball is a game where you have to give and take. Making one thing harder on offense invariably makes something else easier. The offense simply has to attack what the defense is allowing. And remember, a good player will always be able to spring free for a good possession whether by himself or with the help of his teammates. Let’s put it this way: simple 2-man strong side possession, you have a driver and a spot-up shooter. A player like Jerrell will almost certainly beat his defender. Here, stay at home at it’s a lay-up; help and it’s a free shot attempt. What would you do?
EK: Jerrell is a unique talent, surely. But there are ways that can minimize the effectiveness of this situation. For example, a better team defender would be able to make Jerrell take a slightly tougher shot, either by forcing him to his off-hand, or making him shoot 4 feet beyond his comfort zone. A better weak-side help defender can take away the lane. Finally, smart defenders at all positions will be able to rotate on the weak side. All told, it’s easier to shut down fewer players than many.
TH: Let’s take my team’s defense, for example. Your team inevitably has a player dictate the action, even if the ball is spread very evenly. If my best player, who also happens to be a good defender, shuts him down, your offense will be out of synch.
EK: There are ways to mitigate that. Having extra ball-handlers can alleviate that pressure. Also, you could make a very early entry pass to a good post player, and simplify the game thus. These players are most concentrated between the 10th and 40th picks. These players are all roughly equal in talent, but far superior to the players below. If you have a chance to max-out your draft picks in this region, you should have a huge advantage.
TH: True, but the players in the top 20 are also in their own category. Then, the players picked between 40 and 80 are no slouches. Given the right system, any of them could be on a highly successful team. Many of them have won several straight pick-up games with a good team because they are so strong in their role.
EK: There is certainly more than one way to build a team, which the draft will surely show. Which direction you go, and how well you do will depend on the quality of the drafting and the players when they play.
TH: No doubt.
Draft Preview
Draft analysis from a former commissioner
Keenan Pontoni
There’s been a lot of talk about the March 8th draft. Unfortunately, not much of the analysis has been complete. So what’s going on in the draft? Who should go first? Who is a wild card? Who could be the steal of the year? I hope to settle some of the confusion with my early draft analysis.
Top Picks:
Most GM’s have already recognized that the draft is top heavy. The first seven picks carry a special weight that the rest of the first-round picks don’t, making a spot within the first seven highly coveted. Here are my top-seven picks (in rank order) for this year’s draft:
1) Jerrell Tribble (G/F)
A lot of GM’s are talking about Jerrell as a forward, given his relative size in the field, but I maintain that he is best at the guard position. Jerrell is probably the most explosive scorer in the draft, capable of slashing inside with his quickness and strength and bombing from outside with his 3-point touch. As we saw last year, he has Kobe-like take-the-game-over ability, with the competitive mentality to go with it. And he won’t just burn you on offense; he is a nightmare for scoring guards across the league with his aggressive on-ball defense.
2) Al Keith IV (PF/C)
Al is a center by necessity in the league, but don’t discount his outside scoring ability. Next to Jerrell, Al might be the most athletic player in the draft, both with his speed down the court and high-flying flushing ability. Last year he proved that he could keep an undersized Top 50 squad in any game. In my opinion he gives you the complete package: Versatile scoring, suffocating post defense, competitive mindset, and a general team mentality. Don’t undervalue the last attribute on that list: Last year Al showed that he will sacrifice to make the rest of his team better.
3) Marc Gasser (PF/C)
I might be a little biased, but having played on Gasser’s squad for two years and seeing his complete game, it was hard for me to even put him this low. Gasser has the best outside game of any big man, and certainly one of the best of any player at any position. He is also one of the best passers in the league. Take it from me, he is a guard’s best friend on offense and defense: He draws a lot of attention inside (still being able to score when shots are contested), knows how to pass to the open shooter, and gives inside support for overzealous perimeter defense. His size, touch, and skill make him one of the most versatile and valuable players in the draft; his basketball IQ, possibly the highest in the draft, makes him worthy of a top-3 pick.
4) Mike Emerson (G/F)
It only takes one stroll down to Ratner to see why Emerson is one of the most valuable players in this year’s draft: He is lights out from outside. With his quick release and range, he is the most dangerous outside threat in the league. He can surgically pick apart good defenses with his 3-point shooting, serving as the ultimate answer to some of the quicker players in the league. But Emerson is more than just a shooter; his size, athleticism, and inside finishing ability make him a threat to score from anywhere on the court. His strength will give the GM who picks him a lot of freedom on defense, as Emerson can guard any big man in the league.
5) Joe Stoner (PG)
Stoner is the top point guard in the draft, making him especially valuable given the little depth at that position. He is also the quickest player in the draft, capable of beating any defender off the dribble. His quickness translates to suffocating defense that can rattle the fastest offensive players in the league. Stoner is known as the quick-footed passer who collapses defenses and creates scoring opportunities for his teammates, but that reputation may not be as comprehensive as Stoner’s game. When Stoner doesn’t have Emerson to pass to, he proves that he can take a game over with his own scoring.
6) Tommy Parks (PG)
Parks gives you the full scoring package at the point guard position. He can be used at either guard position, but he spends most of his playing time as the signal caller. A deep shooting range, a lightning quick first step, a myriad of ball-handling moves (most notably his behind-the-back in flow), and his uncanny finishing ability, make him an extraordinarily dynamic player. The one worry the GM’s have about Parks is the injury he suffered in the off season.
7) Drew Jackson (F/C)
Drew Jackson has all the athletic talents and basketball skills needed to be a top-3 pick. What drops him to seventh on my list is his lack of experience.
Sleeper Picks:
1) Jack Li
Jack isn’t making it on every GM’s big board, but he should be. His game has improved dramatically during his few years at Chicago. His mid-range game is one of the best in the draft, and his basketball IQ makes him a workable role-player. He’s projected to go as late as the 4th round. If he makes it past the 2nd round with his scoring ability and knowledge of team defense he’ll be a steal.
2) Joe Doliner
Joe has benefited a lot from his time under the tutelage of Henderson guard Andy Chen. Joe’s basketball IQ has improved dramatically, making his size a force to be reckoned with. Joe proved in the IM playoffs this year that he can keep a team in the game with his overpowering rebounding and high-energy defense. Also, expect his field-goal percentage to be higher than in IM’s if he’s complemented with an elite shoot-first scorer.
3) Trevor Yuen
Trevor is projected to go in the 3rd round, a tough sell for a player who made big contributions to last year’s championship team. The guy is a winner; he’ll do whatever the GM asks at the guard position and will to it well. He is fundamentally sound, makes good decisions, and plays solid on-ball defense. If he makes it out of the 2nd round he’ll be a steal.
Wild Cards:
1) Top 50
No discussion of wild cards is complete without its poster-boy player: Top 50. He has shot teams out of the gym at times, but sometimes that team has been his own. If Top 50 is on his game, expect him to be one of the most valuable picks in the draft. But if some of the reports are true, that he hasn’t been playing much lately, expect the rust to take some time to wear off.
2) Paymon Khorrami
Whatever GM picks Paymon is going to have love-hate relationship with half of their backcourt. Paymon’s outside shot and ability to penetrate the lane make him unstoppable at times. Unfortunately, if he isn’t playing consistently, as has been reported, his shot can go cold quickly, leaving his team with an offensive-minded guard low in offensive confidence and high in socks.
Conclusion:
This year boasts a wide-range of talent. With 12 teams in the league and a thinning of talent per team, expect basketball IQ and level of commitment to play significant roles in the draft. GM’s will likely sacrifice some athleticism for reliable players who can complement elite scorers.
———————————————————————————-
Two Sides of a Coin (Chapter 1: Big Men vs. Wings)
Argument for Big Men
Tyler Haak
The value of a solid 4 or 5 can’t be understated. Basketball is an inherently inside-out game, and you can’t deny that FG% go up considerably the closer you get to the basket. It’s no surprise that the most efficient scorers leading any league are always the highly skilled PF’s and C’s.
Scoring is only a small fraction of the equation, however. Bigs provide so much value elsewhere. Rebounding is one of the pillars of winning, and a big who can dominate the glass puts you in a huge advantage. Then there is interior defense, in which a good defense big can help against every other player on the opposing team. Finally, a good passing big man can set up angles and lanes that no other player on the court can, leading to easy baskets to all his teammates.
Taking a late round big man is an important facet to drafting a quality team in this league. A big who doesn’t necessarily have the necessary offensive skills can still be an asset in the 3rd or 4th rounds. You just need to look for a player who can help the team in multiple ways without needing the ball. Rebounding is crucial, but even just boxing out the other team’s best rebounder is just as important and underrated. He also should be able to set good picks both on the ball and away from it. Finally, he should be a good decision maker, making fast passes or taking it up strong when he does get the ball.
How does this apply to the draft? Matt Wonzer and Temmy are players who have made a name for themselves on defense and rebounding, but their offensive games have improved dramatically in the last few years. They should be mid-late 2nd rounders, with the only question mark being Temmy’s Tuesday-only commitment level. A team that needs their talents could reach and take them early in the 2nd and it would not be a bad pick. But if either falls into the 3rd round, that team will be extremely tough to deal with.
In the next round, you have 3 quality bigs who are just a shade less complete than those players. Ian Williams is a spectacular defensive first-year with tons of potential, but is less refined on offense. Mike Kiyo is a great 3-point shooter, but only average rebounder and defender. He can spread the court and be a good addition to a physical 4. Finally there is Josh Ellis who struggles against taller players at times but is as strong as anyone on the board. He is also a smart player who has great awareness at all times.
But the main question surrounding the draft drama has to be the top few picks. There are currently 3 consensus top-centers: Gasser, Al Keith, and Drew. You can’t go wrong with any of these guys. The more important question is to ask whether you should take them in front of a potentially more talented wing player. Jerrell, Mike Emerson, and Tommy Parks are all phenomenal talents, but can they ever help all their teammates like a big could? Gasser’s smooth moves and instincts, Al’s sound post fundamentals, and Drew’s versatility are all indispensable, irreplaceable tools. At the top few spots, look to grab one of these guys for sure.
Argument for Wings
Ernest Kusnyer
Basketball is a guard’s game, first and foremost. A team that takes care of the ball will usually come out on top. While it is certainly true that closer shots yield higher a FG%, the best wing players are more than capable of either taking it to the hoop or catching the ball decently close to the basket to begin with. A good wing player can always threaten with more options than a big could.
Let’s talk about the other ways a wing player can help his team. Passing both to set up a teammate and to feed a good match-up is a primary responsibility of a decision maker. A good 2 or 3 can still be a superbly above-average rebounder. Anyone who’s played with Choi would know this. Finally, there is the ace-in-the-hole that in the late game situations, the ball should be in your best player’s hands. More often than not, letting a wing triple threat from the outside is the best option. On the flip side, having a dominant defender on the wing can offset this position for the other team.
There are plenty of quality 2s and 3s deep in the draft. Each has a different skill-set. Let’s look at the 2nd round. Ji is a newcomer to the league, one who has displayed flashes of brilliance in pick-up and IM’s. He is a threat in the open court and is lightning fast, but tries to do too much at times. He’s the perfect complement to a run-and-gun team. Kevin Meil is a bigger body, one who has an excellent post game at the 3. He is value pick and a great addition to a half-court team. Then you have a player like Dan Yang a few spots down. He could potentially thrive or suffer depending on the system. Let him get open looks and he can damage you like no other player in the draft can.
Let’s get to the bulk of this argument though; who should you pick at the top spots? Jerrell is a unique talent, a near-flawless combination of athleticism, skill, and intangibles. He is universally considered the top pick of this draft. Afterward, you might have to weigh players like Mike Emerson and Tommy Parks against the top centers. Here might be a few reasons why you would go with either of these explosive players.
Emerson can shoot the lights out from any spot on the court. He’s a huge body that can dominate the game or do all the little things. Whereas a possession involving Gasser or Al Keith could take some time to set up, Emerson can win the game for you in one single 2 minute stretch. Tommy Parks is even more explosive as a slasher, albeit with a less consistent shot. On any given night, he can easily out-big a big, and dominate the glass and interior. At the top of the draft, either of these guys, or Jerrell if he’s still available, should be your top pick.
Debate:
EK: This league plays by 1s and 2s, so that should tilt the argument in favor of wings, no?
TH: It’s undoubtedly true that 2s are more important in this format, but that there are plenty of bigs who can shoot a respectable 2. Gasser, Kiyo, and James Thoburn are all among the elite shooters in the draft regardless of position. Drew, Al, and Sean Knightly are all very good. There are plenty of others who are squarely above-average.
EK: It’s still more efficient to set up a wing player for a 2, based on positioning and rebounding.
TH: That may be true. Let me ask you something now, you said that endgames tend to be guard dominated. That may be true in normal circumstances, but in this league where there is no game clock, you can be as patient as you want in the clutch, so you can still work it in to a big man.
EK: True. However, there are still a handful of things that make those situations more guard-friendly. If you work it in, you still have to deal with an entry pass that might be stolen, a double team that might be harder to pass out of, and overall you have the ball in the hands of a player who is worse at ball handling. Giving the ball to a decision maker is crucial in those situations.
TH: That’s a good point, but it’s surely more balanced given the lack of a time constraint.
EK: Definitely. I have a point I’d like to make, I think the top wings in the draft are harder to guard by lower round players than the top bigs. For example, I think it’s foreseeable that while Al Keith would outplay a David Muff, that Muff could still conceivably hang with Al. However, someone near Muff’s mark like Wayne or Tommy Butterfoss would be severely dominated by someone like Jerrell.
TH: In a one-on-one context, maybe that’s right, but it’s up to the whole team to defend someone like Jerrell or Tommy Parks. Also, consider the GM is usually a top-level player to begin with, so they might shoulder the responsibility of guarding the other team’s best slasher.
EK: I guess we can agree that the type of player a GM is should have a tremendous impact on the direction he drafts.
TH: Absolutely.
EK: Anything else?
TH: You can’t teach size.
EK: Can’t argue there.
——————————————————————————————
The GM Difference
Managers with a talent advantage
Keenan Pontoni
With all the talk of drafting players, people have forgotten that GM’s in this league don’t just manage; they also play. I have identified four (in no particular order) GM’s who I think start out with advantages because of their own abilities.
Jesse Smith (F/C)
It’s hard to ignore last year’s MVP and GM of the year. Jesse’s size gives him a bigtime advantage over other GM’s in the league. If put in the draft, he would doubtlessly go in the first round with his strength inside, solid passing, and threatening outside shooting. His size gives him a lot of flexibility come draft day. He’s been talking about going big with his first-round pick, but don’t be surprised if he’s the first to take an elite guard.
Jake Brodesky (G/SF)
Jake, the second-overall pick in last year’s draft, is a dominant outside threat with solid inside scoring. He’s also shown that he can defend any big man he’s put against. Though Jake is a great scorer, he doesn’t have a scorer’s mentality. Expect him to select a shoot-first player with his first-round pick, as he tends to be more comfortable as the 2nd option on his team. If he goes that route, he’ll be the best 2nd option in the league, better than most teams’ 1st scoring option.
Kelvin Boddie (G/SF)
Kelvin scares offenses with his athleticism and intensity. Right after ripping you, he won’t be afraid to come back and knock a three. Kelvin also slashes well from the 3-point line, especially to his left. The Mock draft had Kelvin getting Temmy and Wonzer; the three would combine to form the best defensive frontcourt in the league. But that’s what’s nice about where Kelvin sits right now. His own versatility gives him the option to get a pure scorer or a defensive star with his first pick.
Stephan Skepnek (PF/C)
Jesse credits Stephan as being the best acquisition in the league last year. Stephan would be a bonafide first-round pick in this year’s draft. He’s the strongest big man also capable of finishing inside. If he goes big with his first pick, his team will outpower any team in the league. If he goes small, then his team will be one of the most dynamic.
Thursday Feature Recap: Wet Sticky Bandits vs Big Test Icicles
Jesse Smith
For many UofC students, Thursday night of April the 10th was nothing more than another damp dreary evening in a long line of similar Thursdays prior. However, for those following the Listhost Basketball Association (LBL), this night was something much more meaningful, it meant the first Thursday night game of the week. And for all the hype, the talent did not disappoint…
The atmosphere was abuzz as fans and onlookers alike continued to trickle into an already packed Henry Crown Arena for an unprecedented 10:15pm tip-off time. However, if one were to judge by starting point guard Saul Vaca’s “all business” warm-up routine they’d never know this was anything more than just another regular season game– it was. Going into the game, Saul knew he was expected to deliver, and only exacerbating matters was the fact that Saul would be facing off with his former mentor and Dynasty teammate, the Wet Sticky Bandits own “backcourt wizard” PG Phil Sugimoto. When asked for comment, Saul remarked “Phil is more than just a great competitor, he is an icon, but now it’s my time to handle the rock and, yeah, maybe there is a little extra something to prove tonight.” No kidding, Saul came out of the gate hot, hitting three 3’s and setting the tempo as the Big Test Icicles quickly piled on the points, amassing an early 11-5 lead. Nonetheless, the Wet Sticky Bandits appeared un-phased, several of them having backgrounds in UofC statistics courses, they knew that regression to the mean was inevitable. This first-to-30 contest would be a battle of endurance, and Marc Gasser came prepared with a full tank of gas, and then some.
While Phil and “Mr. intanglibles” Choi kept a tight defensive perimeter for the Bandits, Gasser altered shots in the lane with his “in-your-face” defense, limiting the Big Test Icicles to virtually zero offensive rebounds for the remainder of the first half. Meanwhile, on offense the dynamic trio who draw eerie comparisons to the San Antonio Spurs’ Duncan, Parker and Ginobli, quickly whittled down the Icicles advantage, rampaging to a 17-13 half-time lead. Suddenly, the nay sayers in the stands could be heard reeling off clichés like “I knew this would happen” and “How do you stop the Gasser Phil?” and “I thought these guys were only gonna show up half the time, wtf.”
In the Second half of the action, the battle raged on. The Icicles went blow for blow with the Bandits as Imran and team captain, as well as emotional leader, Kelvin picked up the slack, wearing down the defense to create scoring opportunities. In fact, it was not until the score was tied 27-27, when the Bandits were finally able to put the game away, putting an exclamation point on the heated contest with 31-27 Sugimoto three-point finisher. The bigman battle between Gasser and Imran was not be missed, but ultimately this game was best summarized by the pre-game marquee match-up, Phil versus Saul. At some point late in the first half, the Bandits braintrust may have just saved the game when they made a defensive switch to have Phil guard Saul. Whatever Phil did, Saul’s hot shooting wasn’t quite the same from then on.
In the end, a Star Maze Rage forward in attendance at the game, Jake “Brosky” Brodesky, could only say “Well, that game was solid.”
One General Manager, choosing to remain anonymous, had this to say about the feature game: “It was one of the games where you hate to see either team lose, but one of them had to. In this case that team was the Icicles. But I know the owner personally, and I know they’ll come back from this loss stronger than they were before.
Indeed, numerous sources have now confirmed that the Icicles have signed hired dunk-machine mercenary, Andy “The Mix Master” Metz to a one-year contract.
The next feature game is the match up between Maze Rage and Bigtime, 9:00pm Thursday.
—————————————————————————————————
Icicles Are Usually Cold and Sharp: The League’s Icicles Are Just Cold
Keenan Pontoni
Why are the Big Test Icicles 0-2? It seems that they have arguably the most complete basketball team in the league. They have a dominant big man, Imran; one of the best guards in the league, Saul; a slashing scorer, rebounder, and defender, Kelvin; a sharp shooter who’s not afraid to leave the baseline, Arjun; and an all-around menace with a shot, Anurag (aka, A-Rog). The team design is in stark contrast to the Maze Rage’s “convert as many soccer players into basketball players and equip the backcourt with streaky shooters” approach, the Bigtime’s “accumulate as much mass and then give the ball to Luke, who could find and fill a basket put in the middle of the rainforest if doing so meant earning 2 points” strategy, and the Bandit’s “pick the best players regardless of projected attendance and fill the rest of the team with May House players,” approach.
Is it a lack of team chemistry? Doubtful: Anurag knew of Arjun’s talents before the league started, and said he was looking forward to playing for the team. Kelvin has said countlessly that he loves his team. And Imran and Saul? They’re two of the league’s easiest players to play with: selfless but proactive.
Is it bad coaching? Also doubtful: Anyone watching Thursday’s showcase game will admit that the right decisions were made at the right times.
Then what? It’s a lack of depth. In the first game against Maze Rage the Icicles fell behind late when the Birds were able to surge up and down the court for easy buckets against dead-legged defense. Likewise, in Thursday’s game against the Bandits, shots from the Icicles began landing short late, a sign of fatigue. And Yilei’s late rebound and open shot was only possible with a slack defense, something we only see from the Icicles late in games.
In the first two games, the Icicles didn’t have a bench. Let’s see if their fortune can be turned around by adding much-needed help with the acquisition of the Mix Master. With players to sub for starters, the Icicles should be able to find their first win of the season.
The next Icicles game is Tuesday, 8:15 pm, against Bigtime.
this is such a sweet website
Keenan is an emo.
o my god. who the hell is gonna read anything for class when you have all this juicy basketball gossip.