Doug Gottlieb shows us how not to make an argument

I normally don’t like to make fun of announcers and TV analysts – partly because I think I can do their job (when I really would be awful) and partly because it is too easy. But I was watching College Basketball Final on ESPN yesterday and Doug Gottlieb made a series of preposterous arguments on why Texas should be a #1 seed over BYU. I’m not saying that Texas shouldn’t be a #1 seed over BYU; I’m only saying that Gottlieb wasn’t even in the ballpark of anything close to a rational argument.

Unfortunately, I could not find the original video on ESPN.com. He made a refined version of the same argument today in a panel discussion with Joe Lunardi, which is at this link. I highly recommend watching it. It is marginally better than his original argument, but he makes the same terrible points. For your convenience, I’ve broken down these arguments:

1. The #1 seed is a reward for what you do on the road.

Gottlieb immediately rebuts his own argument, saying that Lunardi will come back with “BYU’s road numbers.” Oh those pesky stats. I hate when they get in the way of a perfectly fine argument. By the way, BYU’s road record is 10-2 and neutral court record is 2-0. Texas’s road record is 7-3 and netural record is 1-1.

2. The #1 seed is a reward for what you do in your non-conference schedule.

I have never heard this argument before. Maybe the #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is in fact a reward for a strong non-conference schedule…but it’s definitely the first time I have ever heard anyone advance this argument.

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that a #1 seed is a reward for a strong non-conference schedule. Texas played five teams in their non-conference schedule that are currently in Lunardi’s field of 68 – Illinois, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, UConn, and Michigan State. They went 3-2 in those games. BYU played four teams currently in Lunardi’s field – Arizona, UCLA, Utah State, and St. Mary’s. They went 3-1 in those games. Apparently that extra loss is worth a reward in Gottlieb’s mind.

Then there is this little tidbit that Lunardi rebuts Gottlieb with: BYU’s non-conference schedule is ranked 14th in the nation; Texas’s non-conference schedule is ranked 73rd. BYU went 14-1 in those 15 games; Texas went 12-3. Oh those pesky numbers again.

3. Even if the numbers don’t work in Texas’s favor, the Longhorns “schedule up” and challenge themselves.

Gottlieb admits that BYU had a decent non-conference schedule, but he isn’t quite done with this point yet. Texas deserves credit for constantly challenging themselves in their non-conference schedule. In order, he cites the following games:

A 2-point loss to Pittsburgh at the Madison Square Garden in November. I’ll grant Gottlieb that playing a team as good as Pittsburgh to a two-point loss at a neutral site is a plus. But Texas didn’t schedule Pitt – they met in the final of the 16-team 2K Sports Classic. I’m guessing they got a pretty good sum of money just for appearing in the tournament. I’m also guessing that BYU would gladly have played in the tournament if they were invited.

A 2-point win over North Carolina in December at a “neutral” site location in Greensboro. Nothing wrong here – that’s a very good win, even if the Tar Heels were only 7-3 at the time.

A 12-point win at Michigan State. Now Gottlieb is stretching because the Spartans kinda suck. He argues that the Spartans were a preseason Top Ten team, which would be fine except that Texas played them on December 22, after the Spartans had already started to fall apart. Since then, Sparty has continued their nosedive and are barely hanging on to a NCAA Tournament spot.

A 17-point loss on the road at USC. Whoa. The Trojans currently sit at 17-12. They are not a good team. I have absolutely no idea how this could in any way be considered a plus on an NCAA Tournament resume. As best as I can tell, Gottlieb’s only argument is that “the same thing would have happened to BYU.” Well then.

4. Texas’s conference schedule is better because they had to go to Lawrence to play Kansas

I am not sure what Gottlieb is going for here. He says that Texas doesn’t get the benefit of having Kansas coming to Austin to play. Instead, the Longhorns had to go to Lawrence and picked up a monster win over Kansas. I agree with the second sentence, but I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with anything. That’s just the way the Big 12 conference schedule is set up. Next season they will in fact have the “luxury” of having Kansas come to Austin. Will that make Kansas a #1 seed if the Jayhawks win? My head is spinning.

Five other Big 12 teams besides Texas are projected to make the tournament field. The Big 12 schedule gave Texas a home-and-home with Texas A&M and Baylor, sent the Longhorns to Kansas, and sent Missouri and Kansas State to Austin for one game. So this “luxury” that apparently hurts Texas has actually helped them.

In his original appearance, Gottlieb hammered home that Texas’s best win was over Kansas and BYU’s was over San Diego State. His exact words were: “Where is it harder to win? At Kansas or at San Diego State? I arrest my case.” Stunning logic. I like Lunardi’s response: “If it was close, I would absolutely take Texas and their win at Kansas, putting Texas to the top line, but it’s really not close.”

The interesting part is that Gottlieb is almost certainly right: Texas’s conference schedule is more difficult than BYU’s conference schedule. But if we only used the logic that he took to get there, we could actually make a better argument for BYU than Texas.

5. They have a chance to win versus Kansas State and at Baylor.

At first I wasn’t sure that this was an actual point that Gottlieb used to support his case. After watching it a second time, it is clear that he is actually using wins that haven’t happened yet to support his argument. In his words, “I still think Texas is the #1 seed, especially since they have a chance to win at Baylor, Kansas State at home tonight.” How does one even argue with that?

6. Texas has more pure wins than BYU does.

Again, I might argue this, but I have no idea what a pure win is. Either Gottlieb is thinking on another level than the rest of us mere mortals, or he just made up an NCAA tournament qualification on the spot.

7. Texas’s recent 1-2 stretch is okay because of their far more difficult schedule.

Lunardi points out that those that draw up the NCAA Tournament field like the “what have you done for me lately factor.” Texas hasn’t delivered, losing to Nebraska and Colorado and beating last place Iowa State. Gottlieb thinks this is justified because Nebraska and Colorado are on the bubble…never mind that neither team was actually on the bubble until they beat Texas.

For the Cougars’ part, they are 7-0 in their last seven games, with a home win over tournament bound UNLV, a road win over potential #2 seed San Diego State, and a home win over bubble team Colorado State. And Texas’s schedule was better how?

8. Eight of BYU’s ten road wins came over a team with an RPI higher than 100.

Gottlieb is a total failure. BYU has actually beaten four top 100 teams on the road – San Diego State  (#4), UNLV (#26), Colorado State (#47), and Air Force (#96). Then he goes on to dismiss the UNLV and Colorado State WINS because they are bubble teams…never mind that not more than ten seconds previously he justified Texas’s LOSSES over bubble teams Nebraska and Colorado.

Now I am rooting for BYU to get a #1 seed, if for no other reason that we can all laugh at Doug Gottlieb’s shaky logic in a few weeks.

The Hasheem Thabeet Problem

Hasheem Thabeet – the #2 draft pick in last year’s NBA Draft – was shipped from Memphis to Houston on Thursday in a trade that barely registered on anyone’s radar screen. The Rockets dealt Shane Battier and Ishmael Smith for Thabeet, DeMarre Carroll, and a first-round pick.* Smith does not figure into the Grizzlies’ future plans and Battier’s contract is up in four months, so they essentially traded away the second pick in the 2009 draft, the 29th pick in the 2009 draft, and a first round draft pick in 2013 to rent Battier’s services for a potential playoff push. Wow.

* Carroll was the Grizzlies’ 29th pick in the 2009 draft. He has scored eleven points this ENTIRE SEASON. Not a good draft for Memphis. These are things that happen when Chris Wallace is your GM.

I am not sure what is more stunning: that Memphis gave up on a #2 draft pick that soon or that the trade was completely lost in the shuffle over the weekend. It’s fine to be overshadowed by the Carmelo trade…but it’s pretty sad to see Thabeet being overshadowed by Baron Davis to Cleveland for Jamario Moon and Mo Williams.

When I say stunning, I mean theoretically stunning. On a personal level, I am not at all surprised that Thabeet has been an absolute train wreck. I knew he was going to be a huge bust on February 16, 2009 – a full four months before he was drafted. On that date, I had my longest career ESPN Streak for the Cash streak going. Sitting on eleven consecutive wins, I went with #1 Connecticut at home against #4 Pittsburgh. A couple minutes into the game, this happened:

DeJuan Blair finished with 23 points and 22 rebounds, while Thabeet put up five points, four rebounds, and two blocked shots. And just like that, my streak went up in flames. So did my faith in Thabeet.

What NBA team could watch that video and not realize that Thabeet’s CEILING was a Tanzanian Shawn Bradley? Blair is 6’7″ and 265 pounds and put up 22 rebounds on Thabeet – what made anyone think he could handle the bigger and taller centers in the NBA?

I understand the arguments for drafting him. You can’t teach height. Even if he can’t rebound, he will block and re-direct shots. He has only been playing basketball since he was 15, so he will learn more. And so on. I get the arguments. I just think they are all stupid.

It is true that you can’t teach height. I should know – I am pretty deadly from three-point land, but no NBA team has drafted me yet because I am only 5’10”. If I could grow nine more inches, I would absolutely be playing in the NBA or be the top porn star in the world, depending on where that nine inches went. It is also true that you can’t teach instincts in the NBA. You can try, but you probably won’t be successful. Try to name a skinny, raw young center that actually filled out his frame to become a dominant center after being thrown around for his first couple of years int he league. Seriously…I’ll wait.

Moses Malone maybe? He was a skinny high school center. I’m not even sure he counts though, because he had some of the greatest rebounding instincts of any player in NBA history. Beyond that, the list of “project” centers is littered with a bunch of stiffs. I didn’t think Thabeet would be any different, so I’m not sure why any other team would think Thabeet would be any different?

I swear I don’t mean to sound like Bill Simmons, but Thabeet is a perfect example of the upside phenomenon in the NBA Draft. NBA teams are obsessed with upside, but there is a catch-22. An NBA team can only carry 15 players, 12 of whom are active for each game. Realistically, an NBA team cannot develop a raw player with upside other than by being patient as he gets torched by better players. The NBA Developmental League is not a feasible solution. It could be, but there is a stigma with sending draft picks to the league. Look no further than Thabeet’s two-week journey to the Dakota Wizards last season for proof of that. The media KILLED him.

All American sports leagues are obsessed with upside, but none more so than the NBA. Just watch an NBA Draft – as Simmons observes in his annual NBA Draft Diary, they speak in code words: wingspan, great feet, long arms, incredibly athletic, etc. NBA teams love players with upside. They look to what players can be, rather than what they already are.

Unlike the NBA, other sports leagues actually have the ability to develop players. MLB teams are well aware that every single draft pick is a developmental project, hence the five levels of minor league baseball. Rarely do you see any top pick make an impact in the majors in less than three years, so busts don’t really hurt teams. Similarly, the NHL draws players from leagues all over the world. Other than a few standout prospects each year, a team does not really know what they are getting, so busts really don’t sting these teams either. In the NFL, a team can carry 53 players plus another eight on a practice squad. If a player isn’t ready, you let him learn and watch from the bench for a couple of years while playing on special teams.

Most NBA teams play nine or ten man rotations. That really only leaves two spots for a developmental prospect. But you really can’t even use those for an extended amount of time because of the stigma attached to them. Analysts expect top draft picks to contribute right away. When they can’t, they are forced into action when they aren’t ready. They don’t learn anything but getting destroyed constantly and their confidence is shot.

To top that off, if a team is actually a contender, they cannot even afford to develop a project. Memphis drafted Thabeet knowing that he was an extremely raw center they would have to develop his skills to make him an NBA center. The team turned out to be surprisingly good this year but are a piece away from contending. Project over. Now it is the struggling Houston Rockets’ turn to try to develop him into an NBA center.

All of this leads to a unique phenomenon in the NBA in which you can actually pick out the busts before they happen, and teams draft them anyway. In the last five years, I saw the biggest three busts from the top three picks well ahead of time. In addition to Thabeet, I had a long debate with a Portland fan at my work on why they should draft Durant over Greg Oden in 2007. Sadly, I could not find a video of Oden running, but any 19-year old that runs like a 38-year old probably shouldn’t go first overall. Portland drafted him anyway because they did not want to be the team that let a franchise center slip away. Four years later, Oden has played 103 career games, Durant will win his second scoring title this year, and “Oden over Durant” has already joined “Bowie over Jordan” in Portland lore.

Adam Morrison with the #3 pick in the 2006 Draft was also a bust waiting to happen. This one is just a matter of common sense. Watch this video for all the proof you need:

How many unathletic white guys who wore a t-shirt in college and cried on the floor after a game were worthy of a #3 overall pick in the NBA Draft? Zero. Adam Morrison was no exception.

Before that, there was Darko Milicic in 2003 and Michael Olowokandi in 1998. Both Detroit and the Clippers took raw prospects in an attempt to hit a home run. Both failed miserably. Their failures are only exasperated by the players drafted after them: Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade for Milicic, and Vince Carter, Dirk Nowitzki, and Paul Pierce for Olowokandi.

As these failures keep adding up, you’d think that NBA teams would forget it out. But I doubt it. Taking a big swing to try to hit a home run is always more exciting than a base hit.

In the meantime, I will get to brag that I saw all these busts coming before they happen. Now I even have a blog to commit these predictions to writing.