Blogtable

Blogtable: Build with offense or defense?

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: Build with offense or defense? | Who will get traded? | Your All-Star starters



VIDEOGameTime’s crew breaks down the Sacramento Kings’ coaching situation

> Sacramento GM Pete D’Alessandro says he wants to see his team play at a faster pace. What’s a better foundation for a championship team — a high-scoring offense, or a stout defense?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.comGive me a stout defense. So much of a team’s and an individual’s success in this league (anywhere, really) hinges on the honing of habits. Come playoff time, possessions become more precious, pace throttles down and defense becomes more important, and I don’t see a Paul Westhead approach suddenly downshifting to out-stingy teams that have been playing that way all year. You want to make the highlight reels and fill a new building? High-octane offense is great. You want to win titles? Defense is king (even if it’s not Kings).

Fran Blinebury, NBA.comThe truth, of course, is balance, but defense carries more weight. Say a top 10-ranked offense, but a defense in the top five. By the way, the past two years, the Spurs have been 7th and 3rd, respectively.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: High-scoring works, as the Spurs reminded last season, but defense has to be the foundation, as pretty much everyone reminds every season. A good defense leads to offense, as in easy transition baskets. Offenses will have bad nights, whether because of self-induced problems or the opponent, but a potent defense rarely breaks down.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: The obvious answer is that it takes some of both to have any shot at a title, but of course, a defensive team will always have a slight edge in the postseason, when the court shrinks and rotations tighten. Going back to what D’Alessandro said for a minute: Your offensive system must always cater to the talent on hand. In theory, everyone wants to run. In reality, not everyone is equipped to run. The Grizzlies, for example, don’t push the ball often because they lack the Ferraris. But last I looked, they’re sitting pretty in the West, looking down on Sacramento.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: More teams have reached The Finals with a top-10 defense than with a top-10 offense. You have to be great on both ends of the floor to win a title, but last season’s Heat and Spurs each showed us the importance of defense. Still, as the only team that has been below average on both ends of the floor for each of the last eight years, the Kings have to take what they can get. Find something that works and build on it. Fortunately for them, DeMarcus Cousins has developed into an anchor on both ends of the floor. But they need to surround him with a better supporting cast, the right coach, and some stability.

Sekou Smith, NBA.comA stout defense has to be the bedrock for a championship team. For teams that want to be exciting, draw eyeballs and get fans in the seats, a high-scoring offense is fine. The Phoenix Suns of the Mike D’Antoni era come to mind when I think of a team that could fill it up and had the appearance of a championship team, that is until they ran back to the other end of the court and couldn’t slow anyone down. I think a team that has to work overtime on offense to be legitimate can be a championship team with an elite defense. I have yet to see a team that can do the same on the flip side (an offensive juggernaut with defensive deficiencies). Ideally, it’s best to have the sort of balance the Texas teams (Dallas Mavericks and San Antonio Spurs) that have won championships recently possessed. As for the Kings, all the pace and points in the world won’t help you if you can’t lock down and get stops when you need them.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: You need both, and for a team like the Kings — who haven’t been in the playoffs since 2006 — it doesn’t matter whether the offense or defense is established first. Just be good at something. Establish a winning identity, and then fill in at the weak spots. The Mavericks did it that way: They learned how to win and then added the defensive mindset. The Kings have no business thinking about championships right now; their first job is to win more games than they lose, and to establish a defining strength — somewhere, anywhere.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blogWhy does it have to be one or the other? A high-scoring attack is great — it’s fun to watch, it’s attractive to casual fans. But unless you have an above-average defense to go along with it, you don’t have much to fall back on when the offense inevitably slows. And for all the talk about wanting a more uptempo offense, the thing is the Kings weren’t a very good defensive team last season (they finished with a 109.5 defensive rating), and they haven’t been much better this year. (108.2). Bottom line, the Kings have a long way to go on both ends of the court before we start talking championships.

Blogtable: Your All-Star starters

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: Build with offense or defense? | Who will get traded? | Your All-Star starters



VIDEO: The Starters reveal their early All-Star starter picks

> You’ll get a chance to you change your mind in about three weeks, but give me your starting five (East and West) for February’s All-Star Game, based ONLY on performance this season.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: The guys I think earned it in the West are names who might actually get enough votes in the real balloting: Stephen Curry and James Harden in the backcourt, Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and LaMarcus Aldridge in the frontcourt. Out East, I’m not sure my five all would prevail in the popularity contest but on merit, they should go: John Wall and Kyle Lowry at guard, with LeBron James, Pau Gasol and Kyle Korver up front. Korver, you ask? He’s having a season to make analytics fans swoon, someone from Atlanta deserves a spot and I like the idea of two Kyles in a five-man lineup.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.comEast: Kyrie Irving, Kyle Lowry, LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Pau Gasol. West: Stephen Curry, James Harden, Anthony Davis, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol. Durability counts, that’s why Dwyane Wade loses out to Irving and DeMarcus Cousins to Marc Gasol.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.comEast: LeBron James, Pau Gasol and Chris Bosh (forwards), Jimmy Butler and Kyle Lowry (guards). West: Anthony Davis, Marc Gasol and DeMarcus Cousins (forwards), Stephen Curry and James Harden (guards). The option to change my mind in three weeks comes in especially handy with Cousins. If he returns strong from the viral meningitis, he holds the spot. If he struggles physically for long, his place becomes more precarious. It gets even worse if the Kings continue to drop in the standings — which dooms Carmelo Anthony on the East front line –or Cousins has a choppy adjustment to the Kings’ coaching change increased emphasis on playing up-tempo. Blake Griffin and LaMarcus Aldridge are waiting.

Shaun Powell, NBA.comWest: James Harden, Steph Curry, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, Marc Gasol. Pretty clear-cut there. They’ve been healthy and productive. East: Kyle Lowry, John Wall, LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony. Yeah, folks will hold their nose about ‘Melo, but that’s more because of the Knicks. He’s No. 6 in scoring and the East is lacking in star power on the front line.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Going by the positions on the ballot (veiled shot at my colleagues who included Lowry, Wall and Butler) … East guards: Kyle Lowry and John Wall.  East frontcourt: LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Pau Gasol. West guards: Stephen Curry and James Harden. West frontcourt: Marc Gasol, Anthony Davis and Tim Duncan. Duncan gets my final spot in the crowded West frontcourt (for now), because he’s more of a two-way player than LaMarcus Aldridge and his minutes are over 30 per game this season.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Based only on performance, in the East it has to be Kyle Lowry, John Wall, Jimmy Butler, LeBron James and Pau Gasol. In the Western Conference, where a preposterous surplus of candidates for five spots, I’m going with Stephen Curry, James Harden, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin and Marc Gasol. I don’t think I’ll need that mulligan in three weeks either, even with Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant coming on the way they are for Oklahoma City and Kobe Bryant playing the way he has all season. I want to reserve my injury replacement spot for Klay Thompson, too. He’s been that good this season and the Warriors are rocking. He belongs in New York for the festivities.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: In the East, I’ve got LeBron James, Pau Gasol and Chris Bosh in the frontcourt, with Kyle Lowry and Jimmy Butler in the backcourt. In the West, it’s Marc Gasol, LaMarcus Aldridge and Anthony Davis up front, with James Harden and Stephen Curry in the backcourt.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blogEast: John Wall, Kyle Lowry, LeBron James, Jimmy Butler, Chris Bosh. If I could put Kobe at the 3, I would, because I think he deserves to make the starting five. But there are literally only two players in the West that I’d rate ahead of him, and they are both guards. Sorry, Mamba. West: Steph Curry, James Harden, Anthony Davis, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marc Gasol

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: A looming trade?

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: Build with offense or defense? | Who will get traded? | Your All-Star starters



VIDEOShould the Warriors think about dealing David Lee?

> Give me a name or two, guys who you think almost certainly will be traded between now and the Feb. 19 trade deadline.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.comLance Stephenson back to Indiana as a do-over of sorts would be interesting, because it’s not something we’ve seen often (ever?). David Lee done got “Wally Pipped” in Golden State – the team didn’t miss him and might be better without him – so he’d be a likely suspect to move, if someone were willing to swallow his contract. I would have said Ersan Ilyasova for sure until Jabari Parker went down, thinning the Bucks’ frontcourt.  If LeBron James wants Corey Brewer, then I’d imagine Brewer will be headed to Cleveland for something or other. Then there’s Greg Monroe, though any trade would hinge on his determination to leave Detroit (no more Bird rights) and the Pistons’ asking price for a half-season of his services.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.comLance Stephenson and Dion Waiters. It seems there wasn’t a bigger mistake made during the offseason than the Hornets trying to add Stephenson as a pinch of spice. He’s been a bad fit since Day One and team owner Michael Jordan would most likely enjoy a shot at a do-over. The bad blood between Waiters and point guard Kyrie Irving might be in the past, but Waiters is still most often like a fifth wheel on the Cavs’ machine and is likely never going to stop being frustrating.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.comIt’s tough not to think Lance Stephenson right away. The contract is very moveable — $27 million over three seasons, but the final campaign as a team option — and Stephenson can be a productive player, certainly more productive than he has shown so far in Charlotte. It’s early in the relationship, but the Hornets can’t wait much longer before deciding it’s a bad fit. Separately, the Pistons are a candidate to trade. Offloading Josh Smith would be an ideal scenario, but he won’t bring much in return. Greg Monroe is a possibility, before he becomes a free agent, but not at a fire-sale discount. He’ll still cost.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: There are dozens of players that teams want to dump, but for various reasons might be unable to do so. Case in point: Josh Smith, Pistons. Anyway, my candidates: Gerald Green, because the Suns may not want to pay him; Arron Afflalo, because his return to Denver has been largely a bust; Corey Brewer, because the Wolves will be crummy with or without him; and finally Lance Stephenson, just because.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: There are a lot of guys who teams don’t want anymore, and there are a lot of guys that other teams desire. But Draft pick compensation and the heftiness of certain contracts (hello, Joe Johnson) often get in the way of potential deal. Dion Waiters, in my opinion, should fall into the first category and is still on an easily-tradeable rookie contract. So I see him as the most likely to move. The Cavs need defense and have plenty of guards — Matthew Dellavedova, Joe Harris, James Jones and Mike Miller — who can absorb Waiters’ minutes.

Sekou Smith, NBA.comJosh Smith and Lance Stephenson serve as the easy picks and for good reason. I think one or both of them will certainly be on the move. There is no doubt they’re both being shopped by their respective teams. They are both talents with skills that will be coveted by teams convinced that they’ll be able to clean up whatever messes they’ve made in the past. Neither one of them is a great (or even good) fit in their current situations. The Pistons aren’t going anywhere this season, so they might as well start the rebuilding process at the deadline. The Hornets had high hopes and had them dashed early. They need to free themselves of Stephenson and allow him to start fresh elsewhere as well. My wild card at the deadline is the Phoenix Suns. They had a glut of point guards and should take a hard look at which one of them is expendable.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.comI’m going to say Josh Smith and any other number of Pistons. The coach has the authority to make trades in Detroit, and after complaining steadily about the effort of his players, Stan Van Gundy isn’t going to allow the trade deadline to pass him by.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blogI wouldn’t be surprised to see the Knicks move Amar’e Stoudemire. He’s playing better basketball than he’s played in years, and could lend a hand on a contending team in need of frontcourt depth. Plus, with a $19 million expiring contract, maybe the Knicks can get something of value for him that will help with their rebuild going forward.

Blogtable: MJ vs. Kobe

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: MJ vs. Kobe | Golden in Golden State | Nets’ Trade Options



VIDEO: Fan Night crew on Kobe passing Jordan

> The Kobe Bryant-Michael Jordan comparisons have bubbled up again this week, and those two certainly share a lot of similarities. But what is the biggest difference in their games? In their careers?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Kobe Bryant is to Michael Jordan as Vic Damone was to Frank Sinatra. I know that reference is dated, like something left over from Larry King’s dot-dot-dot column for USA Today. But the comparison is apt. Jordan, like Sinatra, was the original, while Bryant, like Damone, was the copy. Skilled, technically proficient, maybe even superior in a talent or two. But not original. Heck, Bryant even mimicked Jordan’s mannerisms, way of speaking, etc., before developing a little more of his own voice and style in recent years. He was just too literal in the “next Michael” thing, meaning we’d been there, seen that with most of his exploits.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: After his high-flying younger days, Jordan developed a mid-range and post-up game that was dependable, deadly and virtually peerless and thrived on it down to that very last Bulls shot over Bryon Russell. Bryant has those same skills, but still tends to take more “hero ball” 3-point shots.  At the other end, Jordan was just a better shut-down defender, case closed.  You can probably sum up the difference in their careers with two words: Scottie Pippen.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: There are very few differences, one of the reasons it is such a debate. But there are two exceptions in the timeline department: Bryant went to the NBA from high school while Jordan arrived not only with three seasons of college ball, but three seasons at North Carolina with Dean Smith. MJ had the important head start of being more mature and the lessons from a structured program. (Although Bryant was mature far behind his 17 years at the time of the draft. He was focused and a worker.) And, Kobe has played straight through. He didn’t have retirements along the way. He kept stacking big minutes on top of big minutes until he was far ahead of Jordan in that category.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Jordan was an above-average defender almost until the end, before his knees were shot. He took pride in making stops and even guarding the other team’s best shooter (Reggie Miller, etc.). His strip of Karl Malone moments before sinking the game-winner for his sixth title remains the most underrated play in league history. Kobe, on the other hand, stopped giving effort on defense years ago. As for their careers, Jordan was much more of a cultural force than Kobe ever was, impacting fashion, endorsements, etc. And he has one more ring.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: The biggest difference in their games was on defense, where Jordan was more consistent, especially in regard to off-the-ball focus. Jordan was also a better shooter and more efficient scorer. The biggest difference in their careers was that Jordan was the best player on six championship teams, while Bryant was the best player on two. With MJ, we’ll always wonder what would have happened if he didn’t retire the first time. With Kobe, we’ll wonder how good he could have been if he trusted his teammates a little more.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: The biggest difference in their games to me has always come in the commitment on the defensive side of the ball. Jordan played defense the same way he played offense and every other part of the game, like his life depended on him being better at it than anyone else on the floor every night. Kobe has always struck me as a convenient defender, a guy who could go into lock down mode whenever he wanted and has done exactly that for the better part of the past two decades. As for their careers, Jordan was always the alpha dog in the locker room and on the court. Six championships. Six Finals MVPs. And no debate about it. Kobe, by virtue of when he entered the league, was stuck in little brother mode with Shaq and didn’t get his Finals MVP stripes until later.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Jordan was the more efficient scorer, which had something to do with the difference in eras. Bryant attempted threes twice as often as his idol, in part because the quality of defense had grown more sophisticated throughout the NBA. During Bryant’s more recent run of contention, the best teams were more talented than the opposition that Jordan faced in the 1990s. Each was a product of the time in which he played.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: To me the most obvious difference is Kobe’s longevity and his ability to play at a very high level even now, in his 19th season. I saw Jordan in 2003 when he was with the Wizards, and sure, he averaged 20 ppg, but he wasn’t as athletic as Kobe is today. Other than that, it’s hard for me to pinpoint differences. They are so similar that it can be uncanny, which isn’t a terrible thing. As my friend Russ Bengtson once wrote, Jordan may have created the blueprint, but Kobe, more than anyone else who was compared to MJ in some way or another, was able to ride the blueprint to the greatest degree of success.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/PhilippinesIn terms of their games, MJ was more of a slasher especially in his younger days and he goes for the most simplest moves to score although they have the same skill set and moves, Kobe opts for the more difficult shot most of the times but he is also the best at making the most impossible contested fade-away jumpers. Their careers follow almost the same arc in the sense of interchanging their timelines. Kobe was successful early on his career and got the rings and now he is a tireless scorer trying to lead his team into contention with his competitive drive, compared to MJ who was trying so hard to will his team to champion contention before getting all the accolades late in his career. You can mirror it upside down and it’s almost the same.

Guillermo Garcia, NBA.com/MexicoThe difference between the two, is that Jordan was better defensively, who took a team that hadn’t yet had much of a reputation — in Chicago — and made it a global name.

Simon Legg, NBA.com/AustraliaOne difference that stands out, and Phil Jackson has mentioned it before, is the way they both led their teams. Jordan was more charismatic and seemed to enjoy his one-on-one time with teammates. Kobe is a little different and has taken time to be more open with the guys around him. From a playing perspective, it’s hard to separate their styles but one thing that always stands out is their efficiency. Bryant simply hasn’t been able to match Jordan’s efficiency and the 10 scoring titles to two kind of proves that.

Akshay Manwani, NBA.com/IndiaIn terms of games, Jordan was definitely the more well-rounded player. His scoring, rebounding, assists and steals averages are all better than Bryant. That is why Jordan is considered the most fundamentally-sound basketball player ever. The one difference that works in Bryant’s favour is that he launched nearly three times as many 3-point attempts (5005) as Jordan’s (1778), with slightly better consistency (33.4 percent to 32.7 percent). In terms of their careers, the obvious difference is that Bryant came straight out of high school into the league, which probably explains the longer time he took to mature as a player. But the more important difference to me is the two-year hiatus that Jordan took, right when he was at the peak of his game, with the Bulls having won three in a row. Had Jordan played those years, would it be impossible to imagine Chicago winning eight straight titles? Also, unlike Bryant, who was Shaquille O’Neal’s lieutenant in the Lakers’ title winning years of 2000-2002, MJ was the undisputed numero uno star on the Bulls’ teams.

Stefan Petri, NBA.com/DeutschlandCan I opt for the different colors of their jerseys? No? I that case I would single out MJ’s superior defense: While Jordan was a lockdown defender for many years and still very good during his last run with the Bulls, Kobe has always relied more on his athleticism and gambled for steals – and nowadays it’s matador defense with him. Another aspect is Jordan’s jaw-dropping efficiency: Although the last two seasons in Washington weighed on his numbers, he nonetheless finished his career shooting almost 50 percent from the field. Bryant on the other hand never eclipsed 47 percent over the course of one season. For what it’s worth: In my eyes Kobe is the better shooter from downtown, though his shot selection leaves much to be desired.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/GreeceRegarding their playing style their biggest difference was bulk. Michael Jordan as he grew older he started using his upper body strength more and more, dominating with his shoulders. He weighted 10 lbs more than Kobe and was a player that thrived after contact. As for their game approach the biggest difference comes around to their different aspect of leadership and they way the affect their team and their opponents. It’s not a matter of number-crunching, but more of a contrast of wins and rings.

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: Golden In Golden State

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: MJ vs. Kobe | Golden in Golden State | Nets’ Trade Options



VIDEO: Inside The NBA: How good are the Warriors?

> The Warriors are off to their best start ever. Did the coaching change make that much of a difference, or was this team destined for greatness, no matter the coaching staff?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: This is a players’ league, so the easy answer would be, this is Golden State’s next logical step. Klay Thompson has emerged as one of the league’s best shooting guards, Stephen Curry and Andrew Bogut have been (mostly) healthy, Draymond Green has raised his game, Marreese Speights has been a nice surprise to ease David Lee’s absence, and so on. But there’s no denying credit to Steve Kerr and the staff he has put together, including Ron Adams and Alvin Gentry. Coaching does matter – and so do Kerr’s smarts and self-effacing manner, the latter a notable change from Mark Jackson’s demeanor.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Not to diminish anything that Steve Kerr has done, but the Warriors were on an upward flight and what’s allowed them to soar is the overall improvement by Klay Thompson and, most important, the health of Andrew Bogut.  The presence of Bogut in the lineup for a full season and the playoffs makes the Warriors a true title contender.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: We won’t know about “greatness” until June. This was going to be a good team no matter what — Mark Jackson proved he could deliver — but, yes, Steve Kerr and his staff deserve a lot of credit for the great start. They would have gotten the blame if things went south, so they get the praise as well. Better ball movement was a 2014-15 priority, and Kerr has made it happen. There are other factors, though. Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson have both improved from last season, as if they weren’t already good enough. Andrew Bogut has been a huge factor, especially on defense. Marreese Speights has been a big bench presence. Andre Iguodala did not pout when he was moved into a reserve role. They were all part of 50-win teams in Golden State before.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: I wouldn’t demean Steve Kerr by saying anyone could coach this team, but the Warriors were ready to make the leap to serious contender before he blew into town. Mark Jackson made them a better defensive team and his biggest “crime” was an inability to reach the conference finals which, by the way, is how we’ll judge Kerr this season. Fair enough?

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: The Warriors’ success is a mix of talent, Mark Jackson’s coaching and Steve Kerr’s coaching. There’s just a terrific mix of skills and size among the top seven guys (eight when David Lee’s healthy) in their rotation. Jackson guided them a top-five ranking on defense and Kerr has been smart not to mess with that side of the ball. But he deserves credit for bringing more ball movement to their offense, which also ranks in the top five this season, as well as making a lineup change (Harrison Barnes starting) that has worked out so well.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: The Warriors are a beautiful mix of wicked talent at basically every position, an overall vision of how that group would play and the keen coaching eye of Steve Kerr and his predecessor, Mark Jackson, both of whom are smart enough to recognize what they’re working with and refraining from the urge to overcoach. Kerr could have come in and tried to reinvent the game for Steph Curry, Klay Thompson and the boys. Wisely, he tweaked some things and made some subtle moves (and had others made for him, namely Draymond Green ‘s emergence in place of an injured David Lee) while also allowing an already accomplished team continue its ascent. Sometimes the smartest thing a good new coach can do is curb his enthusiasm to fix what doesn’t need fixing.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Mark Jackson established their defensive-minded foundation, and Steve Kerr built up from that base by turning those defensive stops into more efficient possessions. So each coach deserves credit: the Warriors are cleaning up because Jackson and Kerr have turned out to be indispensable.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: It’s easy to credit all of Golden State’s success to Steve Kerr stepping onto the sideline. And Kerr definitely deserves a lot of credit — he’s putting players in the right positions to be ultra-successful and they have shown no signs of slowing down from their hot start. But I don’t think you can overlook the personal development shown by players like Draymond Green, Klay Thompson, and even Stephen Curry, particularly Curry and Klay. As good as those two were a season ago, they put in work and showed up this season improved from where they ended last season.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/PhilippinesThey have the personnel to be great but the coaching change also helped a lot, they were predictable last year compared to their tempo this year with more passing and moving, also they are utilizing Andrew Bogut more, who is a great-passing big man. With everyone sharing the basketball it makes them more harder to stop while gives everyone the motivation to play harder on defense.

Guillermo Garcia, NBA.com/MexicoIf you’re looking for the one major difference, Steve Kerr has gotten this team to play even better defensively — a process that Jackson, no doubt, started.

Simon Legg, NBA.com/AustraliaI don’t think we can say this team was destined for greatness regardless of who was at the helm, they needed the right teacher to steer them in the right direction. Despite creating an elite defense, Mark Jackson was not the guy to make this happen. Think of all the scoring firepower and natural talent on this team, then look at their offensive rating last season. How can a team with the Splash Brothers, Andre Iguodala, David Lee and Andrew Bogut’s elite interior passing and the rest of the guys rank 12th in offensive efficiency? Steve Kerr has kept the fundamentals defensively, and then completely flipped the script on their offensive philosophy. It’s about passing and moving, not about Steph Curry or Klay Thompson chewing up the shot clock with isos. Kerr has also brought the best out of Bogut, a guy who has always been thought of as an elite passer, but he never had the chance to showcase this in Oakland. The locker room looks like a happier place, and the players enjoy the approach of their new coach.

Akshay Manwani, NBA.com/IndiaThe change in coaching staff has definitely made the greater impact on the Warriors’ fortunes this season.  The Warriors were always talented which is why they could make it to the playoffs in the past two seasons purely on Mark Jackson’s emotionally-charged coaching style. This season, though, the Warriors are much better on the offensive and the defensive ends. They have the best net rating of +12.8 in the league. That doesn’t happen just with talent. Steve Kerr has to be complimented for that. Bringing Andre Iguodala off the bench has been another one of his minor tweakings, which has paid off big time for the Warriors. Yes sir, the coaching change has made the bigger difference.

Stefan Petri, NBA.com/DeutschlandIt’s both. This is not meant to be a knock against Mark Jackson, who was a terrific motivator in his own right, but Steve Kerr learned from the very best in Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich. Plus, he profits from his time as President and GM in Phoenix. Still: Let’s judge him once he gets his feet wet in the playoffs. On the other hand Steph Curry and Klay Thompson were bound to improve, Andrew Bogut has stayed healthy and David Lee’s injury might have been a blessing in disguise. Let me go out on a limb and say: The team would have made another step with Jackson as well, but it wouldn’t have been this good.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/GreeceMark Jackson is an unlucky man. He was the coach that worked hard to built the team that know is off to their best start ever. It’s the same core of players that grew up and stepped up this year. But, of course the new coach, Steve Kerr, has to be given credit, because he tried to put his coaching touch in the playing style of the Warriors, without messing up the chemistry that was already there.

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: Nets’ Trade Options

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: MJ vs. Kobe | Golden in Golden State | Nets’ Trade Options


nets-121015

> Put your GM glasses on here: If the Nets really are looking to break up their current roster, who’s the one player they have who you find irresistible?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: A player is only irresistible if he fits the team he’s with. If I’m in the league’s bottom half, a club trying to rise, then I want Mason Plumlee, who has size, youth and a couple of years’ worth of veteran influence on his game and know-how. If I’m higher up on the NBA food chain, I want Kevin Garnett. OK, this is a bit sentimental for me, but as far as ferocity and defensive intensity, there’d be no one better to keep the fire burning under my players’ butts. He’s no bargain at $12 million but it’s an expiring contract, while Joe Johnson, Deron Williams and Brook Lopez all make more and carry future obligations. (In Lopez’s case, there’s the injury factor).

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Does Beyonce count?  Queen B must stay at courtside.  But even the Hubble Space Telescope can’t see far or deep enough to make a single member of that roster “irresistible.” Not one.  That was the folly of last year’s declaration that the Nets were contenders.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: There is no such thing as irresistible on that roster. I am most intrigued, though, by Brook Lopez because of the lure of the center. He can be an All-Star, he can score and he is still just 26. The injuries are the obvious concern. As a GM, I would be giving up decent assets and taking on big money while I wouldn’t have great confidence my team would get 70 games a season from Lopez.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: The only thing I’d love to have is the war chest that Billy King gets to work with. Otherwise, this roster is a mishmash of project players, geezers and former All-Stars who are overpriced and maxed out. It was shocking that King, who overpaid players in Philly, landed this job and it’ll be surprising if he keeps it much longer.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: If we’re talking about the whole roster, then Mirza Teletovic is the answer. Shooting is so critical, and he’s a great shooter who makes less than $3.5 million this season. Nearly every team in the league could use him as a rotation piece at that price, but the Nets would be silly to give him away. If we’re just looking at the Johnson/Lopez/Williams trio, none of them is all that irresistible at their price tags. Johnson has the best combination of skills and durability, and the Clippers and Hawks (ironically) are examples of teams that could use his size and scoring on the wing, but good luck finding a workable trade with that contract.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Irresistible is a loaded word. And one that I hesitate to use when scanning the Nets’ roster. The best values on their roster right now, in terms of salary and production, are no doubt Jarrett Jack and Mirza Teletovic. Jack has a reasonable salary ($6.3 million) for a veteran point guard of his quality. He’s been an asset everywhere he’s played and that’s not lost on front office types around the league. Teletovic is no youngster (29) but with his size and shooting stroke from distance, could fit in any system anywhere around the league. I won’t even disrespect the GM game by mentioning the Nets’ other “stars” who are either so grossly overpaid or so far over the hill that they caricatures of their former selves.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: For a contender trying to win right now, Kevin Garnett is the most attractive Net – but would he accept a midseason trade? The best (and only?) move may be to package some of the younger talent for another veteran and therefore go all in with this old roster. It makes sense to make a run at the East this year while the conference is so weak, but it also means the risk of digging an even deeper hole.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Oh man. Well, if I’m a GM, to me Deron Williams and Brook Lopez have had too many injury issues for me to bank on them, and Kevin Garnett just doesn’t have much left in the tank. Joe Johnson would be an interesting fit with a team that needs a wing player — like the Clippers — but his contract (nearly $50 million until the summer of 2016) will make him hard to move unless the luxury tax number moves. I’d probably be most interested in a guy like Jarrett Jack. He’s versatile enough to play the 1 or the 2, he can score or facilitate, he at least gives effort on defense, and his contract is relatively economical ($6.3 million).

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/PhilippinesMason Plumlee is the best bet right now, although if Brook Lopez can stay healthy he would be the best cornerstone for this franchise. Plumlee showed his talent in the Team USA this past summer and it seems like he has the right mindset and work ethic to continue to improve.

Guillermo Garcia, NBA.com/MexicoBrook Lopez. There are few top-tier centers in the league, and to me, I wouldn’t get rid of one of them without a very good offer.

Simon Legg, NBA.com/AustraliaAt age 26, and with some significant injuries behind him, Brook Lopez could be a game changer for someone. There’s elements of his game that need improvement, like rebounding and defense but if a team with the right defensive system could poach him, who’s to say he wouldn’t impact them in a huge way? There’s also the fact that he is a nightmare to match up on, he’s decent in the post and when his jump shot is working (it hasn’t been as good to start the season) he becomes tough to stop with his ability to stretch the defense.

Akshay Manwani, NBA.com/India
The very fact that the Nets have reportedly put their three biggest assets Deron Williams, Brook Lopez and Joe Johnson on the trading block shows that none of their players are really irresistible. Kevin Garnett could be playing his last season in the league. There are talks of Andrei Kirlenko going to the Philadelphia 76ers. Really, the Nets bought into these names based on a lot of potential (the only exception being Garnett, who was on the last leg of a glorious career), but none of them have delivered commensurate to being termed irresistible.

Stefan Petri, NBA.com/Deutschland
Slim pickings. It’s not that the Nets don’t have serviceable players. It’s that they’d want to get rid of big contracts like Deron Williams, Brook Lopez or Joe Johnson. Jarret Jack is a nice piece at about six million per year, as is Mirza Teletovic. If those two were unavailable I might take a hard look at Andrei Kirilenko: Ak47 is an expiring contract and at 33 years old might still have something left in the tank. He is in dire need of a change of scenery and might be salvageable in the right situation.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/GreeceThat has to be Brook Lopez. No disrespect to Deron Williams or Joe Johnson, but you cannot find many players than can be a low-post force, that are 26 years old and not named Tim Duncan. He is a player that any franchise can built around, surrounding him with the right pieces. D-Will has super-star quality and Johnson is a scorer that can be as clutch as it gets, but in my opinion the really hard-to-find piece of the puzzle is the gifted big man.

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: Charlotte vs. New York

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: The best 2s | Charlotte vs. New York | A sweet 16



VIDEO: Brent Barry breaks down what is going wrong with the Charlotte Hornets

> Charlotte or New York: Which is better equipped to actually make a run at the playoffs? Do you see that team making it?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Charlotte still is in better shape, in my view. I’m more surprised by their miserable start, which means I considered them a better team going in. Nothing has changed there, though the Lance Stephenson funk is different from what I expected (I thought he’d stats-hunt and neglect teamwork while posting big numbers. Uh, not so much…) Generally, I like the Hornets’ roster better and their ability to defend, and I do think they’ll snag a low seed. The Knicks, not so much – on all fronts.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: The Hornets have the better 1-2 combination of Al Jefferson and Kemba Walker. If they can figure out a way to harness Lance Stephenson and rookie Noah Vonleh gets his legs, they’ve simply got a deeper lineup than the Carmelo Anthony and the Knicks. And living in the Eastern Conference, you’re never out of it in December.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Charlotte. I still think the Hornets make it, but the bad start confirms a lot of the preseason worries they would take a step back this season. Losing Josh McRoberts to the Heat in free agency was bigger than most people realize. That’s still a better team than the Knicks, though. Getting Michael Kidd-Gilchrist back will help the defense. The healthy guards need to heal as well — Kemba Walker and/or Lance Stephenson have to start hitting shots.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: The Knicks are about tapped out in terms of a ceiling. Most of their core players are either at their peak or on the downside, unlike the Hornets, mostly loaded with young players who still have growth potential. Anything is possible in the East, including both teams reaching the playoffs, but for now I’ll go with the Hornets in a fight for the seventh or eighth spot.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Charlotte has the better chance. Though the Hornets need shooting, they have the tools to be at least somewhat successful on both ends of the floor. With the return of Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and maybe a timely trade, they can definitely be in the mix for one of the last couple of playoff spots. The Knicks have too many bad defenders and their offense has been hindered by the Triangle, or at least their ability to run it smoothly.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Playoffs? Did you really say “playoffs” … I’ll have two slices of that pie in the sky you were nibbling on when you cooked this question up. Neither one of these teams is currently on a playoff track, and barring a Christmas miracle I don’t see either one of them making that push. The Knicks have systemic issues that have been well documented. As to what went wrong in Charlotte, it’s a bit more complicated. The Hornets’ chemistry from a year ago is gone. It went up in smoke sometime between them presenting an offer sheet to Gordon Hayward and them adding Lance Stephenson instead. You don’t come back from this sort of chemistry hiccup without tinkering with the chemistry again (via a trade), which is another gamble for a team flat on its back after the first month of the season.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: The Hornets spent last year successfully developing Steve Clifford’s system. They have a better chance of resolving their chemistry problems because they’re committed to making this group work. The Knicks have no such commitment to this team: They have a new system and new leadership and can’t wait to start tearing up their roster.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Charlotte. The Knicks are a project, and they have a distance to travel both on the court and in regard tot heir roster. I know the Hornets are brutal right now on both sides of the ball, but they have a system that works, a coach who got his team to the playoffs a season ago, and most importantly, a deep group of talented players. Maybe there are some chemistry issues and fundamental things to figure out, but the Hornets should be able to shake through their issues and get on the winning track. And in the Eastern Conference, you’re never really out of the puzzle.

Davide Chinellato, NBA.com/Italy: I don’t have much faith in either of these two teams’ postseason hopes. But if I had to, I’d pick the Hornets over the Knicks to make a run at the playoffs. New York is a lost cause right know: learning a new system with a bunch of players who either don’t believe in it or are not fit for it it’s almost impossible. Even if you have two legends like Phil Jackson and Derek Fisher trying to convince you it’s the right thing to do. The Hornets were supposed to fight for a top 4 spot in the East: they have a playoff roster, they just need to find out a way to convince Lance Stephenson to fit into their system. Steve Clifford, with some help from His Airness, Michael Jordan, could make it.

Simon Legg, NBA.com/Australia: Definitely the Hornets. They’ve started terribly but their schedule has been incredibly tough. Steve Clifford built an elite defense last season that revolved around stopping easy transition baskets, they’ve gone away from that this season but Michael Kidd-Gilchrist’s injury hasn’t helped. They’ll improve defensively, it’s on the offensive end that I’m concerned. If they can bring in a little more shooting they may be able to turn things around here. I wasn’t one to get excited about this team in the offseason, Lance Stephenson wasn’t going to suddenly remedy their problems and losing Josh McRoberts was big. Right now, neither team will probably make the playoffs, but clearly if you have to choose one, I’m not banking on the Knicks!

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/Greece: Make the playoffs? No I don’t think so. Charlotte has a better roster, despite the fact that they lack a star with Melo’s caliber. They have a solid core (Gary Neal, Al Jefferson, Stephenson, Walker), but still are missing important parts to become an playoff team. Perhaps what they are missing is a Lance Stephenson’s Indiana days. He is not shooting well and the team needs him to step up.

Nacho Albarrán, NBA.com/Espana: New York, but the road to the playoffs will be tough, and we not sure if they will make it.

Karan Madhok, NBA.com/India: Because of their balance, depth, familiarity with the system, and defensive strengths, I think Charlotte is more likely to be a playoff team this season than New York. They have had a tough start to the season for sure, but the season is long and the East is weak: the Hornets have enough talent between Al Jefferson, Kemba Walker, MKG, and Lance Stephenson to sharpen their rough edges in time for making a successful playoff run.

Juan Carlos Campos Rodriguez, NBA.com/Mexico: New York. They have the talent: Carmelo Anthony, Amar’e Stoudemire and one Jose Calderon; Structure: Derek Fisher on the bench running the show and Phil Jackson as director. If they can come together and demonstrate their quality, they will make it to the playoffs over Charlotte. The fundamental points are that the team succeeds in implementing the triangle offense that led Jackson to win 11 titles in the NBA and that ‘Melo doesn’t run out of patience and decide he wants a ‘change of air’ by midseason.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/Philippines: I think Charlotte will get it going at some point, the Lance Stephenson experiment is not working right now but he is due to break out of his slump soon. Big Al Jefferson is consistent and a monster on the block while Kemba Walker is a top flight point guard in the league. New York is in a deeper hole, they don’t have the right players for their system and worse, Fisher can’t seem to make them play defense, their better off rebuilding full time than hope for a miracle with this group although it wouldn’t surprise me if Jose Calderon can somehow resuscitate their offense.

Marc-Oliver Robbers, NBA.com/Germany: I think the Knicks have the longer way to go. There are too many things they have to adjust. Coach Fisher still needs time to get to know his players. Who fits for the triangle offense and who not? It’s a transition year for them. Anyway they have the quality to claim a playoff-spot, it’s only 3,5 games to the last spot. But at the moment, I think the problems the Hornets have are a bit smaller. They have to figure out, how Stephenson and Walker fit together. Both needs the ball in their hands, without it they’re ineffective. In addition Charlotte has to find their defensive mindset again. Their team-defense is awful at the moment. But they will solve their problems. The quality in the team is high enough to be a good team in the East. I believe the Hornets will make it to the playoffs.

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: Taking the best 16

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: The best 2s | Charlotte vs. New York | A sweet 16


> Lately we’ve had some talk on conference imbalance and what can be done about it. One question: Do you like the idea of seeding the top 16 teams in the playoffs, regardless of conference? Any drawbacks?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.comI like this plan. Some East teams still would have an edge anyway, right, because their records get fattened against the lousiest clubs in their conference? Even so, it would help to squelch the six months of bellyaching we get from some in the media on this topic. I mostly consider this a pendulum problem that will swing the other way in time. But some seem hung up on fixing instantly anything they perceive isn’t “faaaair.” If instituted, their next freak-out would be over the travel demands of a Portland-Atlanta series.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Looking forward to that Miami-Portland first round playoff series. Boston-LA? Memphis-Sacramento? You think the media whining is loud now? Team complaints about travel fatigue? Wait til those happen. So Mark Cuban wants to go to the Eastern Conference because its so hard for his team in the West. For a guy who lives in the “Shark Tank,” he should know life sometimes bites. This is a solution in search of a problem.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: The only drawback is that one conference will face a much easier schedule in the regular season and throw off the records that will determine the seedings. Beyond that, rank away. Just make sure to build in enough time. There could be coast-to-coast travel in the first round. If teams are going back and forth in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, and maybe on more than one occasion in that postseason, play will suffer.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: The screaming you hear about conference imbalance is based on recent events, or lack thereof, in the East. As you know, these things are cyclical and who’s to say the East won’t be the better conference in another few years? There’s no need to push the red button and force change. Stick with the status quo and keep the conferences balanced in the postseason.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: I’m not crazy about the idea, but I think it has to be done at this point. This is now 15 of the last 16 years in which the West has been the better conference. Some good teams are missing the playoffs and some bad teams are making them. But if you do it, you have to look at balancing the schedule, which will be tougher to do.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: I feel like such a grumpy old man here, but I do not. I don’t think everyone should get a trophy for participation either. Seriously. Enough of this fairness doctrine being spread around the league. I’m reminded of the cyclical nature of sports and the fact that what appears one way now can change dramatically before you know it, rendering a hasty reaction foolish if we’re not careful. The divisional and conference format of the league has to mean something. There has to be some method to this madness. I understand we’re trying to reward teams in the tougher conference and a top-16 would make it “fair” to some. But I don’t believe that solves the problem when, say in a year or two, the Eastern Conference sees the balance of power shift in its direction.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: It would be good if everyone played to a similar schedule. The hard problem to solve here is the scheduling: To fix it without losing a sense of regional rivalry and without adding to travel for the teams.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: I do not like the idea. I understand the arguments in favor of the change, specifically that it should ostensibly make for more competitive matchups in the playoffs, which would make the entire league must-see TV and raise ratings (and revenues). But I’m also something of a new-school traditionalist, and I like the conferences and divisions, gerrymandered though they may be. Conferences will have ups and downs and at some point in the future the East will once again have the power while the West will struggle. Until then, that’s just the way it is. (Word to Bruce Hornsby.)

Marc-Oliver Robbers, NBA.com/Germany: Why not? I’m a fan of this approach. The best 16 teams should battle for the title. The question is, do we still need the divisions and conferences? Traveling in our time is so comfortable that this isn’t an argument anymore. And it would be unfair if you change the system but keep the conferences. The teams in the East would have an advantage, because of the easier schedule. You have to change the schedule system. Every team would have to play three times against every team in the league. That would mean 87 regular season games. Too much? I don’t know. But changing things isn’t as easy as you’d expect.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/Greece: For sure! It’s very similar to the European point of view, where the winning record is the only criteria. We will miss some rivalries, but I think that this way the playoffs will be even better.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/Philippines: I am leaning towards the top 16 teams in the playoffs, because a lot of talented and exciting teams from the West will be left off again come post-season. Teams like the Pelicans, Suns and Kings all have great young talent. The Western and Eastern Conference format always builds up rivalries, but a great example is the NCAA tournament, no one bothers from what conference or state the schools belong to, it’s just the top teams in the country, period.

Karan Madhok, NBA.com/India: I do like the seeding of the top 16 teams for the playoffs as the first step towards fixing the playoffs imbalance. Too many good teams and superstar players are standing out the playoff picture in the West every year; and meanwhile out East, teams that start 4-13 are still optimistic of finishing in the top six. The drawback obviously is that it will eliminate some of the historical rivalries a little as teams that face each other regularly in the playoffs will now be playing more inter-conference matchups earlier in the playoffs. To be honest, I don’t necessarily think that this is a bad thing: with new alignments and rules, there will be new traditions. The top 16 seeding shouldn’t be the final solution either, because teams in the East will still continue to have an easier schedule during the regular season as they play teams in their weaker conference more often. In the ideal NBA world, I will be hoping that all teams play each other equal number of times through the season for a truly fair idea of where they should stand before the postseason begins.

Nacho Albarrán, NBA.com/Espana: Yes, and we don’t see any drawbacks, because that system could improve the overall competition.

Davide Chinellato, NBA.com/Italy: I really like the idea of seeding the top 16 teams in the playoffs regardless of conference. Traveling isn’t an issue anymore, so why don’t have a postseason with the 16 best teams out of the regular season? It would be really interesting, and I’m pretty sure most teams would like it. Especially Western Conference teams …

Simon Legg, NBA.com/Australia: I do! Let’s get the best teams in the playoffs! It was a complete injustice that the 48-win Suns missed the playoffs last season. Not only did they win 48 games, they won them in the West! No offense to Atlanta, but how does a team that won 38 games make the playoffs? The Hornets really struggled to start the season, but given they’re in the East there’s a chance that they get themselves together and win enough games to qualify. Obviously, the entire system would have to change so that’s probably a drawback, but if you get the best teams in the playoffs then it’s worth it.

For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: The league’s best 2 guards

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: The best 2s | Charlotte vs. New York | A sweet 16



VIDEO: Isiah Thomas has high praise for Chicago’s Jimmy Butler

> Rank the top three shooting guards in the league … under 35. What’s your reasoning?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: 1. Klay Thompson, 2. James Harden, 3. Jimmy Butler. This is pretty straight-forward for me. Thompson has the reputation and the paycheck as the best two-way shooting guard, with Team USA credibility behind him. Harden is the most dangerous offensively, and the position is called “shooting guard” for a reason. And I’ve seen Butler enough to know that, while his offensive game isn’t as developed as Thompson’s, his brand of defense and toughness can win you a bunch of games. Just missing my cut: Bradley Beal. Scoring chops, mature, guy who does little things, but oh those injuries.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: James Harden, Klay Thompson, Bradley Beal. Harden is the most unstoppable backcourt scoring force in the league right now, ranks second in league in points per game. He’s the best at getting to the hoop and drawing fouls and can fill it up on 3s. Also gets a half dozen rebounds and assists per game and this season is also making a solid defensive effort. Thompson’s improved post-up game has him closing the gap, but Harden’s free throws make the difference. Beal just needs a long run of good health to stake his claim with the top two.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: There’s a change at the top of the leader board. While I would have gone with James Harden in the past, I give Klay Thompson the edge now because of defense. Thompson has size, the shooting range, the ability to check multiple positions. And he’s only getting better. I’ll go DeMar DeRozan third.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Harden, Thompson, DeRozan. I just realized how watered-down this position actually is, especially compared to the golden age with Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, etc. None of my candidates are perfect, but Harden is extremely good at the skill that the position demands. So he’s my choice despite his defense. Funny thing, just a few years ago folks were wondering if the Raptors jumped the gun by giving DeRozan that extension.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: 1. James Harden. 2. Klay Thompson. 3. Dwyane Wade. Harden’s efficiency at such a high volume (Kyle Korver is the only shooting guard who’s a more efficient scorer) makes up for his defensive issues. Thompson is a pretty complete player, though he hasn’t had to be the lead guy like the other two. And Wade still gets it done when he’s healthy and when he decides to care on defense. This isn’t an easy question to answer because there are a lot of solid guys and nobody that’s not without his faults. I came close to squeezing Korver, Jimmy Butler, DeMar DeRozan, Joe Johnson, or Wesley Matthews on the list. And give 37-year-old Manu Ginobili any time.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Once a position of extreme depth and power, the move to “hyrbid” point guards who could be classified at either backcourt position clouds these rankings a bit for me. That said, James Harden tops my list. He’s an elite scorer who cannot be contained most nights because he can beat you from deep or by attacking and finishing at the rim and free throw line. Klay Thompson is No. 2 on my list. He plays both ends at an elite level and, in my opinion, is just now coming into his own as a true All-Star caliber player. I know he’s older and a bit broken down at this stage of his career, but on his best night Dwyane Wade still makes my top 3 at shooting guard. He can still do things, albeit on a far more infrequent basis, that only a select few at the position can. Wade’s ability to post up on offense and play both ends at the highest level keeps him holding on, so to speak.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: So far Jimmy Butler is having the best year, just in front of James Harden and Klay Thompson. Butler impacts the game at both ends, and his offensive versatility has been tremendous. Harden and Thompson (another strong two-way player) have been crucial to their teams’ hot starts. Dwyane Wade and DeMar DeRozan would be challenging (in addition to Monta Ellis) if not for injuries.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: So, what, anyone but Kobe Bryant? Because Kobe is the only 35+ two guard I can think of to whom this question would apply. So with KB out of the picture — and he would probably be in my picture otherwise — I’m looking for players who do more than just score. I want guys who give a hoot on defense and provide leadership, as well, and also have some room to grow. So I’ll go Klay Thompson first, James Harden second, and DeMar DeRozan third, with Bradley Beal right on their heels. But if you want, you can have any of those guys and I’ll still take Kobe, regardless of age.

Nacho Albarrán, NBA.com/Espana: Dwyane Wade, because is a very versatile player, a good shooter, rebounder and passer, a leader at last. And already he’s won three championship rings in six Finals. James Harden is the future on this position, because his strength, his shooting abilities and in going powerfully to the rim. He only needs to play better in the clutch games. Monta Ellis has grown as a more complete player in Dallas and is just pure show.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/Philippines: James Harden, Klay Thompson and Monta Ellis. Harden is my top shooting guard at the moment, he may get some flak because of his defense but the way he controls the game is almost effortless — he can score easily and when he puts his mind into it he can guard positions 1-4. Klay just keeps on improving and he is with the right system, with great teammates that look for him on offense. While on defense he is tasked to defend the best guard in the opposing them on a nightly basis. Monta is the most underrated shooting guard in the league. if you watch the Mavs you will see that he is their primary option on offense and he also has underrated defense.

Karan Madhok, NBA.com/India: Number 1’s gotta be James Harden – knock him for his defensive inability or over-reliance on the free-throw line all you want, but Harden’s ability to create offense for himself and his teammates is currently above far and beyond all other comers at his position. I’d give Klay Thompson second place in the list for scoring nearly 21 points per game and also developing into an elite perimeter defender on the opposite end. Number 3 is a tricky choice – if we were in the playoffs, I would’ve probably chosen Dwyane Wade, but the Heat SG’s inconsistencies knock him down a spot for me. I’d say the third-best shooting guard in the league is DeMar DeRozan. Although he’s currently hurt, DeRozan is the Raptors’ leading scorer and has helped them to early success this season.

Juan Carlos Campos Rodriguez, NBA.com/Mexico: 1. Stephen Curry is averaging 23.8 points, 5.3 rebounds and 7.8 assists per game, plus an impressive 41.3 percent on three-pointers, so in my opinion, he’s the best in the league. Let’s not forget that he’s also a great defender and he’s undoubtedly the Warriors’ leader.  It’s a delight to watch him play – spectacular passes, dribbles and stunning high-level layups. 2. Russell Westbrook with 24 points, 3.3 rebounds and 6 assists per game plus a percentage of 57.1 in three-pointers is an awesome weapon for the Thunder. What leaves me with doubts, even though his return was “wild,” was his aggressiveness when attacking the rim and defensively, the questions that we’d asked about him during his first seasons in the league. 3. James Harden‘s simply an offensive show, just look at his stats: 25.2 points, 6.3 rebounds and 6.7 assists per game – a confirmation of a great offensive talent that has the most famous “Beard” in the NBA.  However, his lack of commitment to become a better defender and his occasional lapses in the clutch forces me to put him in third place.

Marc-Oliver Robbers, NBA.com/Germany: How old is Kobe, after he fell into the fountain of youth? 28? I’m joking, but I’m really impressed by his performance so far at his age. I’ve expected a good comeback from him, but so good? Okay, let’s talk about the young fellas. I’m not a big fan of James Harden because of his defense, but his season is offensively so dominant, that you can’t choose someone else as the best shooting guard in the league so far. Behind Harden I have to pick Jimmy Butler. His improvement in the offense this season is so huge. Maybe he’s the upcoming franchise player of the Bulls. For third, I choose Klay Thompson. His game is not as variable as the ones of Butler and Harden, but if he catches fire no one can stop him.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/Greece: James Harden, Klay Thompson, Dwyane Wade. From No. 1 to No. 3. I think that there is no need to argue about Harden. His 25.2 points per game speak for themselves. Thompson is one the best pure shooters in the NBA and the best under 30 years-old. Wade,  on the other hand, still has got game. He scores 20.5 per game, dishes 5.6 assist and makes a trick or two to finish at the rim despite the nickname “Flash” starts to fade out as he slowly creeps toward 35 years old.

Davide Chinellato, NBA.com/Italy: Right now it’s James Harden, Klay Thompson and Jimmy Butler for me. Harden is an MVP-caliber player, a guy who can win games by himself. Devastating from distance, his Euro-steps are a trademark; he’s also trying to play more with his teammates. Thompson is more than just Steph Curry’s sidekick: he’s a star in the making, great on defense, awesome on offense. Butler is the new face of this season, an early candidate for the Most Improved Player award. He’s one of the best 2-way players in the league after he transformed himself into a reliable offensive weapon during the offseason.

Simon Legg, NBA.com/Australia: Klay Thompson, Wesley Matthews and James Harden. My reasoning for Thompson and Matthews is pretty simple: they’re two of the best two-way guards we have in the league. Both guys can lock down opponents and influence things on defense and have become so important to their team’s overall success. From an offensive standpoint, these guys can hurt you in a number of different ways, but mainly due to their elite 3-point shooting which has become so important in today’s NBA. As for Harden, I’m probably contradicting myself due to his defensive limitations but he is the most explosive scorer at the position so it’s hard to keep a guy out like that. He sets up teammates, gets to the line at an abnormal rate and can hurt you in a number of different ways. If it was two years ago, Dwyane Wade finds himself in this list.

BlogTableBestSg2Amended
For more debates, go to #AmexNBA or www.nba.com/homecourtadvantage.

Blogtable: LeBron teams, then and now

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.


BLOGTABLE: Miami 2010 vs. Cleveland 2014 | POR, TOR or WAS? | Tick, tick, tick in OKC


LeBron James (left) has played in 158 playoff games. Kevin Love, zero. (David Liam Kyle/NBAE)

LeBron James (left) has played in 158 playoff games. Kevin Love, zero. (David Liam Kyle/NBAE)

> Think back … what’s the difference, talent-wise, between LeBron’s first team in Miami and this Cleveland team? Can this Cleveland team be as good as that Miami one? As constituted, can it be better?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Looking back at the 2010-11 Heat, there was a lot of ordinariness on that roster with LeBron James. But – and this is a Rick Mahorn-sized “but” – Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh were more advanced as teammates, having played in 72 postseason games to Kyrie Irving‘s and Kevin Love‘s none. Erik Spoelstra already had coached 160 NBA games with two playoff appearances. And Mike Miller and James Jones, same as James, Wade and Bosh, were four years younger. Also, Udonis Haslem brought toughness that these Cavaliers could use. My sense is that Dion Waiters is a more talented but more headstrong “little brother” than Mario Chalmers was. And a final thought: The rest of the league might be past the shock and awe with which it regarded that earlier Super Friends edition – it was an unnerving assemblage of talent, shown to be fallible and beatable over time.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Talent, schmalent.  If it were just about raw talent, Tracy McGrady would be walking about with more rings than a Beatles drummer with tinnitus.  LeBron arrived literally on stage in Miami with two other guys who had talent plus the veteran game smarts and battle scars to be championship contenders.  I’ll drop another Sixties reference and ask the Jimi Hendrix question: Are you experienced?  Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love do not have a single playoff game on their resumes and have never before had to get in sync with another All-Star caliber teammate. When you ask if these Cavs in their first year together can be better than that Heat team, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh have every right to say, hey, you, get off my cloud.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: LeBron’s first team in Miami had Dwyane Wade, a great advantage in experience: Wade had already won a title. He knew exactly what it took. But the core of this roster in Cleveland can get there. It can be as good as Miami. While this is a wobbly start amid great scrutiny, it’s no more unsteady or under brighter lights than the Heat of James’ previous lifetime. “Spoelstra should be fired that first season because the Heat will never win with him,” … remember? In fact, the pressure was greater then as LeBron was being condemned almost everywhere outside South Florida. The Cavaliers can absolutely find their way. Maybe it will be a repeat of Miami and it will take a season. But, yes, it can be as good.

Kyrie Irving (David Liam Kyle/NBAE)

Kyrie Irving (David Liam Kyle/NBAE)

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: That Miami team had Dwyane Wade, already a certified NBA champion. If anything, Wade had to teach LeBron how to win, and now here is LeBron trying to distribute wisdom in Cleveland. Also, keep in mind Erik Spoelstra had taken the Heat to the playoffs without LeBron, while David Blatt is new to this NBA thing. All of that was/is in Miami’s favor in any comparison talk. That said … there’s plenty of time for the Cavs to prove themselves, in the end, as good as the 2011 Heat, although nobody seems to be saying that too loudly right now.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: The biggest difference is that the Heat’s three stars were all two-way players. Dwyane Wade isn’t the most disciplined defender, but he’s an impact player on that end of the floor and much better than Kyrie Irving. And Chris Bosh is a much, much, much, much, much better defender than Kevin Love. His importance to the Heat’s pick-and-roll defense can’t be understated. At the point that the 2010-11 Heat were 9-8, they ranked sixth in defensive efficiency. The Cavs will get better defensively (they rank 19th through Tuesday), but given their current personnel, they won’t be as good as the Heat were on that end of the floor.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: The difference between the two is simple. The Miami Big 3 all had playoff experience and, in Dwyane Wade’s case, championship experience. The Cleveland Big 3 has no playoff or even winning regular-season experience outside of LeBron. And the fact that people overlooked that when they put the Cleveland crew together mystifies me. I don’t think this Cleveland group can be better. I think Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving, at this stage of their careers, are as talented individually for their positions as you could want. But I don’t think they are better players than Wade and Bosh were in 2010.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: That Miami team operated as an established program committed to the values of defense and teamwork as set forth by Pat Riley. This Cleveland team has none of that. The Cavaliers spent the last four years without LeBron flailing for the kinds of answers that were taken for granted in Miami. Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving know nothing about what it takes to win in the playoffs. I don’t see how LeBron can do better now than his first team did in Miami, because this organization in Cleveland has so much more to learn from top to bottom.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: To me the most glaring difference is that the 2010-11 Heat played Mike Bibby at the point some. Mostly stationary by that point and not a great defender (who was eventually benched during the Finals), Bibby could still run a team and had loads of veteran savvy. Kyrie Irving is all guts and speed and quickness, but he lacks a certain steadiness this Cleveland team could use at the top. Not saying he can’t uncover that by the time the postseason rolls around, but for now he has work to do.

Aldo Avinante, NBA.com/Philippines: The main difference between LeBron’s first team in Miami compared to Cleveland is their overall NBA experience. Dwyane Wade was already a Finals MVP, Chris Bosh has led the Raptors to the playoffs in several seasons and they signed veteran players to complement the team. While in Cleveland LeBron will have to do the heavy lifting in terms of leadership chores. They have the personnel and talent to be as good as that team but it’s up to LeBron to nurture this young group into a mature squad.

Davide Chinellato, NBA.com/Italy: The 2010-11 Heat were way more deep than these Cavs. LeBron, Wade and Bosh were obviously the most talented players on that roster, but coach Spoelstra had a lot of options for the supporting cast. These Cavs have three phenomenal players in LeBron, Irving and Love, a good center in Varejao, a veteran in Marion, an interesting youngster in Thompson and … that’s pretty much it, at least for now with Miller, Jones and Dellavedova dealing with injuries. Once they’re back, coach Blatt will still need a rim protector and a wing defender. These Cavs need way more depth to be as good as the 2010-11 Heat.

XiBin Yang, NBA.com/China: On the paper, this Cleveland team could be great, and I do think LeBron and Kevin Love were a natural fit.The only difference is Kyrie, who just stepped into his fourth year in the league. Maybe he’s not explosive as Wade in 2010, but he can also go to the basket at will, not to mention he’s a much better 3-point shooter than Wade. As LeBron said, guys need some time to figure out how to play winning basketball. But the only question is, can Kyrie figure out how to sacrifice his ego before LBJ is past his prime? Per NBA.com/Stats, in the seven losing game of the Cavs, Kyrie’s got a higher USG (24.7%), and the team played a slower pace (93.22). Kyrie’s isolation is a good show down the stretch, but that’s not the type of winning basketball. They definitely could be better, only after Kyrie, who doesn’t have that kind of blood connection with the city of Cleveland, realizes that truth of the game.

Akshay Manwani, NBA.com/India: The difference is not so much talent-wise as much as it is about experience. The biggest advantage LeBron’s Miami had was that the stars and the coach, Erik Spoelstra, had significant postseason experience. Dwyane Wade had won a ring in 2006 and LeBron had made his way to the NBA Finals in 2007. That helped them navigate the turbulent waters of the rough start and turn into winners. Here, at Cleveland, besides LeBron, neither Kyrie Irving nor Kevin Love has ever been to the postseason. David Blatt is still learning the NBA’s ropes. So they have to come to terms with a winning mentality on the fly. Can they be better?   Sure, they can. For that to happen, Love must play the five spot a la Kevin Garnett in Boston and Brooklyn or Bosh with Miami. That would allow Cleveland to outrun their opponents, spread the floor and free up the paint for James. Also, instead of Love sacrificing his scoring averages and field-goal attempts, Irving has to sacrifice his scoring average and become more of a facilitator. Right now, Irving’s assists average (4.8) is at an all-time career low.

Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA.com/Greece: The big difference is experience. In Cleveland there is no Flash, no Bosh and no Allen. Love and Irving have all the potential in the world, but none of them have proven themselves in postseason basketball. Moreover they have a rookie coach who is trying the adjust in the NBA playing style. I am sure that the Cavs will get better, because they have the most important thing: talent. Don’t forget that back in 2010 when LeBron took his talents in Florida, the Heat had a 9-8 start.

Marc-Oliver Robbers, NBA.com/Germany: The main difference is the experience. LeBron had Dwyane Wade on his side. A superstar, Finals MVP and NBA Champion. In addition Chris Bosh, who came to South Beach as the All-Time Leading Scorer of the Toronto Raptors. Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love might be as talented as Bosh and Wade, but they haven’t the experience yet. Both haven’t played any postseason game. This is the first time in his career Irving has teammates who are better than he is. He has to adjust his game and that needs time. The same with Love. He’s now only the third option. That’s quite new for him. Give them the time they need and you will receive a big outcome.