Correlation may be causation: Is Zach Randolph the worst NBA player of all time?

Now, for the next installment in my continuing series of commentaries on trades between bad franchises no one cares about, news today is that Zach Randolph has been traded by the L.A. Clippers to the Memphis Grizzlies.

How very appropriate.

As many of you may already know, I have an intense, borderline-pathological dislike for ol' Snack-Attack Zach that's particularly inexplicable considering he's never done anything in his career to hurt my hometown Bulls. Really, my only genuine beef with the guy is the utter stylelessness of his game, which helps preserve the legacy of unwatchable post-Jordan II iso-postup tuhrri-ball.

That said, I can't help but laugh over the fact that he has once again been shipped off to an arguably worse team than the already bad one he's left.

Blazers-->Knicks-->Clippers-->Grizzlies. Throughout his career, Randolph starting for your team has proven a pretty good indicator that your team's fortunes are not so good and are probably going to stay that way.

Randolph did come off the bench for playoff teams in Portland his first two years--the second of which saw him play significantly playoff minutes. Since becoming a full-time starter in his third year, however, Randolph has played for a 50-game loser every year but one--that being his first season starting with Portland, 2003-2004, which saw the Blazers finish 41-41.

Granted, Randolph hasn't been surrounded with the best of talent in that time, but I can't help but feel he's a big part of the problem. Cherrypicking a single advanced metric to prove my point, Randolph finished the year with only 3.1 win shares--good for only third on a 19-win Clippers team. The year before last, he compiled only 2.9, which put him fourth on a 23-win Knicks team. To put it another way, he was only about as valuable to the Clippers as YCS favorite (but subpar NBA player) Steve Novak and less valuable to the Knicks than Nate Robinson.

Of course, things are unlikely to improve for the Grizzlies, which could mean Randolph will have a few more 50-loss seasons on his record by the time he leaves Memphis (if the Grizzlies don't leave there first). That leads me to wonder: Who has the alltime worst winning percentage as a starter in NBA history? Is such a stat kept? If so, I would imagine big Zach is in the running.

Read more...

Dum dum dum d-d-dum dum. D-dum dum dum d-d-dum dum

So apparently there are lots of people out there convinced that the NBA playoffs are largely contingent on the concept of "pressure." At least, that seems the case, as often as the topic comes up during playoff coverage.

Who's the pressure on for this next game? The pressure's on them. No, it's on them! No... if they lose tonight, THEN the pressure will be on them. These guys are young/experienced; they don't feel pressure.

The fixation on the subject is just a tad absurd. Between-game coverage in a seven-game NBA playoff series is a pretty banal on the whole, and these mind-reader debates on "pressure" and "focus" and "energy" only accent the banality. They're the inevitable result of the repetition in a seven-game series. Once all the matchups and backstories have been entirely picked apart--by the end of Game 2 or so--there's nothing left to talk about besides pressure.

And sure. The psychological factors have an impact--especially in the NBA. But are we wasting breath trying to play mind-reader? Is it really worth debating which team feels more pressure entering Game 4 or 5 or 7 or the series itself, as if any of it can account for the ensuing outcomes?

Some pressures may be constructive for a certain player and destructive for another while another pressure might produce the reverse effect on the same two guys. Some players are at the mercy of their every emotion; some are stalwart and robotic.

But the fact remains--all athletes in all situations feel at least some degree of pressure. And even if or when two teams feel a significantly different amount of pressure, can this factor really seize control of a game's outcome? It's almost assumed that the team facing more pressure is at a disadvantage, ignoring the possibility that it could produce an advantage or, more likely, that the effects of pressure on each team will negate themselves and leave the outcome to more substantial factors.

In fact, if we tie the concept of pressure to the other favorite playoff buzzword, "energy," it would seem that teams with more pressure are at potential, though not guaranteed, advantage. Whether they're legit or not, players and coaches throughout these playoffs have regularly blamed losses on and attributed wins to energy level.

Most fans, I think, take the angle as cliche--used by players to either humor us, distract us, or protect their own psyche. Regardless, to assume that more energy (amphetamines?) leads to greater success--a dangerous assumption itself--assumes that more pressure gives a team an edge.

Recalling MEEN104: Introduction to Thermodynamics, I know that U=pV--internal energy equals the product of pressure and volume. (Take that Dr. DeGraw! Turns out I did learn something. Give me a D, will you!) Being a big believer in applying physical principles to the mind-body dynamic, I would conclude that the team with more pressure on them has the greater reserve of energy, which they expend as pressure is released (assuming that a player's volume will remain unchanged throughout the course a game, though Zach Randolph does seem to expand continuously. Then again, I doubt Zach Randolph will ever see the playoffs.)

It would seem, then, that harboring pressure, not simply feeling pressure, is the real danger for a playoff team. A team that can effectively release its pressure on the court is the team that plays with more energy, which--according to D'Antoni, Skiles, Wallace(s), Webber, Sloan, et al--leads to more victories.

In reality, that anticipatory pressure may affect a player's mindset between games, but by the 8:00 mark of the first quarter, most of that pressure gives way to the usual in-game pressures--staying with your man, passing out of a double team, hitting free throws, etc--rendering the build-up pressure talk useless.

Anyway, enough of that. Time for unsubstantiated predictions!

Spurs-Jazz: Jazz in 7 games
Pistons-Cavs: Pistons in 5 games
Tyler Perry's House of Payne: cancelled in 4 weeks

("Clean that up." "What the hell?!" Hahahaha! Where do they come up with that stuff?!?!)

Read more...