Topics

1

NBA Discussion / Debate point question

« on: July 12, 2011, 04:28:19 PM »

Recently read a discussion article between two folks debating pro or con whether Kobe Bryant is a clutch shooter.  I find that argument pointless:  I don't think there's any question that Bryant is.  But it raises this question:

How do we define what is "clutch?"  Obviously, Derek Fisher's .4-second shot was clutch.  Equally obvious is Michael Jordan's shot over Craig Ehlo was clutch.  Which was "more" clutch?  How about Jordan's shot over Bryon Russell?  Was it more clutch than Fisher's?  After all - there was time on the clock after Jordan's - enough for Stockton to get up a ridiculously tough attempt.  If Stockton makes that, is Jordan less clutch?  So how do we define the ridiculously tough shot Duncan made before Derek Fisher's .4 second shot?

I've come to the conclusion that 1) end results matter, 2) clutch needs to be measured against expectation, 3) reputation - even if undeserved - counts.

In other words, there has to be something besides numbers in an evalutation of clutch.

And that leads to the next question:  how important is it to have an elite "clutch" kind of player?  Or are they so common that every team has one (or more)?  And if so, does that make it of less value?

2

NBA Discussion / My Carmelo Anthony proposal

« on: January 13, 2011, 04:37:05 PM »

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=4cq4q3l

This is the trade I worked up for Carmelo.

Include a #2 pick from the Knicks to Detroit, and a #1 pick from the Knicks to Denver, along with $3 million to Detroit.

3

NBA Discussion / So who do you dread facing?

« on: January 04, 2011, 05:56:33 PM »

Situation:  You're on a team that's up by one point with 7 seconds on the clock.  No timeouts availabe for either team - the opponent has just taken his last one, and they're about to inbound the ball.  Which team is it that you most would dread facing?

Understand - this is a question about team philosophy, execution, your ability to know what's coming and to deal with it, and even the competency of the  opponent's coaching.

It's easy to say, "I'd dread facing the Lakers."  Not me.  I *KNOW* who's getting the ball and taking that shot.  I don't know necessarily where or how, but in such a case, I'd forgo defending the inbounder and add an additional defender on Kobe.  Jackson's a good coach (supposedly), but he's not particularly creative in this instance.  Granted, this is the situation Kobe lives for, and performs well in.  I might get burned by a Derek Fisher shot, but do I *REALLY* *BELIEVE* that Kobe's going to give the ball up in this situation?  No.

Ditto with the Spurs.  The ball is going to Ginobili.  Ginobili might get it to Duncan, but the ball's going to be in Ginobili's hands.

Miami doesn't scare me.  As long as Spoelstra's there, that ball will most likely be in Wade's hands.  And while it's a potent offensive team, there are a lot of folks I don't have to worry about too much on that team.

Orlando doesn't scare me.  Van Gundy isn't an offensive genius, and the best player on the team - Howard - isn't likely to be the guy they go to.  I'd have been a bit more scared if they still had Carter.

Utah scares me a little.  Execution is their name, and Sloan is famous for getting the Jazz good looks - from lots of different people - after timeouts.  And with the ball in the hands of Williams, he may take it himself, or he may set someone else up (that someone else likely being Okur) - or possibly a Millsap dunk at the rim.  But I'm going to focus on denying Williams, and I'll risk that Sloan set it up for him to make the decision.

Denver scares me a bit.  Karl is creative, and the ball will probably be in the hands of Billups or Anthony;  in Billups case, the danger is in him going to Anthony, and in Anthony's case, the danger is in him being a gifted scorer.  But how much would I be worried if the ball ended up in the hands of J.R. Smith?  For all you know, he might be stupid enough to shoot at the wrong basket.

Boston scares me a bit, but only really because of Ray Allen's quickness in getting off a shot.  But I'm not all that sold on Doc Rivers or Paul Pierce, and I'm not worried about Rondo hitting a shot to beat me, and again, I don't know that the team's best player - Garnett - is going to be the one taking the shot.

So what team really terrifies me?  *DALLAS*.  Carlisle is a creative offensive coach, and he's got a ton of weapons to use - not the least one of which is Jason Kidd, who's one of the best at picking out which of his targets has the best shot.  You're going to face a line-up of Nowtizki, Marion, Butler (were he available), Kidd, Terry, Barea, and Beaubois - some combination of them.  If you guess wrong...or get crossed up on a screen....

And that's what really intrigues me about Dallas.  If the game is close, I don't want them to have the ball at the end of the game.  And that's why I think they're going to be a force to deal with.

4

Fantasy NBA League / Upcoming Fantasy season

« on: September 27, 2010, 03:03:10 PM »

If 'koast is stepping down, I've got a guy who wants his team - Patrick Smith. 

What are the next steps - and when do we need to have the draft?

5

NBA Discussion / Kobe tops LeBron

« on: September 16, 2010, 09:39:22 AM »

The Q Scores Company has released it's ratings of the most unpopular pro sports figures, and yes, Kobe has topped LeBron - this time, in the most hated athletes in sports poll.

Here's the order:

1.  Michael Vick
2.  Tiger Woods
3.  Terrell Owens
4.  Chad Ochocinco
5.  Kobe Bryant
6.  LeBron James

The commentators I heard this from made the point, which I didn't notice at first, that every one of these athletes is black.  Come on!  Where's Brett Favre or Roger Clemens on the list?  And that's one of those racial points that generally, I look at it, think about it a second, and dismiss it, but this time, I think it really holds water.  That alone would make an interesting topic.

Okay, I understand Vick.  He's getting his "Second Chance" (which is an animal adoption organization, by the way) in a city that would boo safe landings at the airport (thanks to my friend Dan for that one).  And given he's acted the fool since getting out of jail with a SHOOTING at a recent birthday party, it's easy to see why he's here.  And Tiger Woods had the big scandal, but MOST HATED?  I don't get it.  Then again, I don't follow Woods enough to develop a real hatred in the first place.  It's GOLF, for Pete's sake.  Terrell Owens is simply an @$$, and finding him here is quite easily expected.  And while I think he's gone overboard on more than one occasion, I don't get why Ochocinco made this list - unless, of course, you hate him just by looking at the name.  Kobe and LeBron - sure.

I can think of several owners that might make the list SOMEWHERE, but none of them are at the top.

Are those the top five for you?  I can't say I hate Woods or Ochocinco (other than his name) all that much, and while LeBron James has taken a nose-dive in terms of what I think of him, I'm not quite ready to put him in front of several others.  And the fact that Clemens isn't here is just ridiculous to me.

6

NBA Discussion / Basketball Hall of Fame Omissions

« on: August 31, 2010, 04:43:22 PM »

I'm going to throw this out as a topic:

Who are the notable players who most SHOULD be in the Basketball Hall of Fame, but AREN'T? 

I suggest we take a poll, and then send it collectively to Charles Barkley, and see if we can get him to do like he did for Dennis Johnson, advocating publicly for their admission.

Who do you guys think should be in?

7

NBA Discussion / HOF Induction

« on: August 14, 2010, 09:55:28 AM »

Had differing reactions on the various speeches.

Pippen's was well-prepared, but poorly delivered.  I thought that the three family members that spoke all didn't do very well, although I felt that Dennis Johnson's brother was very appropriate in thanking Charles Barkley.  I also loved the fact that Gus Johnson's brother told Jerry Sloan's same story from last year about Gus Johnson.

Cythia Cooper's speech was very off the cuff, and was actually one of the better speeches of the night, although not nearly as formal.

Malone's speech, in my opinion, was the best of the night, although it wasn't as well prepared as many of the others.  You got a genuine feeling of gratitude from Malone.

Jerry Buss did a wonderful job, much as it pains me to say it.  His speech was well prepared, and had the feel of amazement of the kid in the candy store.  I have to say I grew to respect him a bit more as an owner after last night.

Bob Hurley's speech, sure enough, was disjointed.

Magic Johnson nearly missed acknowledging Laettner, but other than that, you could definitely see why he's still "Magic" to this day.  He had a great love for the game, and it really showed through, and I thought it was appropriate for him acknowledging the on-going work of Mike Khoweveryouspellhisnamedoesntreallymatterbecausehesfromduke and Jerry Colangelo for the upcoming USA Basketball teams.  I thought it was also something to hear from Oscar Roberston saying "Whenever you get a chance to play for your country, you should."  Of course, such message would probably be lost on most of today's players.

Big winners of the night:  Malone, Buss, Magic, and USA basketball, which should get a shot in the arm from two Olympic teams going into the Hall.

8

NBA Discussion / Lorenzen Wright

« on: July 29, 2010, 11:17:04 AM »

By now, everyone has probably heard that Lorenzen Wright has been found dead.

What is annoying to me is the sketchiness of the details.  I've heard allusions to him being shot, but nowhere does it say anything definitive of HOW he died.  Is it a potential foul-play situation?  Allusion to a 911 hangup is out there, but NO DETAILS.

I'd kind of like to have some idea of what the police think happened - or at least whether it's a criminal investigation or a tragic accident or a health-related death.  So far, in the news, nothing definitive.

I'm starting to think most reporters are idiots.  How about providing a few deails, guys?

Of course, this is Memphis, so a murder wouldn't surprise me, and probably ought to be the first thing that crosses my mind.

9

NBA Discussion / "LeBron can't win in Cleveland" Thoughts

« on: July 11, 2010, 01:56:42 PM »

I'm going to ask you to, for a moment, consider a statement I completely disagree with as fact.  Now for many of you, you're going to already agree with the statement anyway, so it won't be much of a stretch.  Here it is:

"LeBron can't win in Cleveland."

IF LeBron had no chance of winning a title in Cleveland, WHY DIDN'T HE HAVE A CHANCE?

I understand the reasons for LeBron going to Miami, and even agree with a couple, understand a couple more, and think that of the choices he was offered, *IF* he was going to leave Cleveland, EVEN WITHOUT WADE AND BOSH, he picked the right choice.  That's not what my argument is.

Apparently, for some reson, Cleveland is incapable of constructing a winning team.  Except that, to a very high level, they did.  But Cleveland just lost its last two big free agents:  LeBron and Boozer.  Boozer left for the money, but LeBron left for "winning."

In the past 10 years, we've had 5 teams winning titles.  In the 10 years before that, we had 4 - with two being from the previous 10 years.  In the 10 years before that, we had 4 teams in 10 years, only one not in the past 20.  We've had 8 teams win in the past 30 years.  Add Seattle and another Lakers title to that, and that's the whole time-frame I've followed the NBA.

The count:
Los Angeles, 10
Chicago, 6
Boston, 4
San Antonio, 4
Detroit, 3
Houston, 2
Philadelphia, 1
Miami, 1
Seattle, 1

If LeBron can't win in Cleveland, I think it's very fair to say that Nowitzki can't win in Dallas, Deron Williams can't win in Utah, Bosh couldn't have won in Toronto, Chris Paul can't win in New Orleans, Mayo can't win in Memphis, and Nash can't win in Phoenix.

Can Durant win in Oklahoma City?  Seems awfully unlikely, doesn't it?

You do not see people lining up to sign in Milwaukee.  Who is the last major free agent you remember signing in Minnesota? 

Now some of that is an organization question.  When you've got owners like Sterling and Sarver, you're always going to have a few problems trying to achieve at a top level.  But how is it that Dallas has never won a championship, given a favorable situation in terms of owner, and a general willingness to spend?  Why does Cleveland, a team that has been loyal to its stars in the past, lose their free agents because they don't believe they can win?

"Well, you have to have two superstars to win."  Garbage.  Hakeem Olajuwon showed us in 1994 that one superstar was plenty.  And in 2004, Detroit showed us that you didn't even need one, if you played smart, disciplined, team-oriented basketball.

So *WHY* is the idea that you need to superstars to win so prevalent?  Because those big name teams that are always winning are always fielding the two superstars.

Let me ask you this:  there are two teams - let's say Indiana and Chicago.  Indiana has a tradition of treating its revered players well (Reggie Miller, Rik Smits), and Chicago has a tradition of treating its revered players poorly (Pippen, Kukoc, even to an extent, Jordan).  WHICH TEAM is more likely to get a superstar signing?  Why?

I say it's Chicago.  Big city.  Big opportunity to shine in a big spotlight.  AT BEST, Indiana hopes to keep that gem they find in the draft.

When Duncan is gone, how long before San An is irrelevant? 

Right now, BEST CASE, you figure the following teams have a chance to win it all next year, and I'm being generous:

Orlando, Boston, Miami, Chicago
Los Angeles (Lakers - heck, the DODGERS have a better chance of winning the NBA title than the Clippers do), Dallas, San Antonio, Portland (if Oden pans out), and Oklahoma City.

9 teams. Included in those teams are the teams winning the last 6 championships.  6 of the 9 have won before (okay, 5, if you don't count OKC as inheriting Seattle's championship).  Of those 9, Orlando, Chicago, San Antonio, and Portland won the lottery (Howard, Rose, Duncan, Oden), and OKC had Durant as the #2 pick.

Dallas is the only one that adopted the idea, "We're going to spend, not rely on the lottery, and not rely on our history" to get into the championship discussion.  And how many folks around here think Dallas has a *REAL* shot?

In essence, I do not think it is any longer possible for a fringe team - say an Indiana or a New Orleans or a Cleveland - to figure prominently in championship discussion, because they will be unable to acquire 2 top-level players, because just 1 will keep them from getting the second one in the lottery.  They are not attractive enough to free agents.

Now while many of you may love the fact that it's Lakers-Celtics all over again, frankly, I'm disgusted by it.  Skander made the comment that he lost a lot of interest in the NBA after the Lakers acquired Gasol for a bag of stale potato chips.  His words were, "L.A. made a *MISTAKE*.  They traded CARON BUTLER for KWAME BROWN.  If you've got any self-respect, if you're an opposing team, you make them *CHOKE* on that mistake!  But no."

Same thing just happened with the Bosh and James signings.  Both Toronto and Cleveland agreed to sign-and-trades that got them draft picks and trade exceptions.  Bosh and James get rewarded for jumping ship by getting an extra year on their contracts, for rotten picks.  (Unless, of course, the Miami experiment doesn't pan out, and they miss the playoffs.  Then those first rounders might end up in the top 3.  Why not buy a Lotto ticket instead?  Better chance of winning on that.)  Why not make James and Bosh take that one less year?  Does anyone thing that a LeBron-less Cleveland is *NOW* one player away from winning, whereas *WITH* LeBron, they were "can't win?"

The LeBron signing makes me think one thing more than anything else:  there is no longer parity in NBA basketball.  Perhaps there never was, but I was just too optimistic to see the fact.  Either way, professional basketball, which had already gotten boring, just got *MORE* boring.

*SO* that leads us to next year's lockout.  And don't kid yourself.  There *WILL* be a lockout.  Probably a long one.

If I'm Milwaukee, or Minnesota, or Golden State - do I have *ANY* reason to come back quickly?  AT ALL?  Will I have any future chance at being competitive?  *AT* *ALL*?

If I'm one of these teams - and a host of others (including Utah) - here are the demands I'm making, and I'm not settling until I get them.

1)  Hard cap - no cap exceptions.  Only way to level the playing field.  You can get your LeBron James, but you won't team him with Bosh and Wade, because:
2)  Eliminate salary scale.  You can get 75% of the franchise's money.  Good luck finding 11 people willing to take 2% apiece.
3)  Eliminate sign-and-trade advantage:  no extra year on a sign and trade deal, although you can still offer the larger raises.
4)  Eliminate "restricted free agent" status.  You want your player to stay with your organization?  Pay for them.

If you look at any major sport, and ask which is the most competitve, the most exciting, the one where the most teams realistically can think they can win the whole thing, it's NFL Football.  With it's hard cap.

What does that do to teams that have overpaid their Joe Johnsons?  What does that do for teams like Miami, who'll be over the cap and then some by the time they get done?  Picture this:  Miami forced to choose which of Bosh, Wade, or James they're going to have to deal away to get under the hard cap.

I'm absolutely doing this if I'm a "minor" NBA team.  Why would I not?  I want the field more level.  I expect the game to be a fair one.

Cleveland fans and ownership have a right to be angry.  It's not like they've mistreated their past players, been a bunch of bumblers in running the organization, and tried to nickel-and-dime their superstar.  And LeBron James had no obligation to stay if he didn't want to play there.  But if Cleveland assembled a good cast, offered him the moon (and then some), and has always been good to him, don't you think the idea that he'd sign somewhere else wouldn't have been as popular as it was?

I think that the LeBron James signing may be the BIGGEST debate point in negotiating the new CBA that isn't being talked about *AT* *ALL*.

10

NBA Discussion / The Draft

« on: June 24, 2010, 11:51:35 PM »

Player I most want to see do well:  Greivis Vasquez.  It's the last benefit Memphis gets out of the Gasol-for-Brown debacle, and they use it on a guy who could teach Chris Wallace something about having heart (and 6@11$).  This guy was thrilled.  I hope he does well.

Team that won the draft:  Detroit.  I love the Greg Monroe pick (and was hoping he'd slip to us).

Biggest bone-head move:  Paul Allen, Blazers, for firing Pritchard *BEFORE* the draft.

Funniest moment:  The Clippers draft Al-Farouq Aminu, and the announcers immediately point out that he comes from a line of Nigerian kings.  Given the Clippers great success with their *LAST* Nigerian player (Michael Olowakandi), this is just begging for abuse.  Skander and I will now have plenty more Clippers/Nigerian/baboon jokes.  (It dates back to when I said Hakeem Olajuwon should play for the 1996 Nigerian basketball team instead of the U.S. Olympic team, and settle for the Silver.  Skander asked who would be Olajuwon's teammates, "eleven baboons?"  Since that time, we've looked to add other Nigerian players to Hakeem's team...Olowakandi, Soyoye (from Mizzou), and every time, we've been worried that if we add one of these guys, our team will end up short at baboon.  Can't take a risk like that just to get an Olowakandi....)

Worst draft:  Portland.  They get Babbitt and Ryan Gomes, but give up their starting small forward, Martell Webster.  Then they add some 2-guards who won't see the light of day behind Brandon Roy.  Awful.

Utah's picks:  Gordon Hayward at 9:  Wanted Monroe, but this isn't awful.  Might make a replacement for Kyle Korver.
Jeremy Evans at 25:  Very indifferent.  Not awful, but not inspiring, either. 
Over-all:  a solid C+.

11

NBA Discussion / The Great Rajon Rondo Debate

« on: June 23, 2010, 11:22:14 AM »

Okay, after seeing Rondo's performance in the Finals, I think it's safe to say we're not talking about the guy nearly enough.  He has some parts to his game that are absolutely great - and some parts to his game that are beyond hideous.  So what does everyone make of him? 

I wanted to project exactly what kind of point guard he is by comparing him to other point guards.  I found it was tougher than I thought.

Is he the next:

Jason Kidd?  No.  Horrible free-throw shooter, beyond horrible from deep, not nearly the passer, not nearly as big.

Steve Francis?  No.  Can't shoot, isn't a primary scorer, much more defensively adept, and a better passer, not nearly as big.

Young Tony Parker?  No.  Better passer, better defensively, more of a distributor than a scorer.

Avery Johnson?  Closer.  More talented, obviously, better defensively, more active.  I like this comparison, except for the fact that Rondo is far better defensively and far more active.

Darrell Armstrong?  Close.  Rondo's more talented and better defensively.  Armstrong could shoot much better, though.

So I'm coming up with the rebounding of Francis, the defense of Kidd, the hustle/activity of Armstrong, the shooting almost of a young Tony Parker, and the chemistry fit of Avery Johnson.

It's an *INTERESTING* combination, and it works for BOSTON, but I'm not at all convinced that this guy belongs in the discussion of best point guards in the league, just due to the glare coming off of his deficiencies.  If he ever stops being the hustle guy like Armstrong, a lot of what makes him special goes down the tubes.  And if Boston gets broken apart, will he still be the right kind of fit?  I just don't know.  But if he ever learns to shoot...how does that change him?

What *IS* special about Rondo is that, right now, it's fun to watch him play.  That was how I came up with the "Darrell Armstrong" part of the equation.  He is a gamer, and puts all he's got out there, and I enjoy that.  So even if I don't think he's all as good as everyone likes to think, I do consider myself one of his fans.

What's your take?

12

NBA Discussion / Max contracts

« on: June 12, 2010, 11:38:04 PM »

I'm going to throw a question out for everyone.

Free agency is almost upon us, and we've got a lot of folks who are going to be going after "max" contracts.

Here's my question:  Assuming EVERY PLAYER in the league was a free agent:  HOW MANY/WHO DO YOU THINK DESERVE MAX CONTRACTS?

My answer:  I think the following should be MAX contract players:

LeBron James
Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett, but his time is running short
Kevin Durant, although his "max" should be at a lower level until his next contract.
Dwyane Wade
Dwight Howard

I do *NOT* think the following deserve max contracts:

Joe Johnson
Chris Bosh
Dirk Nowitzki *
Carmelo Anthony
Shaquille O'Neal *
Amare Stoudemire
Jason Kidd *
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Brandon Roy
Tony Parker

* - should have been a max guy in the past, but shouldn't be now.  Garnett is less than a year away from this.

And with my list above, I'm thinking I gave out TOO MANY max contracts.  Durant, Wade, and Garnett may have to go.

13

NBA Discussion / All Star Coaching Trivia

« on: January 29, 2010, 12:42:06 PM »

Can you name:

1.  The coach with the most All-Star wins and All-Star appearances ?  (He's 7-4.)

2.  The coach with the most All-Star losses?  (He's 3-6.)

3.  The coach with the most All-Star wins without a loss?  (He's 4-0.)

4.  The coach with the most All-Star losses without a win?  (He's 0-3.)

5.  The TWO coaches other than the ones above with 3 wins?  (One is 3-1, the other is 3-2.)

Every coach listed here is in either the top 10 in victories or the top 10 in winning percentage (Minimum: 500 games) coming into this season.

14

NBA Discussion / Ah. This must be what going insane feels like.

« on: January 13, 2010, 01:09:28 PM »

I just read this quote, and couldn't believe it.

"It's an example of why he's so important to us," Mavs coach Rick Carlisle said, referring to Bynum's big game in Dampier's absence. "But he's important to us at both ends, not just defensively guarding Bynum and [Pau] Gasol. But offensively he makes a lot of important things happen for us with his screening and movement and activity around the basket."

ERIC DAMPIER?  Okay - I can grant you a BIT of this.  For example, I can see how he's important defensively in guarding Bynum.  He's big and hard to move.  And I can understand how his screening - translation:  standing in the way of defenders - helps Dallas, and given the fact that he's rather...well..."large"...I can see how that could be helpful.

But MOVEMENT?  ACTIVITY?

I thought the last time Dampier moved was in 2004, when he left Golden State for the big contract in Dallas!  And ACTIVITY?  If Carlisle is calling Eric Dampier "active," in any form or fashion, then he has lost all perspective.  This guy was so mobile and active that Dallas was looking at DeSagana Diop as a starting center in 2008!


Hey, Rick - let me help you out on this one.

Dampier is averaging currently the most minutes he has since HIS FIRST YEAR IN DALLAS, after signing the big contract.  He's scoring his most point since HIS FIRST YEAR IN DALLAS, after signing the big contract.  His field goal percentage has gone up every year in Dallas other than THE YEAR HE PLAYED EVERY GAME.  His rebounding is at the highest level SINCE HIS CONTRACT YEAR.  He's getting assist AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN EVER PREVIOUSLY.  His steals are at their lowest level ever.  His blocks are the highest SINCE HIS CONTRACT YEAR.  His points are at their highest since his FIRST YEAR IN DALLAS.  In per-minute numbers, rebounding - highest since his contract year, assists - lowest ever, steals - lowest ever, blocks - best since his rookie year, points - best since is first year in Dallas.

Makes me think he has only one season left after this one on his contract.  The last time Dampier saw two straight years of improvement?  His last two in Golden State.

This guy is this century's version of Jon "Contract" (Koncak).

15

Fantasy NBA League / Been a while since I've done the rankings....

« on: December 30, 2009, 11:56:33 AM »

Here's the latest set of rankings:

1.  Ted                                  84.5
2.  Norwegian                         83.5
3.  Wolverine                          82.5
4.  Archangel                          79.0
5.  jerry lewis                          77.5
6.  Basketball Jihad                   74.5
7.  Genghis                             72.5
8t  Westside                           70.0
8t  Derek                                70.0
10.  Wiener                             63.0
11.  Penguins                          61.0
12.  Basketball Journey             40.0

Final record predictions:

1.  Ted                 140    -   91      .606     -                      current (.606)
2.  Wolverine         139    -   92      .602     1                                 (.505)
3.  Norwegian        138    -   93      .597     2                                 (.515)
4.  Archangel         130.5 - 100.5    .565    9.5                               (.586)
5.  Jerry Lewis       128   -  103      .554    12                                 (.591)
6.  Jihad               121.5 -  109.5   .526    18.5                              (.540)
-----
7.  Genghis            117       114     .506    23       4.5 (GB of playoffs) (.545)
8.  Derek               114       117     .494    26       7.5                      (.455)
9.  Westside          111.5     119.5  .483    28.5    10                       (.429)
10. Wiener              96       135     .416    44       25.5                     (.475)
11.  Penguins          95.5     135.5  .413    44.5     26                       (.439)
12.  Journey           55        176     .238    85       66.5                     (.313)

Playoff predictor
Norwegian over Jihad, 7-4
Archangel over jerry lewis, 6-5

Ted over Archangel, 7-3-1
Norwegian over Wolverine, 6-5

Ted over Norwegian, 6-5

Champion:  Ted's Bricklayers