August 5, 2010
Lance Blanks & A Very Special Cavs Mystery

If you follow front office moves, you already know that today Cavs exec Lance  Blanks was hired away by Phoenix to be their new general manager. Blanks worked under Danny Ferry during his entire tenure as Cavs’ GM, along with the brief stint under Chris Grant after Ferry’s contract expired earlier this summer.

As someone who has staunchly defended the Cavs’ executives for the past several years, I find this to be an interesting moment. We all know that among most NBA fans and pundits, the perception of the franchise’s front office has been less than favorable for a long time. Ferry is still routinely blamed by the usual talking heads for hastening LeBron’s exit by trying to build a team with veteran rentals rather than young players. Practically every trade made or rumored trade NOT made has been another bullet for the critics. The consensus among the people with microphones—as well as the fans who listen to them without thinking on their own—is simple: the Cavs’ front office was a disaster. This has become Gospel.

And yet…other franchises keep offering jobs to Cavs execs!

After years as Assistant GM, Blanks—whose name only surfaced as a contender for the job last week—has now been hired away by a well-respected organization in the Suns. Danny Ferry was Paul Allen’s first choice to take over as GM of the Trailblazers about a month ago. Ferry declined, reportedly due to Allen’s similarities to Dan Gilbert in terms of the level of meddling he was capable of.  And lest we forget, Atlanta tried to hire current Cavs GM Chris Grant to be their General Manager back in 2008.  Grant declined the offer in order to stay with the Cavs as Assistant GM and VP of Basketball Operations.

Why on Earth would this happen? Well, there are three possibilities:

1) Danny Ferry secretly spent the past five years compiling a vast photo archive of owners around the league in compromising positions

2) Key decision-makers in other franchises are all complete morons who somehow managed to miss the Cavs’ execs’ obvious laundry list of bad decisions, dysfunction, and general instability that people like Bill Simmons and Chad Ford have been trumpeting for years, or…

3) Contrary to what those same scions of public opinion seem to believe, people who know basketball can see past the crap and have realized that the Cavs’ front office has consistently been pretty fucking good for a long time.

As you may guess, I happen to stand firmly in the camp #3.

One side note: Blanks’s ascension to the top post in Phoenix cements the fact that long time Spurs’ GM R.C. Buford is the Bill Parcells of NBA executives. Like Parcells, Buford’s former assistant staffers are dispersing to the highest decision-making positions in franchises around the league. Danny Ferry worked under Buford in San Antonio before being hired by Gilbert in Cleveland. Ferry brought Blanks with him from San Antonio, then promptly hired Grant away from Atlanta. Blanks has assumed the GM post in Phoenix, Grant has taken over in Cleveland, and Ferry will undoubtedly have another shot as soon as he wants it. Sam Presti worked under Buford for several years before being hired to run the Sonics, who of course then become Oklahoma City. A few weeks ago, Presti’s assistant GM Rich Cho was hired by Portland to be their new GM—the job Ferry turned down after yet another former Buford staffer, Kevin Pritchard, was fired from the job on draft night. Finally, New Orleans hired Dell Demps, another Buford disciple, away from San Antonio to assume the GM job in New Orleans. So if you count Grant thanks to his association with Ferry, 1 out of every 6 NBA teams is currently being headed by someone who can be traced back to Buford, with two former staffers (Ferry and Pritchard) having already been GMs. Pretty impressive, especially for a guy who styles himself like this.

Back to the real point.

On the one hand, I am sad to see Blanks go. His departure symbolizes the end of the brigade (Ferry, Grant, Blanks) who I came to place a great deal of trust in over the past several years. I may not have agreed with every move they made, but I also have read enough to know that some of those moves were more or less forced on them by LeBron via Dan Gilbert. I will always wonder what the team would’ve looked like had that trio been allowed to operate without restrictions, but I guess none of us will ever know. Though you can bet your ass that if I ever run into Ferry or Blanks in an airport like I did with Derek Anderson, I will go out of my way to thank them and inquire.

On the other hand, I am also very pleased to see Blanks go. Not because I wouldn’t he rather have stayed with the Cavs, but because the more success he, Danny Ferry, and other Cavs’ alumni have as the top execs in other cities, the harder it will be for ignorant critics to continue the myth that the teams’ failures during the LeBron era were the fault of the front office.

Best of luck in Phoenix, Lance. Thanks for your efforts here in C-Town. Keep fighting the good fight.

-T

March 27, 2010
Cavs / Spurs Bazooka Point

Mike, my dad, and I got into an email exchange earlier this week about potential first-round playoff opponents for the Cavs. The conversation eventually expanded to include our individual points of concern about the team heading into the post-season. Here’s what I wrote at one point in that exchange:

“I think what makes me the most nervous is that it seems like Coldstone is going to be forced to feel a lot of things out on the fly. As we all know, that’s not his strong suit as a coach.  Rotations aren’t going to be set. Players are going to have to be adaptable to who else is on the floor and figure out their role accordingly. And the guy who’s going to be coming back the latest is the one who’s presence changes the way everyone else plays most dramatically (obviously, other than Bron) .  It’s not an ideal situation.”

I bring this up because Andy Varejao left tonight’s game against the Spurs early in the second quarter due to a tweaked hamstring. Though the injury doesn’t sound like anything serious (“not a pop or a tear,” according to Windhorst), the team kept Andy out for the entire second half.

The result: the Cavs’ rotation almost immediately went to hell. Though they kept the game close, the team spent a lot of the second half looking a little confused about who was on the floor and what their roles were supposed to be. The cracks didn’t become fatal until the 4th, when Manu Ginobili turned into Pete Maravich and the Cavs made some uncharacteristic mistakes down the stretch.

It was a winnable game even without Andy. But I can’t get too upset when both the Lakers and Jazz got absolutely embarrassed on the same night.

Cavs are home against the Kings on Sunday. Adjust your schedules accordingly.

-T

March 8, 2010
Cavs-Spurs Bazooka Point

Tonight’s question has to do with streak shooting, specifically how to value a hypothetical player who - over the course of 82 games - shot something like 80% in 41 of the games and 20% in the others, resulting in an overall shooting percentage of 50%, which I think we all would agree, is very good, especially if he is playing the 1 or the 2 (for reference 43.6% is average this season for guards).

Would you be okay with this guy on your team, or would you prefer to have a guy who shot, say, 60% in one half of his games and 40% in the other?

As far as I know, none of the advanced stats account for consistency. And it may be because numbers-minded analysts/journalists/fans don’t believe in “the hot hand” or the consistency of streakiness … and, to go one step further, I’m not sure there is any empirical evidence to support the existence of extremely streaky shooters…

But I would sure like to know if there was.

The general idea is that an extremely streaky shooter would help your team win by a bunch of points some nights and help them lose by a bunch of points other nights. The overall effect would probably be the same either way (or, for that matter, if a team had a player who shot exactly 50% every single night). Since a team’s point differential is the best predictor of future success, i.e. winning percentage, winning two games by 1 point each or winning one game by 20 points and losing another by 18 points says the same thing, statistically speaking, about the quality of a team.

Of course, that would all change in the playoffs because you can’t wait 82 games for things to even out.

My gut tells me I’d rather have the consistent shooter for that exact reason … but, then again, I might also want the streaky shooter, just so long as I can guarantee that he’s streaking for the Conference Finals and the Finals.

Oh yeah, the Cavs beat the Spurs by two points tonight, after Mo Williams made a couple of key free throws :)