AtTheDriveIn

Good article. Until the Kings became unwatchable (sometime in 2005 or so), they were my second favourite team so I'm still half interested in what they're doing with their players and how they're fairing at the moment. As a team, I am surprised that they've won as many games as they have, especially without Kevin Martin. One analyst on ESPN (not sure which one) called them the Houston Rockets 2.0, a team with no legitimate first or second option, but a team that gets it done nonetheless given the talent they have. So far, even with the sub .500 record, they've exceeded my expectations. I was not expecting a 6-8 record. I wasn't even expecting 6 wins from the Kings until at least early December so they're playing great basketball at the moment. For the players you just mentioned, I have a few opinions of my own to add. First Donte Greene; scores the ball so, so well. Efficiency scoring the ball in his rookie season last season was a problem for him, but so far, he looks completely different as a player. He slashes, he shoots; he does the whole show on offense. However as far as 6'10" guys go, he spends a little bit too much time on the perimeter and it'll get him in trouble later on when teams expect more out of him. As mentioned before, his slashing game is so smooth and agile for a player his size and it's a real bonus for the Kings to have a player who can score both putting the ball on the floor and shooting it from long range. I'm impressed with him as a player, but I think teams might be more at ease in holding on to him long term if he showed improvement in other areas, namely rebounding, which he shown he is absolutely pathetic at thus far. He could very well be a glue guy later in his career, but if he wants teams to invest in him thanks to his individual talents and not his ability to hold the team together, than he needs to prove he's more than just a scorer. Secondly, Spencer Hawes. I don't know, it might just be, it probably is just me, but I love Hawes. He does everything right. He is the guy any team would love to have, whether it be in a starting role or as a player off the bench because he just knows how to play. Hawes doesn't have amazing skill, nor does he have an off the charts IQ, but he grinds it out and plays the game like a good teammate and a good role player. That's what is most impressive about him. Although it's so cliche to compare a white center to another white center, but his game does look an awful lot like Brad Miller's minus Miller's passing skill + Hawes might be a little more active in the low post and lots of teams like Miller for what he brings. I believe when Hawes is 26-30 years old, he'll have teams lining up to get a shot at signing him because he's a no-nonsense, hard-working teammate. It's really refreshing to see, to be honest. I'll stop gushing about Hawes before it makes me look weird. Everything else in your article, I don't really need to comment on I guess. Again, great work on it. I really like reading your stuff. It's always very interesting.

Just wait for the Magic's 30-4 run =0 Really though, it's been a good game so far. I'm enjoying it. I like how Howard is playing in this gfame; scoring when needed and passing it out of the double-team effectively almost every time so far. I just wish he had more moves than the face up, 2 step hook shot. It's a little predictable.

Hawks wearing their alternate uniforms for the first time this season. The jersery itself looks nice. Oh Magic by 40. =0

I'll go out on a limb and say that Kevin Garnett shouldn't be considered anything better than fifth right now and even that is very arguable. The Celtics have been the least dependent on him defensively, which is the only real argument that fans of Garnett have, then they have before, preffering to rely more on Perkins, who at the moment is averaging the same Defensive Rating as Garnett. Plus, he's down to his worst scoring, rebounding, passing and blocking since his rookie year. And yet his turnovers stay on regular Garnett level. At the moment, based soley on the way they have been playing and not how their team has fared, the top five Power Forwards in my opinion are: 1) Dirk Nowitzki 2) Chris Bosh 3) Tim Duncan 4) Amare Stoudemire 5) Many players could be argued for this final spot

Great work. Loved the Oden piece. The defensive discussion on the Bucks could have been a little longer, but it was really good for a first time. Can we offer topics for next time or are you doing them yourself?

Sorry on the late reply, everytime I try to write one, I get busy and therefore forget where I am so I quit and start again and quit etc. etc. But it's 10pm here, so I'm sure no one will bother me for a few minutes. So the Bobcats have only score more than 100 points a grand total of once, which was today. They sure do need his scoring, but at what cost? If they plan on being competetive they have to sacrifice minutes from Augustin and Felton or they have to bench Jackson which will only cause headaches. And if they don't plan on being competetive, well why bother signing him? He only wants to play for winning teams like the Grizzlies etc. lol. Oh please, he's been a distraction since his 76ers days. He was just too damn good then for the management to really be upset with him. First came the practive fiasco, which I believe he was fined for, unless I'm lying, which I might be. Then there was the dress code, with the new implementations ruining his swagger, which cost him a little bit more money in fines. But he was averaging 25+ points and 7+ assists, putting people in seats and most importantly, winning enough games for the 76ers to be relevant. Who would complain? Although no one publicly came out and said it, Iverson was distracting in his Sixer days. My memory on him with the Nuggets is very vague, as I do remember him playing fairly well there, but they played no defense and many blamed it on Iverson's influence. Although it's not a direct distraction per se, it is him teaching dirty habits to a bright team. It's not surprise that when he left and Billups, a well regarded defender, came in that the Nuggets became formidable defensively. I don't even have to mention his Pistons/Grizzlies days because you already know what happened with him there. Here's a quick rundown, though: - Pistons: I don't get the ball enough - Pistons: We're not winning enough - Pistons: I'm happy coming off the bench - Pistons: They never even consulted me about coming off the bench - Pistons: I'm going to sit out and speak openly about being traded for four months - Grizzlies: I haven't played a game yet and I'm making stupid comments about Grizzlies being contenders - Grizzlies: I've played three games on a new teams and I'm not starting yet. What is this? I'm leaving. - Grizzlies: I don't want to play here anymore.. just say it's family related, even though it makes no sense. He's 34. He's no longer a 25/7 player. He cares more about getting his than he does about playing ball and he's just downright annoying with regards to how any team handles him, period. I hope nobody signs him, to be honest. I think the league is ready to forget about Iverson and his bull[expletive].

They're very inconsistent at the moment in how they player. I feel like they're still trying to find out what kind of the team they're going to be with all the new additions. It feels like a completely different Spurs team than anything they've put on the court before. Back to the inconsistency, one moment, they can win against the Mavericks by 9 sporting a lineup of Blair, Bogans, Hill, Jefferson and McDyess and the next night they lose against the Sonics with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker back in the rotation. I'm not exactly sure what the problem seems to be, but the new guys mesh well amongst each other but surprisingly not with the Spurs core of Parker, Ginobili and Duncan all that much. You can see signs that they're trying, but at the moment, the inconsistency is killing the Spurs. On the other hand, the Spurs never really start playing great basketball until about January so I'll reserve judgement until then.

It's been 13 games, which means we can roughly evalute the contributions of the new players the Magic added over the summer. Here's what I think of the new guys. Feel free to add your own comments, too: Jason Williams I'll be the first to admit that I didn't think he would even play. I even wrote it in one of my articles. I didn't feel he was good enough anymore to be a major contributor but he's proven me wrong. He still protects the ball reall well and is more substance than flash now with his passing skill. He distributes the ball really well and although his shot isn't falling, his shooting isn't as ugly as I thought it would be either. With Anthony Johnson not being able to step up the way I thought he would after being relegated to the doghouse, I am in a way glad that we picked up Williams, even if there were other point guards available. Matt Barnes Atroscious shooting, but after that 2006 season in Golden State, his shooting has been less than average. He's shooting 18% from the three point line. Not something I expected from a guy who was brought in to be an extra shooter. On the defensive side of the game though, I'm impressed. He hustles, he's a pest, he rebounds and he hustles some more. It's exactly what I expected to see from him. Now if only his shots start falling, I'd be really happy with his signing. Ryan Anderson It's not surprise that when Lewis came back his minutes went from ~25+ minutes a game down to as low as 15 today versus the Celtics. Although I'm impressed with the shooting (he reminds me of Matt Bonner in the way he presents himself on the court), his penetration and the awkwardness of watching him penetrate is just ugly. He dribbled high, doesn't account for the ball and just looks clumsy. But he's a hell of a shooter. All the other things, I hope, will come with time. For now, I think his best bet is to sit and learn of Rashard and focus a little on some of his fundamental skill like handling the ball, fluidity in movement etc. Brandon Bass Less than inspiring. I though we were going to get an energy guy here. What we got was a guy who plays within the offense and makes himself hardly noticeable within the flow of the game. I mean, if Carl Landry can get his name out there for being an all-effort type player, I would've though Bass would have exceeded expecatations. But it's not all negative; he's been efficient in his scoring if nothing more. Vince Carter Okay, I'm very happy to see him scoring 18 points a game and not being a turnover machine, but I cringe every time I watch him throw up one of those one-dribble, one-step fadeaway shots from the left wing. It almost never works, and he's become so predictable with it that it is always so well covered by the defender. And the three he misses is because he takes them from thirty feet out. His three point percentage would be through the roof if he stopped shooting for the sake of just throwing the ball up. He still gets to the rim nicely, but you can see he's lost a step. Either way, I'm glad we got something to compensate for Turkoglu's departure.

I've never though of Felton as a leader. He passes on a steady point guard level and does everything a point guard should do, but he goes through the motions and doesn't exactly lead. He does what's asked of him from a numbers standpoint and that's it. He has the raw skills to be a starter, but his lack of leadership would make him an ideal back-up point guard somewhere who can just keep the offense rolling when the lead point needs a rest. He's not a crunch time competitor, to sum it up. Augustin is a good little point guard, though, but he still has a few years until he really contributes meaningfully to Charlotte (or wherever he goes when he realises Charlotte never has any intention of winning or even making the playoffs). You're kidding yourself if you think 2009/2010 Iverson can do the same things as 1997-2002 Iverson. Iverson on any team = distraction and nothing else.

Anybody going to be watching this game? Starts in 10 mins on ESPN in Aus.

lol. So you can't say both are poor defenders and then attempt to seperate them into their own category. You either bunch them together as poor defenders, no matter their 'effort levels' or you attempt to differentiate them, in that case, evidence would be handy to prove what you say. But you can't say one's a poor defender because 'this one time in Toronto, he didn't play very hard' (Carter), and then say the other one is a bad defender, 'but he tries hard' and then call the second one better even though Turkoglu is vastly inferior in his defensive skillset. That's ridicolous. Edit: I just realised you were PFG, no point in arguing with you.

Howard with 3 fouls in only a quarter and a half of play. Even though we're up, this doesn't help us. Thank God Carter decided to bring his game today. 14 points so far on near perfect shooting.

Once, actually, and not in a way where he actually wants someone to die. I like Destroy the Runner, I think they're a pretty decent band. The melodic hardcore sound is something which makes Destroy the Runner unique. The vocalist also has quite a good vocal range for a h/c singer. Listen to the start of Columbia to see that in effect.But if you were looking to prove a point about real music being un-real, then you could have gone with something a little bit more.. hardcore, heh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEZZax-7Jw&feature=related Check that out. It's by The Devil Wears Prade. Incidentally, Sword Dragons and Diet Coke was one of the first names I used for basketball forums in 2006/2007. I like the style of music, to me it's more than just screams and grunts, but I can understand why people wouldn't.

I was looking through basketball-reference and I couldn't find a younger player since 1986 who scored more points than Jennings. Jennings was 20 years, 52 days old during this game; the next closest was LeBron at 20 years, 80 days and then it jumps to Iverson being the next player at 21 years, 309 days old. Good effort, I always hate when Bucks games come on Australian TV because it's always about Andrew Bogut and his 'superstar status' down here, but this is a Bucks game I wish was televised down here.

What is it with Rockets fan and Magic hating? I'm not sure, but every critic the Magic have now all happen to be fans of the Rockets. And they're always talking about Alston's, a former Rocket player, perimeter defense like it means something to someone. How's Hedo doing this year by the way? 14 points a game and by far his worst defensive rating (116 points given up per 100 posssessions as opposed to the 115 he scores). He may have been a good defender once upon a time, back in his earlier days with Sacramento, but he's never been even an adequate defender since joining the Magic. This season alone, he's let Jefferson go for 25 on him, and let Marion score 18 in a world where Marion no longer scores 18 points a game. He also got triple-doubled on in his first game against LeBron. On the other hand, Carter's defensive rating is where it's always been, at roughly 104 as opposed to his 112 offensive rating. He also gave Jackson a tough time in his first Bobcats game, holding him to 4/14 shooting and also held Iguodala to 8 points on 3/11 shooting. So why is Hedo a better defender? Because a Rockets fan said so?

I might give it a go. I don't even know the assignment really, but if it's anything like our others, it'll be defining the story, the style and using a few interesting notes here and there to get through the rest of the talk. Who's the author of the series?

Well first of 'we' didn't believe anything because 'we' were still one thousand years away from being alive. Second of all, the world didn't believe the Earth was flat, in fact after there was a lot of optimism in that field at about 400-300BCE with Aristotle noting how the stars set, and putting forth his theory of a spherical Earth. Of course, the year is 300BCE so the message got across to roughly eight people at the time within his own family. Then there was another ancient Greek, I've forgotten his name, who figured out in 200 or so BCE that in order for the Earth to be flat, the sun's rays would have to be parallel to the Earth, which they weren't. There were many mathematician, scientists and the like coming out with these claims until the first century BCE. Then there was the whole Church controversy with the Roman Catholics silencing anyone who didn't believe in St. Augustine's view of antipodes, citing religious theories dating back to Adam to prove his point. Then there was nothing until Copernicus and Gallileo in the 1400-1600s and even then, this was still a very new subject. The different between us now and them was that this was groundbreaking stuff they had to really work toward, now we can Google search the circumference of the globe in less than a .14 seconds (that's how long it took my computer, apparently). But if you ask someone to actually figure it out without a computer now, I'm betting aside from obvious professional, many of us wouldn't know how and where to start. So just because some people believed the world was flat, doesn't mean they weren't smart. The works of Aristotle and the Greeks, of the Early Middle Age philosophers was highly thoughtful and quite solid material. I don't think there are many nowadays who can match that sort of intellect in context to the age they live.

And they're exactly the reasons it annoyed and frustrated me. You would think for a book so full of thought and detail, something.. anything good would come of it. But it's just a very real, very frank description of what usually does happen in the given circumstances that the characters were caught in. I don't know, when I pick up a book, I expect it to be a fictional work about the hero prevailing with the usual 'unexpected' twists and wonderful insight. But, I just can't get into a book which such metaphorical and deeply thought provoking content only to have it end in disaster for all involved within. That's why I never finished Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 which seemed to get further away from the objective then from when it began or many other post-modern novels. I'm nearly at the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring and it's been an exhausting trip, to be honest. I do find it interesting, but the names are just everywhere. Sometimes I read so fast that I literally find my mind unable to keep up with what I'm reading, often having to go back to fully understand. It is a great book, though. I intend on reading The Hobbit which was kind of a lead-up to the Lord of the Rings (big emphasis on 'kind of' as its only resemblance is Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey) and also The Silmarillion. They're apparently the best of the Tolkien novels. As for the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, would you recommend it to read? I never thought it even had a series, to be quite honest. I have to pick a speculative fiction (Sci-Fi) novel to read and discuss in one of our classes. I might do it if you can convince me that it's worth a look at, haha.

No he's not. Honest to God, I don't know where people pull this crap out from. In 6 starting games this season, he's averaged 5 points, 5 rebounds on average shooting. How is that 'pretty good'? What are you so impressed by there? He's average at everything he's done so far, and his potential and will to be better isn't all that impressive either. I'm sorry, but he's starting of Peja to which he has not warranted yet, and probably never will. As for the contract situation, Kobe's contract is much higher, and the Lakers management has been able to surround him with excellent talent. Ditto for the Celtics with having the contracts of Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett which must equate to over 40 million by themselves, yet they've still been able to bring in players like Marquis Daniels, Rasheed Wallace, Eddie House who are all good back-ups and role players. The same situation in Orlando with the contracts of Rashard, Dwight and Vince and even Jameer Nelson. The contract situation of Chris Paul has very, very little do with how good the Hornets are, in fact, I don't think it has anything to do with it. I think it has more to do with the poor decisions, the Hornets managements persistence to sticking to their decisions and the poor signings that made them such a mess. First off, when they got Stojakovic, he was a good player. Coming off a few good years in Indiana and in Sacramento, of course, he was a perfect scorer for Paul and West to be able to pass to. But 3 years down the line, they still haven't done anything to bring in some fresh blood in the same mould of Stojakovic. Rather, they seemed content with playing a visibly older and slower Stojakovic and expecting him to do the same thing he did when he was 24 and winning scoring titles. They drafted Julian Wright, but that did very little as he was a project who was only good for his athleticism and nothing else. Morris Peterson wasn't traded when his value was highest during that approach to his second season in New Orleans and that hurt them because they were then stuck with an injury prone who had lost his shooting touch. His third season in New Orleans now and he's averaging 6 points on 34% shooting. If his contract weren't so big, that would spell W-A-I-V-E-D on just about every other team in the league. I don't understand James Posey's problem, but 1.5 points in 18 minutes at the moment is beyond horrendous. And that's just one position. They never made any moves or deals to re-furbish their forward lineup and are now stuck with Hilton Armstrong and Darius Songalia, both less than glorious players as their back-ups. These guys both aren't back-up players for winning teams and yet here the Hornets are, expecting to win with these guys headlining their second unit. They've also made absolutely no attempt at brining in a true shooting guard. In seasons past, they were content with Devin Brown and Rasual Butler, but when Butler left, they made no attempt at getting anyone else. Their shooting guard slot now consists of the undrafted and undersized duo Devin Brown and Bobby Brown as well as the late Draft selection of Marcus Thornton. And they expect to be winners with this? Bad management decisions have absolutely killed the Hornets. Their one lone good move these past few seasons, I believe was the acquisition of Okafor, and even that didn't help them a single bit. Chris Paul can't be expected to carry a team of journeymen anywhere. It has never worked in previous teams and systems, so I don't understand why the Hornets thought it would now. Although Paul is a great, great player, he's only one player. the NBA rules state that teams needed at least twelve. See the problem? The Hornets assumed that 8% of their roster (Chris Paul) could carry the weight of the extra 92% (and they're heavy) and succeed to some degree. It was never realistically going to actually happen, though.

GAME OF THE WEEK Cavaliers @ Magic (ESPN) Points - 10 Winner: Orlando Magic Leading Scorer, Cavs: LeBron James Leading Scorer, Magic: Dwight Howard Leading Rebounder: Shaquille O'Neal Leading Passer: LeBron James Hornets @ Suns (ESPN) Points - 10 Winner: Phoenix Suns Leading Passer: Steve Nash Thursday, November 12th Cavaliers @ Heat (TNT) Points - 0 Leading Scorer: LeBron James Suns @ Lakers (TNT) Points - 0 Margin of victory (within 5 points): 4 Friday, November 13th Hawks @ Celtics (ESPN) Points - 5 Leading Scorer: Joe Johnson Lakers @ Nuggets (ESPN) Points - 0 Leading Rebounder: Nene Saturday, November 14th Blazers @ Bobcats (NBATV) Points - 0 Leading Passer: Steve Blake Warriors @ Bucks Points - 5 Leading Scorer: Brandon Jennings

I know, lol. You only have to read one sentence of his to know this.

Lol. Your first post does not resemble anything you just said.

Huh? So you admit to being bias, then? I remember when Dwight always pulled a Nick Anderson. It's not surprising to me seeing Dwight Howard miss free throws, nor should it be to you. But for some reason it is. Why is that? Agenda-driven, I assume? Odd in a way that when the Magic start winning games, in comes someone who claims to have watched them pre-1995 who has something bad to say about them. Where were you when we were an average team? You had nothing to say about our weaknesses and I've known you (how embarrassing) since then, but all of a sudden, now our weaknesses according to you make us look like a lottery team even though we are an elite team. Stick to your Rockets discussion, at least with that, you're more convincing. You didn't answer a single question anyone has posed to you here. The only thing you've said it, 'lets face it, you guys are going no where' even though the record shows us at 5-1 and then pulled Dwight Howard's free throw record into the discussion even though this has absolutely zero to actually do with Howard. I am glad in a way, though that you're such a blatant hater. You know your team has made it big time when you have a critic who has nothing good to say.

And unbearably depressing. The book's characters literally gained nothing out of their experiences. Although Hugo, the author may have been one of the first writers to go away from the Victorian novel style where everything works out for everyone to the newer post-modern style of writing, where frustration and depression (for both characters and readers, alike) are they keys. He did give way for many good authors during the early parts of the 20th century, though; James Joyce, Virginia Woolf among others. I'm currently trying to get through J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I have to read it, along with some other novels for a course in university next year. Good book so far although it is difficult to keep up with names, locations etc so I bought a companion book which explains every place and name mentioned. I'm 450 pages through, nearly at the end of Book II (There are six all up).

Oh so you're RedZiggyZag or whatever you like to call yourself. Have they figured you out on Insidehoops yet? Pietrus and Barnes are both better than you give them credit for, but then again, saying that they're good defenders would really go against your agenda on criticizing the Magic for not having good perimeter defenders wouldn't it? I can't actually think you're being serious with the Alston comments either. Everybody knows that at best, he'll play average defense and get beaten by stronger point guard. You don't have to get torched to be excellent and 'one of the best'. Alston continually got out-done when he was the starting point guard, even if it was by a small margin. Any point guard who rolled into Orlando was never forcefully stopped by Alston. If that constitutes good point guard defense, then all of our guard defense the last few seasons have been excellent, dating back to when Tracy McGrady played point forward for us, lol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't JJ Reddick contain Ray Allen in the playoffs? lol. I also seem to remember Paul Pierce only having one good shooting game. I don't remember who exactly was on him (Turk/Pietrus combination most likely) but they did a good job. And now what? Because they're one year older and presumably one step slower (see I can make opinions too and you can't say anything to me about it), they're going to beat essentially the same team, but the one difference being we now have another influential player on the team, on offense, at least. How did your ridiculous thinking come up with this one? Weak, seriously. Five games into the season and you have our season figured out. What's even funnier is that you pick on areas where you can't prove one way or the other, therefore, nobody can call you out on being wrong, of which you are about 99% of the time anyway. I think you pick at these areas because you're scared that you will indeed look like the idiot you are if you try to make a bold statement about something concrete.