Harass him, hurt him, piss him off. The problem is that Lebaby expects to ALL the calls, so he gets mad every time a foul is not called in his favor. During the regular season a team can rough him up a little and him throw off his game. (The Bulls are specialists at this strategy) However, during the playoffs, he is protected by the refs (to a criminal extent) and therefore is able to achieve "greatness".
I'm certainly no LeBron jocker but I don't like the idea of physically beating up on the league's best players because that is the only way a team can defend that player. My team has had more than it's share of the greatest of the great over the decades and that has been a common strategy for some of the lesser teams in the league. The refs are there to protect all of the players equally, but I think what happens sometimes is that players (and fans) get frustrated at not being able to stop a player legally, so they resort to violence, then get even more frustrated and angry when the refs "take away our only weapon" and call them for fouls. The cry then becomes (sometmes), the refs are being over protective of "Joe Superstar".
Lebron can give as good as he takes when it comes to being physical. Quite a lot of what he does would, once upon a time (and still according to the rules) would be an offensive foul. He's such a big guy and can use that to his advantage. Given this, some handchecks or other methods to mitigate that contact are legitimate. Basketball is not a no contact sport and can quite often be quite physical.
Well, I'm not talking about just being "physical". I'm referring to the plays where you see guys swinging at the head under the pretense of blocking a shot, or aggressive "bumping", pushing, delivering blows, before and after a player gets the ball. When we had Shaq and he would make his spin move to the basket, if he made contact with a defender, that guy usually got bumped out of the lane. Now, if it is not an offensive foul and the lane is open after the bump, then so be it. If you are physically overmatched I don't think a team should be allowed to make up for that physical disadvantage by delivering more physical punishment just because "that dude is big". LeBron's size and style of play is what it is and he should not be penalized for it as long as he is playing within the rules.
I love Shaq, but he was the king of the flying elbows... And the fewer dunks you give Mr. Rushmore, the better, long as it's physical and not flagrant play.
So the NBA is concerned about a "conflict" because of the relationship between Jeannie Buss (Lakers' team President) and Phil jackson since he has become a Knicks' exec. Gee, I wonder where all that concern about conflicts was a few years ago when the league, under pressure from other owners to protect those owners' interests, vetoed the Lakers trade for Chris Paul under the pretense of, "basketball reasons". The league, at the time, were the owners of the (then) New Orleans franchise. Hypocrits.
Since I'm intrigued by statistical analysis of Basketball: The underrated art of the steal. According to this analysis, a player who can get a steal is worth 9 times as much as a player who can get a point: The only concern I have with steal statistics is they don't count the number of times a player gambled on a steal and the other team scored. A steal is not a no-risk play. Obviously, people who get more steals are better at them, but I don't think these stats should be read to mean that players should try to get steals more. In other news, if the Sixers lose to the Rockets, they will have tied the NBA record for consecutive losses. If they lose to Pistons, they will have the new record. In honor of that, all the things that have happened since the Sixers last won a game: Spoiler: The List
Exactly what I was thinking when I read the part you quoted. I was never very impressed with players who carried that "2 steals per game" title even though they're thought of by many as great defensive players. The best steals, IMO, are the ones that come when a player is guarding his man one on one and takes the ball away. This way there is no gamble (well, maybe a possible foul) and opportunity to give up easy baskets to other players. If you have a player who averages 2 steals a game without making those kamikaze attempts which can, if the player doesn't get the ball, result in easy baskets, you really have something. Imagine having a rim protector type who can block and alter shots AND steal the ball from his own man. Talk about a defensive game changer.
Yeah, Allen Iverson led the league in steals. It wouldn't be smart to call him a good defensive player.
I don't know why the writer is so hung up on the value of steals. Of course its great when you get one, but we all know that doesn't happen too often. And this guy places a high value not just on steals, but on "attempts". Is he unaware that players who are known in the league as "gamblers" are game planned against? Just like the pump fake which many times negates the effectiveness of the manic shot blocker, guys who gamble on steals find themselves perpetually victims of backdoor plays. They are set up to go for the steal and as soon as their weight shifts, the gambler's man heads for the front of the rim. Maybe there is a way to teach a player to be an effective aggressive "stealer", but if there is I sure don't know about it. I'm thinking, maybe the writer is also a football fan and perhaps is trying to find correlations between losing a fumble and interceptions and a steal in basketball. But football is a much different game with way fewer ofensive posessions, making each one just that much more valuable. Basketball is a bit more like hockey or soccer with MANY more offensive opportunities which, it seems to me, devalues the steal.
I think the point is this: He isn't telling you the value of going for a steal, he's measuring the value of a player who gets steals. Since he's not doing more than that, it's not worth reading more into it than that. A player who gets a point isn't inherently all that important because that point could be replaced by a different player. A steal is probably not going to be replaced - it's simply a steal that didn't happen. I think a more in-depth analysis would have to actually rely on video and motion tracking of players to evaluate attempted steals, steal percentage, and the results of what happened when a steal failed. But that's a different measurement.
Sorry folks, but I am going to brag on my boys the Chicago Bulls. They lost D. Rose (again) traded away Luol Deng, and looked like they were just going to tank. But THE best coach in the NBA, Tom Thibodeau rallied his team. They have won 6 in a row, will be shooting for 50 wins with roster that is basically Joakim Noah and spare parts, they are gelling at the right time, and if the playoff seeding falls right will be able to stomp their way to a matchup with the Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals. I have never been prouder of my boys. Go Bulls! Okay shameless homerism over..... I think that analytics can only go so far. There is a rush to quantify virtually every aspect of the game, but at some point, it is just another fact. No matter how well you game plan, the players still have to have the will and desire to win, and you cannot create a statistic to measure that will.
I think you have a legit argument for Thibs as best coach in the league -- well, were it not for Popovich. Hey uh, how's that extension going for Thibs? Not that my team needs a great coach, we're SOOOOO happy with D'Antoni. The Bulls may be proving this, this very season.
Popovich is amazing, but Thibs winning with THIS bulls team is like winning the Daytona 500 with a stock Toyota Camry. Popovich has better players, and a smarter organization behind him. As for Thibs' extension, who knows? The Bulls management is lucky to have him, but they are stingy idiots, and we just might lose him. That would make me VERY angry.
Yeah, same knock they used to use on Phil. But Pop has turned over a couple of rosters and has managed to keep his team a serious contender year in, year out -- in the west. A lot of what the Bulls are doing this season is based on players getting that psychological boost from what I call, "missing superstar syndrome" -- well that and playing in the east. If the Bulls were in the west, they might, and I say might be an eighth seed. And even when the Bulls had Rose, they still couldn't get to the Finals. Thibs is a really good coach but there is no way he is on Pop's level, at least not at this time. Now, if he gets this Bulls team into the Finals, we can talk.
I like this one from Fivethirtyeight: An analysis of the Bad Boy Pistons based on technical fouls. If you compare technical fouls relative to other teams in the same era, their two championship teams are the most ever. However, this was interesting at the end: Part two next week.