ESPN NBA

It will likely be argued that Stan Van Gundy is a product of his star players. After all, he has only coached teams that included either Dwyane Wade or Dwight Howard. And Howard especially anchored a defensive unit that, in the Van Gundy era, has certainly been one of the best in the league.

For four straight seasons, the Magic ranked in the top five in defensive efficiency -- including first in 2008-09 and second the following season.

Over the five season span that Van Gundy coached the team, the Magic ranked second-best in the league in defensive efficiency, second in defensive field goal percentage and first in points in the paint allowed.

All because of Dwight Howard, you say? Consider that in Howard's three seasons before Van Gundy became head coach, the team ranked 15th, 11th and seventh in those categories.

That could be a product of Howard simply coming into his own and developing into a dominant force as an NBA player. But though Howard reportedly wanted the coach out of town, Van Gundy leaves with several impressive items on his coaching resume.

He reached the playoffs in all five seasons with the Magic and racked up 31 playoff wins. That's more playoff wins than the franchise had in its previous 18 seasons of existence.

Since Van Gundy took over, he led the Magic to a better regular-season record than all but three teams. The only franchsies who were better are the Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics and San Antonio Spurs.

He's not likely to get mentioned in the same breath as Phil Jackson when discussing the greatest NBA coaches, but there is something big that Stan Van Gundy and Jackson have in common: neither coached a losing season.

Jackson coached 20 seasons and never had a losing record, while Van Gundy's total was just eight seasons. Five with the Magic, three with the Heat. And yes, that includes the year with the Heat where Van Gundy was 11-10 before being replaced with Pat Riley.

But Elias tells us that Van Gundy is in rare company. Along with Jackson, the only others who coached at least eight seasons and never had a losing record are former Knicks coach Joe Lapchick and former 76ers coach Billy Cunningham. Both are in the Hall of Fame.

And Van Gundy's .641 career winning percentage puts him in another elevated group: coaches with a winning percentage that high who have coached at least 500 games. Counting Van Gundy, that group is only six members and includes Jackson, Gregg Popovich and Red Auerbach.

But since the 2009 NBA Finals appearance, Van Gundy's Magic teams just haven't had similar success. They had 13 playoff wins that year, beating LeBron James' Cleveland Cavaliers, the Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers on their way to the Finals.

Since then, they've tallied just two series wins and been bounced by the Atlanta Hawks and Indiana Pacers in consecutive years.

David Thorpe dropped by HoopSpeak Live on Thursday to talk a little Orlando Magic and, specifically, about how the team operates under the direction of Stan Van Gundy.

Even as the Magic fell from the league's elite last season, they still ranked No. 3 in defensive efficiency. Having a presence like Dwight Howard patrolling the paint in the half court certainly anchors a defense, but the Magic's success is predicated on more than just allowing its perimeter defenders to crowd their assignments because Howard can clean up any mess.

As Thorpe describes it, the Magic are committed to a few basic -- but essential -- defensive principles.

You can watch hours of Magic basketball and be hard-pressed a Grade A screw-up defending the pick-and-roll. That foundation, in turn, allows the Magic to defend the perimeter and prevent teams from lighting them up from beyond the arc. When two men can handle pick-and-roll duty or, if they can't, the back-line big rotates swiftly, perimeter defenders can stay at home.

The Magic might have to play under a cloud of uncertainty regarding Howard, but good coaching and a defensive system that works can keep the Magic in the top third of the Eastern Conference ... so long as the roster remains largely intact.



Thorpe discusses his favorite rookies from this year's class with Zach Harper here.

Unlike the Western Conference where the Lakers have reigned supreme over the past couple of seasons, the Eastern Conference regular-season landscape has been a relatively open space. Convincing arguments could be made in recent seasons for Boston, Cleveland and Orlando, and each of these three teams made at least one trip to the NBA Finals over the past four Junes.

The Miami Heat have changed all that. Of the 93 prognosticators who took part in ESPN.com's NBA Summer Forecast, 66 predicted the Heat to win the East.

Who's their most serious competition? That was a source of some debate, but three teams were projected to win at least 50 games, and picked to finish second in the East by at least one TrueHoop Network blogger. Those teams were Orlando, Boston and Chicago.

On Wednesday, we asked members of the TrueHoop Network to defend their No. 2 picks in the Western Conference, and invited a dissenting opinion from a fellow blogger.

Now, we look East:

Orlando Magic

The case for the Magic
Kyle Weidie (Truth About It)
After the Miami Heat, obviously, it will be the Orlando Magic battling for Eastern Conference supremacy ... in front of the Celtics, and definitely in front of the Bulls, Hawks and Bucks. Why you ask? Well, let's start with the depth. There's not much turnover from last season's 59-win team -- they added a more solid backup guard in Chris Duhon, along with veteran Quentin Richardson and rookie Daniel Orton, and really only lost Matt Barnes. Jameer Nelson continues to be a leader by hosting his teammates for workouts in Philadelphia. And don't forget that coach Stan Van Gundy signed a contract extension through 2012-13 (that constancy thing). Did I mention that Dwight Howard has been working with Hakeem Olajuwon this summer? The East has been warned. As Orlando continues to grow as a unit, while Miami tries to Frankenstein a three-headed monster and surrounding parts and Boston hires extra trainers to keep loose ligaments intact, best believe that the Magic will be in the picture to make the NBA Finals.

The case against the Magic
Carey Smith (Philadunkia)
It seems obvious that the East will be much tougher in 2010-11 with numerous teams having improved significantly this offseason. The Magic were not one of those teams because the additions of Chris Duhon and Quentin Richardson do not qualify as major upgrades. Additionally, the Magic were a very healthy team last season as their entire roster missed a total of only 63 games due to injury or illness. With the pounding Dwight Howard takes on a nightly basis, he will not be able to continue playing in all 82 games every season. Also the fountain of youth can last only so long for aging veterans like Vince Carter (75 games last year), Rashard Lewis (72), Jason Williams (82) and Quentin Richardson (76) who seem likely to miss more games than they did last season. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the Celtics laid down a defensive blueprint during the conference finals for how to beat Orlando. The NBA is a copycat league, so expect more teams to lock down the Magic's perimeter players and dare Dwight Howard to beat them. That's a tough task for even “Superman” to handle.

Boston Celtics

The case for the Celtics
Zach Harper (Cowbell Kingdom)
The Celtics got away with a lot of malaise and indifference for the greater good last season, only we didn't know it was going on at the time. And while the middle of the pack in the Eastern Conference is much improved this season, there is still a huge disparity in team play between the Celtics and the next level down. They may struggle with Miami, Orlando and the top teams in the West during the regular season but I don't think they'll have a problem swinging down on the rest of the East. With nobody ready to jump up a level the Celtics can still get their rest and finish with one of the best records in the conference.

The case against the Celtics
Zach Lowe (Celtics Hub)
I'm a pessimist all around, so take my prediction of 49 wins with a small grain of salt and understand it is a prediction about the regular season alone. The Celtics won "only" 50 games last season before visibly turning up their intensity during the postseason and coming within a few minutes of the championship. What objective evidence do we have to suggest they will approach the 2011 season any differently than the 2010 season? The team is built for a run in May and June, not in February and March, and the Celtics likely care less about where they finish in the Eastern Conference standings than about entering the post-season healthy and with a team-wide understanding of Boston's principles on both sides of the ball. The signings of Shaquille O'Neal and Jermaine O'Neal make sense considering the absence of Kendrick Perkins and the problems the team had last season with rebounding and scoring in the post. But those signings also made an old team even older. Boston will play much of the regular season with a lack of urgency. Doc Rivers will limit minutes for the veteran players. Guys will get hurt and miss time here and there. These things will happen. Add it all up, and 49 wins is a reasonable, if low, prediction. No win total between 48 and 55 would be a surprise, but a win total of less than 16 in the playoffs might qualify as a disappointment.

Chicago Bulls

The case for the Bulls
Henry Abbott (TrueHoop)
The Bulls were a halfway decent team with gimpy Derrick Rose, gimpy Luol Deng and gimpy Joakim Noah playing with a bunch of expiring contracts. Now those three return presumably healthy, at ages when they should be better than ever, coached by the guy who led the best defense in the NBA over the last three years, with some nontrivial new firepower. Carlos Boozer did not make the NBA by being taller or stronger than everybody else. He got there in no small part by having a killer work ethic and by being a real-deal adult. That's a wonderful example for this young team. I've always been a Ronnie Brewer fan. People think Omer Asik has real potential. C.J. Watson can play NBA basketball. Kurt Thomas doesn't hurt. And for a team that has needed shooting, Kyle Korver is a marvelous signing. Put it all together, and the Bulls have talented, impassioned players at the most important positions, a good portion of the Utah Jazz (Brewer, Boozer, Korver), and the most interesting new NBA coaching hire of the last few years. I'm feeling bullish.

The case against the Bulls
Jared Wade (8 points, 9 Seconds)
The Bulls had a fine offseason, and the acquisition of Carlos Boozer will give the team the low-post scorer it has been desperately searching for since, roughly, the Carter administration. Next to the defensively solid Joakim Noah, the always-perplexing Luol Deng and second-year forward Taj Gibson, Booz finally brings some stability to the frontcourt. But even with Derrick Rose presumably continuing to ascend toward elite status, the Bulls still have a long way to go to compete with Miami, Orlando and Boston. Even Atlanta's core is more proven, regardless of their ugly playoff exit last season, and the Bucks already play the type of defense that Tom Thibodeau is hoping he can get the Bulls to commit to. The Central Division is a cesspool outside of the Bulls and Bucks, so expect Chicago to win around 50 games — but don't expect much more than a second-round playoff exit.

• LeBron James shoots 76.9 percent from the stripe. How much better would the Cavs be if he could get his free-throw shooting up to an 85 percent clip?
• Ben Q. Rock of Orlando Pinstriped Post on Dwyane Wade's performance against the Magic last night: "And Wade? Stop it. He continued his mastery of the Magic. Let's run through those numbers again: 36 points on 59.2% True Shooting, 10 rebounds, 7 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, and just 1 turnover in 45 minutes, dominating the ball on every possession. He's unreal. Fortunately for Orlando, Van Gundy's decision to double-team him throughout the overtime period -- a look Van Gundy will try against scorching hot perimeter players with the game on the line--paid off. He scored just 2 points in the period, with Beasley and O'Neal ending 2 possessions apiece, with mixed results."
• A bright spot for a Celtics team that's starting to play a little better: Doc Rivers has been able to pace his starters, keeping their minutes in check as the postseason approaches.
• Andrew R. Tonry of Portland Roundball Society: "I miss Gilbert Arenas. I miss his awesome nicknames and yelling Hibachi! after every shot. I miss his blog, where he once even talked about driving home and passing by a bridge, and his thought that, for no real reason at all, he could just drive off and end it all. Another great one: 'Everyone is having sex until they fall in love. When you fall in love, then it’s making love.' Gilbert found commonality in the human experience -- thoughts we all have, but few of us, especially professional athletes, are gutsy enough to share."
• A lot of athletes deny scoreboard-watching -- not Stephen Jackson: "If anybody’s not paying attention they really don’t care about making the playoffs. I know I ask. As soon as we take care of business, I try to find out from somebody around the organization to see if they have any scores.” (Hat Tip: Sports Radio Interviews)
• Want an illustration of how bad the Wizards' offense has been? Check out the trend line on Mike Prada's graph.
• Mark Ginocchio of Nets are Scorching: "[Devin] Harris is a talented player, and you certainly don’t want to lose him for a song -- if he becomes trade bait this summer he has to bring back another building block for a move to be considered, not more expiring contracts. But Harris is also unreliable, and you cannot build around the unreliable."
• Arron Afflalo's favorite things to do in Denver: "I'm downtown a lot, just getting something to eat. Cheesecake Factory, P.F. Chang's, you can catch me there. Banana spring rolls -- I'm going straight for dessert, and maybe some shrimp fried rice."
• Among the many things that excite Jon Brockman? Swedish hatchbacks.
• At one point or another, we've all been where this guy was during Texas' meltdown last night. (PG-13)
• If you're a writer with an interest in the Dallas Mavericks, make some magic with Rob Mahoney.
• Collegiate player I'll be watching today: Oklahoma State's James Anderson, a big guard who knows how to find a shot. He can stroke the ball from the perimeter and draw contact off the dribble. Efficiency Machine.

Dwyane Wade brought earplugs to All-Star Weekend, so he won't have to listen to his former coach Stan Van Gundy.

Van Gundy gets the joke.

When a very good team drops seven of nine games – as the Orlando Magic have – those examining the tea leaves often arrive at a singular conclusion: It must be chemistry. It can’t be the talent, because Orlando has an embarrassment of riches, a roster so deep that Brandon Bass routinely logs DNPs. They lost Hedo Turkoglu and Courtney Lee, but added Vince Carter, Ryan Anderson, Matt Barnes and Bass.

But what does good chemistry mean? Are we talking about on-court fit? Are we talking about a group of guys that goes to the movies together on road trips? Remember the slew of articles about the Cleveland's team chemistry last season? When the Cavs ultimately lost the Eastern Conference Finals last spring to Orlando was it because something upset that chemistry? Or was it because they ran up against a team that had a unique combination of size, speed and flexibility to offset the Cavs' strengths?

It's one of those classic chicken-and-egg questions: Does good chemistry produce winning, or does winning produce good chemistry? When you stop winning, is it because the chemistry has gone bad, or does the chemistry go bad because you've stopped winning?

Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy isn't a man with a lot of patience for abstractions. He deals in reality. Those blue cards that forever pop out of his inside jacket pocket? They're professional basketball sets, schemes designed to produce opportunities for his players to score two or three points. Van Gundy's initial answer to the "good chemistry vs. winning" riddle prior to Monday night's game against the Lakers was, "It's both." But then he elaborated, essentially saying that if you want chemistry, call a chemist:

We were 17-4 at one point. Your chemistry shouldn’t get worse as you go along. We’re just not playing well right now. People want to point to a lot of psychological reasons and all of these things. I’ve heard hangover from the Finals, but what, it came on late after the first 21 games? I’ve heard chemistry, and so I guess ... we had chemistry for 21 games...

When you’ve had as many people as we’ve had -- and it’s all of us really -- not playing well, you’re not going to look like you have great chemistry because you’re not executing and the ball’s not moving, and everything else. To me, call it what you want, it doesn’t matter. We’re just not playing well.

Matt Barnes has been the most publicly vocal Magician during the team's recent slump. He called out the Magic for lacking heart following their lackluster effort at Portland Friday night. When asked whether good chemistry produced winning or vice versa, he repeated the question to himself, then considered it for another instant before answering.

"You can probably get there both ways, but I’d say when you get on a winning streak, you have good chemistry," Barnes said. "You play consistent and hard, and then you have good chemistry."

Ryan Anderson had a similar response. "Honestly, if you win, your team is going to come together more," Anderson said. "You’re going to have a better attitude. You’re going to want to practice harder. You’ll want to be the best possible team you can be. But when you see everybody struggling, or things just aren’t going our way, that’s when you sort of split apart. Then guys start talking about their own things. I mean, I think good chemistry can make a winning team, but you need to win to get that good chemistry."

The Magic have a lot of things going for them. By the time they're fully engaged in a second round series in early May, this bumpy stretch might be nothing more than a footnote, that rough patch in January before the All-Star break. The slump might even be instructive. If Orlando comes out of it okay and reasserts itself as one of the League's elite teams, will it be because they're able to cultivate better chemistry or because they remember how to perform tasks that produce winning basketball -- things like funneling penetrators to Dwight Howard, making defenses pay for overcommitting on Howard down low, spacing the floor effectively for their high screen-and-rolls, and coming off those screens like they mean it.

Chemistry might help the Magic accomplish some of that. Then again, chemistry might just be a euphemism for understanding how to execute your stuff.

One of the simple ways of experiencing basketball is by talking about it with people who share your love of the game. One of the people I enjoy rapping with is John Krolik of Cavs the Blog and SLAM Online. The best conversations are the ones that produce interesting questions, then aim to answer them. Here are some of those questions about the NBA John and I have been bouncing around in our last couple of conversations:

As guys get freakier and more athletic, are we witnessing an end to positional orthodoxy?
JK: We're definitely seeing a lot of blurring in positional lines, particularly outside of the center position. One thing in particular I like is the rise of the true combo guard. Early in the decade, we got a lot of alleged "combo guards" who were really just superpowered bench gunners given control of teams with mixed results; Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, et cetera. (Iverson is Iverson.)

But now we're really starting to see effective players who are a cross between the one and the two in a good way, and they're being complimented with other multi-skilled guards rather than going with a strict point guard/shooting guard backcourt. In San Antonio, they put Tony Parker, who's a great scorer for a point, next to Manu, who's a great playmaker for a shooting guard, and things went well. The double-combo backcourt of Mo Williams and Delonte West turned Cleveland's backcourt from a disaster area to a huge strength last season. Even Jason Kidd, the truest of points, is playing with JET and JJ Barea, and has even become adept at knocking down catch-and-shoot 3s off of other people's assists. Phil Jackson's won only 10 championships using an offense that doesn't require a traditional point. And so many young combo guards are coming in with tons of talent: Tyreke Evans, Russell Westbrook, Brandon Jennings and even John Wall, who should definitely be put next to a guy who can pass and shoot when he comes into the league so that he can spend some time in each game going on guilt-free scoring rampages. Wall might be the combo-guard messiah.

KA: This is a beautiful trend because it's created a much more diverse range of basketball styles. Very few teams around the league look alike, even though many of them run much of the same stuff. The fact that so many players can do so many different things on the floor creates an exponentially greater number of things a team can do schematically. On many teams, shots on the floor can be drawn up for almost any player at any spot! Part of this can be attributed to athleticism. One the things that made a power forward or a center a big men was his ability to perform big men tasks -- rebounding, shot-blocking, the ability to routinely get high-percentage shots close to the rim. Today's NBA perimeter players have the athleticism to do a lot of that -- and many of the bigger guys in the league have perimeter skills, as well.

This seems like a nice segue to ...

Do traditional big men have a future?
KA: Whether you chalk it up to the prohibition of hand-checking or the stylings of Mike D'Antoni's Phoenix Suns teams (I'd argue that former rendered the latter), the professional game has undergone a seismic shift over the past decade. Perimeter play has taken over. Today's power forwards have big guard games and two of the top three players in 3-point attempts are 6-foot-10. It's a world gone mad, but you can't complain about the product on the court. The NBA has never been more fun to watch, and we're just getting started...

...or are we?

Trends have a way of feeling permanent while they're being experienced, but they rarely last forever. At some point, laws of macroeconomics take over. Right now, there aren't more than a handful of big men in basketball who have refined post moves and can drain a running right-handed hook with consistency. Teams don't value those attributes as much as speed and 3-point shooting. But as more and more players have the ability to drain 100-200 3-pointers per season at a 40 percent clip, the demand will shift. Kids who arrive on the NBA's doorstep with the ability to dominate the game inside with uncanny efficiency will be shopping skills that few teams will be able to defend.

JK: I'd say the hand-check rules imposed an artificial set of circumstances that forced a change, so I don't think we'll see the pendulum swing all the way back to where it was. But I think guys are finding out that even though big men need to be faster and more skilled than they used to be and can't count on getting minutes just because they can score with their backs to the basket and do nothing else (i.e. Eddy Curry), the post-up game is still a valuable weapon. Look at the Lakers. Andrew Bynum, when he's engaged, defends the rim, gets rebounds and is quick enough to find room and finish off of others, but also posts up. Pau Gasol plays the high-post, runs the floor, gets rebounds, passes beautifully and can knock down the mid-range jumper, but also has a wonderful post game. And of course Kobe can and does do just about anything that's possible for a basketball player to do, but also utilizes the post game.

I'd say that the post-up specialist won't be in vogue again in the foreseeable future, but more and more bigs and wings who can do what's demanded of them in the post hand-check NBA are going to find that the actual post game is still a hugely valuable weapon, especially as fewer and fewer teams know how to defend it.

Of the current young up-and-coming teams, which ones are for real and which ones will provide an entertaining illusion of success?
KA: When sizing up a team's future prospects, the first thing I ask myself is, "Can I imagine this team ranking in the top half of the league defensively?"

Oklahoma City is the quintessential upstart squad. They're fun, charismatic, dynamic, athletic ... and not all that impressive as an offensive unit. It's the Thunder's defense that's led them to a 17-14 record this season. So long as tough, lanky defenders like Russell Westbrook and Thabo Sefolosha are patrolling the perimeter (and James Harden too), opponents are going to have a tough time scoring against them. With that Kevin Durant angle pick-and-roll as the anchor of their offense, they're a good bet to win a playoff series sometime soon.

Brandon Jennings has sparked any and all attention the Bucks have received this season, but Milwaukee's frontcourt of Andrew Bogut, Ersan Ilyasova and Luc Mbah a Moute have put up gritty defensive numbers. Mbah a Moute comes as no surprise, but I was shocked by Bogut's stats, until I looked at his figures under Scott Skiles last season -- also really, really good. Once they get a (healthy) shooting guard who can play drive-and-kick off the Jennings-Bogut pick-and-roll, the Bucks could be dangerous under a coach who was booted from his last gig in Chicago after assembling the league's top-ranked defense and the Eastern Conference's 3rd best record the previous season.

Sacramento's lousy defensive numbers don't concern me right now. They strike me as a team that's going to experience a major overhaul over the next 18 months, and a big part of that metamorphosis will be acquiring some pieces around Tyreke Evans who can defend. I have less faith in Memphis, Minnesota, Golden State and, to a slightly lesser extent, Philadelphia, who all have rosters riddled with defensive ciphers.

JK: I think Oklahoma City wins a playoff series when their backcourt clicks into place, and that's close to happening. I love Westbrook's game and think he has a ton of potential, but he just needs to be more disciplined. He pushes the ball, plays great defense, and does all these little things, but then he'll throw up a bad jumper, brick a full-speed reverse layup, or make a silly pass, and his true shooting percentage and turnover rates are way off of where they need to be because of that. It'll be interesting to see if the answer there is Harden maturing to the point where he can play 30-35 minutes a game and cover some of Westbrook's weaknesses with his shooting, playmaking and ability to create off the drive. (Combo guards!) But I think that young frontcourt is the envy of a lot of teams in the league, Sam Presti keeps getting valuable pieces without giving up much, and I'd call the future very bright there.

For Sacramento, the short-term question is how Tyreke is going to work with Kevin Martin. They might cancel each other out or become absolutely unstoppable together, although they might need to do the latter to make up for Martin's suspect defense. But Thompson, Hawes, Casspi, and even Brockman all look like keepers, and Tyreke has given every indication that he can be built around.

In Milwaukee, I think they should be having serious brainstorms on how they can hide Mbah a Moute on offense so they can keep him on the floor longer, maybe even looking for a stretch four so they can put Mbah a Moute closer to the basket offensively and use him like Detroit used Ben Wallace. He's that good defensively.

I agree with you about the rest of the teams, although I give Memphis some upside because I think it's a bit too early to completely give up on Hasheem Thabeet as an impact player defensively; if Orlando could build a defense around Howard and four perimeter guys, there's a chance Memphis can as well. (A chance, mind you.)

What is it about Stan Van Gundy that we like so much?
JK: I think we've got a pretty narrow view of how to evaluate coaches, because we don't see the vast majority of what they do and we're trained to look for their failures and not their successes. Coaches almost exist to be fired, and every time they make a mistake with their play-call or substitution, it'll get talked about the next day.

I think the biggest job of a coach isn't to call timeouts strategically or be a genius with his in game substitutions. (Although both are definitely important, especially the latter.) I think the job of an NBA coach is to set up a system that best utilizes the talents he has available to him, and that's where Stan Van Gundy comes in, especially last season. Of his five starters, he had three guys with below-average defensive reputations, Dwight Howard, and a rookie.

Instead of trying to have everyone play straight-up or stick Rashard Lewis at the three, he evaluated what he had -- the best shot-blocker in the league and more quickness on the perimeter than most other teams had. So he stuck Lewis at the 4 and never looked back, and built a defense around running other teams off threes and keeping Howard at home under the basket. What happened? The Magic gave up the second fewest made baskets at the rim, the second fewest made 3s per game, and more shots from 10-15 feet and 16-23 feet than any other team in the league. They also had one of the league's three best defenses in terms of efficiency.

Offensively, he had Dwight Howard, who can catch and finish with the best of them but isn't a great post player, more shooting and playmaking at the forward spots than most anyone, and a bunch of guys who can shoot threes. So he had Howard look for catches at the rim, ran 3/4 screen-rolls, and had his players shoot a bunch of threes rather than try to do what everyone else was doing. Van Gundy's failures last season were there for the world to see, but what he did extremely well was more subtle.

KA: I like his press conferences, too. The irony of Van Gundy is that popular perception sometimes paints him as inflexible. But as you said, no coach sculpted a more sensible system for his personnel last season than Van Gundy. He did a full appraisal of his talent, saw where he had edges over his opponents at each position (ballhanding at the 3, shooting at the 4, mobility at the 5) and designed his offense to exploit those advantages.

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with building an elite team by first implementing the system, then by populating that system with players whose talents most conform to it. Whatever works, by all means. Just win. But the ability to create a system around a disparate collection of talent that was brought together randomly is in many ways even more impressive.

Should LeBron James be playing more power forward?
KA: Despite James’ size, strength and efficiency on the glass, Mike Brown has him firmly situated at the small forward slot. In fact, you have to go pretty far down the list of Cleveland’s 5-man lineups to find units in which James is playing power forward. But in the six lineups that feature James surrounded by one traditional big man and three smaller players for at least 10 minutes, the Cavs outscore their opponents 96-83 (prorated for 48 minutes).

Those numbers are enough for me, but let’s think about it in practical terms. We’ve already discussed how positional dogma is a thing of the past in an NBA that’s much smaller than it was 10 years ago. When thinking about how to best maximize LeBron in the half-court, wouldn't you prefer that he drag a bigger defender out to him in order to create more space on the floor for your offense? And defensively, wouldn’t a team like Cleveland, whose primary weakness has been its plodding frontcourt, be better served by having LeBron cover Rashard Lewis on Orlando’s pick-and-pop or Boston’s bigs on the Celtics’ rotating screen-and-rolls? Doesn’t it make more sense to challenge Stan Van Gundy and Doc Rivers to match up with a more athletic lineup? And wouldn’t Cleveland benefit from more transition opportunities?

Would team rebounding suffer? When you look at those aforementioned six lineups with LeBron at the 4, the answer is no. Apart from the political stickiness of limiting the minutes of the Cavs' veteran big men, I have trouble seeing how making the Cavs a more athletic team around LeBron comes with much downside.

JK: The short answer is that I'm extremely confused as to why LeBron doesn't get more time at the 4 position, at least for around 10 minutes of his time on the floor. I understand some of the reasoning behind not giving him significant minutes down there. The Cavs show hard on every perimeter screen, which would require LeBron expending more energy on the defensive end than the Cavs are comfortable with, especially in the first three quarters. And of course, the Cavs don't want LeBron in foul trouble under any circumstances. And generally speaking, the Cavs' big men are better players than Jamario Moon, who typically plays the 3 in the Cavs' small-ball lineup. But LeBron getting the ball in the 10-15 foot range and making his move from down there is absolutely deadly, and that small-ball lineup should definitely be something used more often to keep opposing teams on their toes.

What confuses me more than anything is that while the Shaq/Varejao frontcourt has some offensive issues and the Shaq/Hickson frontcourt has some serious defensive issues, a Shaq/LeBron frontcourt hasn't been tried at all this season, and I mean at all. I suppose the reasoning is that LeBron would be forced to expend way too much energy on the perimeter defensively as Shaq sags to the paint on pick-and-rolls (LeBron's never gotten minutes at the four alongside Z either), but with the Cavs supposedly looking for a "stretch 4" at the deadline to make life easier for Shaq, it's odd that they haven't at least tried using LeBron in that role.

How Real is Dallas?
KA: Little known fact: Of the 50 5-man units that have played together the most this season, two of the top three in overall efficiency belong to the Dallas Mavericks. Whether it's Jason Terry or J.J. Barea at the shooting guard, the Mavs' big names are absolutely crushing their opponents on both ends of the floor. Dallas is a Top 5 defensive squad and features one of the game's great shotmakers in Dirk Nowitzki. They also have tremendous flexibility to match up with opponents on either end. They can play old-school or new-school. Want to tease the Mavs with small ball? That's fine, because they're perfectly good going with three guards and moving Shawn Marion and Nowitzki into the frontcourt. Want to try to outmuscle them? Erick Dampier may have an outsized contract, but he's also one of the better basket protectors and garbage collectors in the league. Opponents shoot a measly 57.4 percent at the rim against the Mavs -- only Boston, Cleveland and San Antonio are better.

More than anything, the Mavs strike me as a team composed of professionals. These are serious basketball players led by a serious coach. Is it possible that a squad with so many thirtysomethings breaks down physically over the course of an 82-game season? Perhaps. But where some see brittleness, I see experience. In fact, I see shades of the best San Antonio Spurs squads. I see a team that truly understands its collective talents and limitations and puts a premium on execution.

Can they compete with the Lakers in late May? I'm not sure anyone in the Western Conference can, but Dallas -- with its length, smarts, and perimeter prowess -- might just be the toughest competition the Lakers encounter.

JK: Dallas has a ton of talent, Dirk is right up there with the best players in the league, and the team defends. My caveat would be that they're thinner than people think, and much more dependent on Dirk. As of December 26th, Dallas was +11.6 points per 100 possessions with Dirk on the floor and a stunning -16.5 points per 100 with Dirk on the bench. As bad as LeBron and Kobe's benches are, their teams are only -8 when they sit, to offer some perspective.

A lot of that has to do with Drew Gooden; Gooden's plus-minus is -23.1, and as someone who's watched a good deal of Gooden in his life, I can tell you that's not random noise. Drew Gooden is the anti-Battier. I'm also not a huge J.J. Barea fan. He's fun to watch and works fairly well with Kidd offensively, but I believe you were the one who said he plays defense "like a man frantically searching for his car keys," and the plus-minus numbers support the theory that Barea's somewhat of a defensive liability. Dallas can play with anyone, especially when Dirk's on the floor, and if they do something to get a better backup for Dirk than Gooden and hide Barea's defense a little better (maybe play more Beaubois, who's gone through growing pains and will probably continue to do so, but has lockdown defensive potential), I'd call them a true force to be reckoned with in the West. If not, I'd say they have a solid puncher's chance of knocking the Lakers off their Western Conference throne.

How do we begin to make sense of adjusted plus-minus?
JK: Outside of the obvious conclusion, which is "no one stat or metric, no matter how advanced or intricate, is ever going to come close to saying everything about one player," I have two thoughts on adjusted plus-minus.

The first is that I get how the basic +/- you see in box scores and 82games.com's version of plus-minus work, but I still don't totally understand how advanced plus-minus works, and that's a problem. I mean, I get the theory, that it adjusts for having good or bad teammates or playing against good and bad opponents, but how exactly does it define "good" and "bad"? Is "good" based on the other guy's adjusted plus-minus, or is the value of others derived from something like Player Efficiency Rating? Aren't both approaches problematic? Right now, adjusted plus-minus is sort of "He's good. Trust me," which I have trouble swallowing as a fan and certainly can't use to convince friends or readers of a guy's value.

The second problem is one that will get fixed over time, which is that we still don't really know how to read plus-minus type stats yet. We know with a stat like field goal percentage that a shooting guard is going to have a lower field goal percentage than a center, but we also know that the guard is probably shooting more 3s, shooting his free throws better and taking tougher shots than the center. We know how to read that stat.

But because plus-minus is one number and so nebulous, we don't know which plus-minus numbers to take with a grain of salt and which ones not to. I'll bring up the semi-infamous Durant example here. Durant had terrible +/- ratings for his first two seasons, but has been incredible in year three. Was the Durant phenomenon ever even real, or did Durant actually improve this year in ways the stats didn't see? If we want plus-minus metrics to be as legitimate as the box score ones, we have to stress-test it like we have the conventional numbers that came before them.

KA: I'm drawn to adjusted plus-minus because I'm desperate to find any metric that will approximate a player's defensive value, something we just don't have the tools to do right now. I'm more faithful than I probably should be given the lack of stress tests you talk about. Your point is well-taken and I'd add that stats like these are only valuable to the extent that they're predictive. There will always be players who make colossal jumps or experience unusual crashes in productivity, but apart from outliers, a stat must be dependable enough to offer a clear -- if general -- estimation of what that player is worth in the past, present and likely future. I've begun to spend more time examining the adjusted plus-minus numbers of 5-man units rather than individuals, in part because it seems more practical.

I suspect we'll know a lot more in three to five years than we do now. The metric's practitioners (and the people who trust them) will have a better sense of where the numbers skews, what those number might miss and the kind of noise those numbers create. In the meantime, I'll continue to watch the 2-year figures (and eventually 3-year, and 4-year). Any system that values Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Chris Paul, Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant as the five best players in the NBA has to be on to something, right?

The state of Florida has been consumed by University of Florida head football coach Urban Meyer's announcement that he's taking some time off from coaching duties to attend to his health. On Saturday, Meyer resigned. On Sunday he backtracked, stating that he was merely taking an indefinite leave of absence. Meyer said, "in his gut," he expected to be prowling the sidelines again at some point in 2010.

Brian Schmitz of the Orlando Sentinel spoke to Magic coach Stan Van Gundy about Meyer's reversal:

"Sounds to me like he's taking off the spring game," Van Gundy cracked.

Van Gundy expanded on how the inordinate stress of a high-profile gig like coaching can take a physical toll:

But as a member of the fraternity, Van Gundy can just as quickly take the Florida Gators football coach's plight seriously.

He knows coaching can be dangerous to your health. Relentlessly driven and intense, Van Gundy concedes that he's thought about whether the job could kill him.

"Yeah, I definitely have thought about that. I don't see myself dying on the sideline. That's why I don't see Jerry Sloan in me," Van Gundy said, referring to Sloan, the Utah Jazz icon who is the dean of all pro coaches at 21 years with one team.

Van Gundy is in his third season with the Magic and, in October, signed a contact extension through 2011.

Asked if Meyer's situation hit home, Van Gundy said, "It does. Anybody in the profession can relate. The thing you can relate to is that it's all pretty much self-induced."

Van Gundy said it's the losing that wears on coaches 24/7, adding, "That's what I can't turn off."

Van Gundy might have helped his mental and physical well-being by changing his combustible behavior on the bench this season, "being less demonstrative," he said.

It's a tricky balance, as Meyer's equivocation demonstrates. The job might kill you ... but you can't live without the adrenaline.

Bear Bryant was once asked during the latter days of his tenure as Alabama's football coach what he'd do once he retired. Bryant responded, "I'd probably croak in a week."

Less than a month after his final game at Alabama, Bryant died.

Schmitz brings up Stan's brother, Jeff Van Gundy, who has been both active and rested since he moved into the broadcast booth:

Jeff is planning to run a marathon in Houston next month. When asked if he thinks about exercising, Stan laughs, "All I do is think about it. It's an excuse. It becomes a time thing. I know it's not good, it's not right."

How much can you take away from a single regular-season loss?

For fans of the Lakers and Magic, that debate had every bit as much resonance over the weekend as the discussion about what, specifically, went wrong in their teams' respective losses against Cleveland and Boston on Christmas Day.

I have trouble embracing the idea that a December loss forebodes anything meaningful about what might happen in May or June. If you follow one of the elite teams, you sometimes fall victim to the belief that only your team is capable of churning out a loss as profoundly ugly and inexplicable as the one you just witnessed. There must be something fatally flawed about the Lakers if they get blown out at home in decisive fashion to Cleveland.

Perhaps.

But if the Lakers' effort raises the panic level to Defcon 4 in Los Angeles, then shouldn't the Nuggets, the presumptive No. 2 team in the West, be super-concerned that they lost on their home floor to the team primed to leap-frog them in the conference hierarchy? Shouldn't an Orlando team be chewing on its limbs after watching Dwight Howard and company put up a paltry 77 points in 96 possessions against Boston? And how about Boston's inability to close out a Clippers team that was coming off three consecutive blowout losses?

Yes and no.

No, because pre-New Years basketball is about discovery. If I'm Stan Van Gundy (and can you imagine being Stan Van Gundy for a day? If that were a silent auction item, I'd be hovering over that sign-in sheet until last call, boxing out all comers, money no object), I want to understand and diagnose why Boston's big men give Dwight Howard the yips. Better to acquire that information now rather than later. I get four months to employ my coaching prowess to make an adjustment to the offensive scheme. How do we get Dwight deeper position and buy a little more space and a little more time to go to work on the block?

If I'm the Lakers, I want to use this loss to the Cavs to better understand why my team entered Sunday night tied for 15th in the NBA with the Houston Rockets in offensive efficiency rating. How can a team as long and skilled in the post as the Lakers have this much trouble finishing at the rim? Is there something amiss with the spacing, even though the unit operates in a system that thrives on space? Are the Lakers becoming needlessly impatient trying to pound the ball inside instead of drawing defenders to the perimeter, which would get them cleaner looks underneath? Addressing these questions over the next 50 games seems like a very doable exercise.

Denver can't wring its hands over its first home loss since Thanksgiving weekend, but it should take note of the fact that each of the "Big 4" teams -- along with Dallas -- have five of the top 6 defensive efficiency ratings, while the Nuggets rank 17th. They're giving up a ton of second shots. Is that because they're too eager to leak out in transition? Is Denver's lightning-quick pace hurting them on the defensive end? Considering the number of superior post players on the roster, is it possible that whatever the Nuggets might leave on the table offensively by slowing things down, they'd more than compensate by giving up far fewer buckets in transition?

So far as the Celtics go, chalk up last night's loss to the Clippers in Los Angeles as an outlier. Make a mental note that the vicious strong-side pressure defense that works brilliantly on 95 percent of possessions might need to be tabled in tight late-game situations -- something the Celtics don't encounter all that often. Offensively, understand your strengths and exploit them. Your offense works most efficiently with rotating pick-and-rolls that confound defenses and run big men ragged. Yes, there will be mismatches at times that invite exploitation, but understand that whatever you gain by working against inferior post defenders in isolation might be offset by upsetting your offensive rhythm. The truth, though, is that the no team in the NBA can touch the Celtics' offensive-defensive differential. The Celtics are simply killing opponents on a nightly basis. To make wholesale adjustments after fluke losses would be the equivalent of sending Rajon Rondo to the line for technical free throws because he's drained his last three from the stripe. Play the odds, C's, they're in your favor.

It's unlikely that many of these questions have definitive answers right now. Coaching staffs need to do some trial-and-error and employ the good ol' scientific method this early in the season. Don't worry so much about "rotations being set" -- a common complaint among observers -- in December. Better to arrive at these truths headed into the postseason. Flexibility is a beautiful principle -- one Orlando rode to the Finals last season over a much more orthodox Cleveland team.

Give it some time, Lakers fans. I know, on paper, your team should be infallible. But your center needs a little nurturing. Your star needs to heal. And your coach is on the case.

By Kevin Arnovitz

One of the great lessons of adulthood is that almost everything in life comes with a cost.

A couple of weeks ago, two friends and I finishing up dinner at a restaurant in Los Angeles when we noticed that the server charged us for four large beers, though we were certain we'd consumed only three. We politely pointed out the discrepancy, but the waitress claimed -- nicely, but assertively -- that, no, we'd indeed had four. Whether it was the language barrier or the suggestion that we were impugning her honesty (and vice versa), the conversation deteriorated from there. Friend #1 and I weren't willing to leave the additional seven bucks until we'd gone up the chain of command at the restaurant. Friend #2, who'd chosen the place and is a regular there, insisted on paying for the fourth beer. When we finally left the restaurant, Friend #1 and I were incredulous at Friend #2. We'd paid for a beverage we never ordered and didn't drink. But Friend #2 -- a business strategist, natch -- maintained that the associated cost of dragging out the conflict far exceeded the seven bucks. All the awkwardness we were creating in that joint, the very real possibility that the waitress will probably have to cover that seven bucks out of her own pocket, and the fact that the restaurant's owners might remember him as the guy who tried to deke them out of 22 ounces of beer --none of it was worth seven dollars, even if we were right.

When I see an NBA player, coach or owner work himself into a lather that will almost certainly cost him thousands of dollars, I always wonder whether there's a threshold he's unwilling to cross, even if he's certain the call was horrible. For someone like Mark Cuban, I can imagine that line is fairly high for the simple reason that $25,000 isn't all that much money in the grand scheme of things. The same holds true for most superstars with incomes in excess of eight figures.

For some players and coaches, there clearly is a rational calculation. Recently, when asked to comment on whether he was upset that his team was awarded far fewer free throw attempts than the opponent, one NBA coach refused to comment on the situation. "I like my money," he said.

Magic forward Matt Barnes was recently fined $20,000 for throwing the ball into the stands in frustration. Behavioral economist Ian Ayres took note of remarks made by Barnes' coach, Stan Van Gundy, after the game:

Barnes should consider throwing cash into the stands instead of a ball next time.

“That’s basically what he did,” the coach said. “At least if you did that, it’d be the same amount of money, and you’d be very popular. If he threw $20,000 in cash, he’d be very popular.”

Ayres concedes that making it rain in an NBA arena is probably a really bad idea, but Van Gundy's comments got him thinking:

Actually throwing money into the stands might cause a riot. But you could imagine a team keeping some cash on hand at courtside to let players, who were about to commit a finable offense, bypass the NBA middleman and give the fine directly to some designated recipient. Instead of throwing a ball into the stands, Barnes could have ceremonially and publicly deposited cash into a courtside forfeiture drawer — with the money going to charity or to rebate part of the ticket prices.

Publicly forfeiting money is a pretty credible way to signal that you are upset about a blown call. It is not cheap talk. Forfeiting money to fans or a charity that players like makes the talk a bit cheaper because players might get some value from making such a donation.

What makes Ayres' idea appealing is that NBA players still get to exact a public display of protest by stuffing money into the forfeiture drawer. (You can even imagine a corporate sponsor participating in the "Bank of America Forfeiture Drawer Deposit" between quarters).

"It's the principle" is a huge motivating factor for human beings. Beyond sheer frustration, "it's the principle" is why a lot of NBA players vehemently -- and even profanely -- protest calls (and it's why I won't pay for valet parking). Figuring out rational and charitable ways to quantify those principles is always a good idea.

Ayres recognizes that the current collective bargaining agreement already spells out what happens when a player gets fined: The NBA and National Basketball Players Association equally split fines paid by players, then donate the respective shares to the charities of their choice. Ayres also wonders if players would be more likely to complain about calls and get their money's worth if they knew their fine was going to a more worthy cause.

Posted by Kevin Arnovitz

• The Blazers have found an individual to accept their money. The Sixers drafted Jrue Holiday out of UCLA, but will clearly need to fortify things at the point.
  
• Will Big Ben return to Detroit and retire as a Piston? 
• Third Quarter Collapse notes that Matt Barnes listed Stan Van Gundy as one of the primary reasons he chose Orlando: "Are you hearing this? Are you believing this? Van Gundy, the man whom some Magic fans wanted fired after his team blew a 14-point, 4th-quarter lead to the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference Semifinals, is now almost a big a draw for free-agents as Dwight freakin' Howard is." Whatever unfair stigma Van Gundy carried into the late spring, it's fair to say that label has expired. As Ben Q. Rock states in the post, Van Gundy has joined the ranks of elite coaches, and a difference-maker for guys exploring their options around the league.
  
• Nets owner Bruce Ratner -- now accepting investors. Dave D'Alessandro of the Newark Star-Ledger says that if and when a suitor legitimately emerges, the team is likely Brooklyn-bound: "So far, nobody's buying. But according to numerous officials throughout the organization, Ratner may soon find someone to help alleviate the team's crushing debt load and facilitate the construction of the Atlantic Yards project, and the candidates range from the former CEO of Yahoo to a billionaire industrialist from Russia -- each of whom would still move the team from New Jersey."
• Zach Randolph says that the Grizzlies are "embracing me like no other team had." I can't decide if this says more about Randolph or the Grizzlies. 
• Tim Donahue of Eight Points, Nine Seconds on the Pacers finally extricating themselves from Jamaal Tinsley, and turning the page on a rough patch in the franchise's history: "There is a sense of overwhelming relief flowing throughout the Pacer faithful. With Jamaal's departure, the team is rid of the last of the players identified with the utter embarrassment that has befallen this franchise in the five years since the infamous Malice in the Palace in November 2004."
• Basketball Reference has added transactions to each player's page. Hooray! No confirmation as to whether Tony Massenburg's page required BBR to acquire additional server space.
  
• Rajon Rondo's jumper: Not improving. The silver lining, according to Zach Lowe, is that Js represent a smaller slice of Rondo's overall shot selection.
  
• Smart post by Zarar Siddiqi of Raptors Republic on Toronto's point guard platoon of Jose Calderon and Jarrett Jack.
  
• If you're keeping score at home, Basketbawful's epic Livin' Large series has a new flow chart.
  
• Video from day one of USA Basketball mini-camp [Hat Tip: Brandon Hoffman]
  
• First Blake Griffin strains his shoulder, and then he gets his first lesson in Los Angeles parking lot etiquette: "Don't u hate when ur waitin for someone to pull out of a parking spot and someone else comes and takes it? That just happened to me!"

Posted by Kevin Arnovitz

• Re: Allen Iverson and ticket sales. It turns out that, over the weekend, Dave Berri looked at the data: "When we look at the attendance data we see a small increase when Iverson comes to Denver and a small decline when Iverson departs.  But the changes are quite small. For Detroit, the change is not very large either, although when a team stops selling out every game it's hard to conclude Iverson helped.  In other words, the Detroit experience suggests Iverson does not sell tickets (and it is hard to conclude he helped much in Denver)."
• Brandon Haywood's Four Keys for Pro-Athletes to Avoid Going Broke: "My last rule is arguably the biggest of them all – get a prenuptial agreement (prenup)! If you're a pro-athlete or if you've achieved a lot of wealth before you met your mate, don't get married without a prenup. One of the quickest ways for pro-athletes to go broke is through a messy divorce. I know a lot of folks say it sounds cold-blooded but I don't care!"
• Zach Lowe of Celtics Hub revisits Boston's decision last offseason to let James Posey walk.
• Tom Ziller puts the NBA age limit debate in a human context -- DeMar DeRozan, whose mother suffers from lupus.
• David Lee has received little love as a restricted free agent this summer. Mike Kurylo of Knickerblogger breaks down Lee's 2008-09 season in detail and concludes that Lee was efficient on offense, a swell teammate, a subpar defender and ... a hamburger?!
• Channing Frye had a love affair with the city of Portland, but he returns home to Phoenix where the offensive system is far more suited to his skill set. Frye says he's ready to "blow up" in the Valley of the Sun.
  
• A cornerstone of the Magic's success last year was positional flexibility. Stan Van Gundy had the luxury to mix and match various players to create a barrage of different lineups. Despite all the roster moves Orlando has undertaken this offseason, it hasn't forfeited that advantage in the least, says The Painted Area.
• Raptors Republic explores the notion that Toronto's acquisition of Jarrett Jack was as much about Chris Bosh as it was obtaining a backup point guard: "Until I heard them yesterday I had no idea that they were this close, and Colangelo had to know this because the signing has taken quite a new dimension with the revelation of this very close friendship. Here I am thinking they were casual friends and ex-teammates but turns out they're tighter than tight."
• Ridiculous Upside has a stellar, two-part roundup of guys who made good at Summer League, beyond the usual suspects. 
• Who is Barry Parkhill? According to Neil Paine, he's Adam Morrison's statistical comp.  
• Can you guess the clearance price of a Zach Randolph Blazers jersey or a pair of fuzzy Sonics crocs? 
• It's widely assumed that Lamar Odom will return to Los Angeles and that the posturing on both sides is nothing more than kabuki. It's improbable that Odom will end up back in Miami, but Matt Moore enumerates all the reasons it would be supercool if he did.
  

1. Orlando's Big Regret
Orlando lost in overtime in Games 2 and 4. Each was loaded with regrettable moments, from Courtney Lee's alley-oop layup attempt to Derek Fisher's almost wide-open 3. But if the Magic and Lakers could play the series again, and could repeat their efforts of Games 2,3 and 4, quite likely it would be a whole different series -- a bounce here or there changes everything.

The games Orlando ought to regret were Games 1 and 5, when the Magic simply did not play very well.

In the NBA Finals, you can make little mistakes here or there and still win. But you can not lay an egg. And if there's a lesson for next year's playoffs in this year's Finals, it's probably, more than anything, about preventing meltdowns, rather than sweating the details of crunch time.

Not all that long ago, people thought Phil Jackson was crazy for trusting Derek Fisher. (Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)

2. Sticking
Derek Fisher has been through some serious battles in Laker history -- and has developed a special bond with Kobe Bryant. Yet when he missed  shots in big numbers in early rounds of the playoffs, Laker faithful bailed on Derek Fisher in big numbers. But Phil Jackson didn't. He stuck to Derek Fisher like James Carville stuck to the Clintons. Forum Blue and Gold reader Zephid writes: "Everyone under the sun was calling for Phil to bench Fisher and play more Shannon Brown (myself included). Tell me, does anyone honestly believe that anyone outside of Bryant could have made those two shots other than Fisher? Through all his struggles, all the 1-8, 1-7 shooting games, our coaching staff kept the faith in Fisher. Even when he was getting crushed by Deron Williams, Aaron Brooks, Chauncey Billups, and Rafer Alston, the coaching still kept calling his number, sending him in during crunch time, sending him to battle when the games were on the line. And for their faith, they were rewarded with the most crucial victory of the season, delivered to us by one and only Derek Fisher."

3. Kobe Bryant's Mission Accomplished
Kobe Bryant's competitive fires burn as bright as anyone's. (Exchange with a reporter: "As far as me hitting the wall, so what if I did? I didn't, but so what if I did? What does it mean if you did? It means nothing. Because? Because I'll run straight through it.") So, of course, he is obsessed with championships. Winning one without Shaquille O'Neal presumably lifts a tremendous psychic weight, and gives him four, to compare to Michael Jordan's six. Before Game 5, Bryant was asked if he had matching Jordan's six rings on his to-do list. "I'm trying," he said with a smile, "to get this damn fourth one." It has been seven tumultuous years since Bryant's last title.

4. Kobe Bryant Didn't Do It "Alone" All the talk about winning one without Shaquille O'Neal makes it tempting to think of Bryant winning a title "alone." Despite the fact that Kobe Bryant was the series' clear MVP, of course many of the biggest plays of this series were made by teammates like Fisher, Ariza and Odom. 

Pau Gasol, however, is series MVP 1a. Not only was he extraordinarily efficient with the ball all series, but he also evolved to be nearly masterful on defense. For much of the decisive Game 5 the Magic simply couldn't finish around or over him -- even as he single-covered Dwight Howard much of the night. ESPN Stats and Information charted Gasol single-covering Howard on 38 possessions -- and Howard did not score from the field on any of them.

6. Yes, Big Men Matter Again and again in basketball we find teams with quality big men succeeding just a little more than you might otherwise expect. Dwight Howard now joins Kobe Bryant and LeBron James on the list of players who seem almost likely to win championships.  (Elsa/Getty Images)

5. The Field Trip
Spoiler alert: Have you seen "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3?" I'm about to spill the beans, so skip ahead if you don't want to know how it ended.

Before Game 4, Phil Jackson took the Lakers to see that movie. It's essentially a big-budget public transport hostage negotiation conversation between two men: The calm, centered and largely innocent Denzel Washington, and the brilliant but excessively angry character played by John Travolta.

I'm beginning to believe that the primary focus of Jackson's coaching is to keep his players centered and mindful, as opposed to over-adrenalized and mindless. He's the opposite of the coach who screams in your face to play harder.

Denzel Washington's character keeps focused, doesn't lose his head, and gets what is most important to him in the end. Travolta's character is a great strategist, but callous and frenetic. Things don't turn out so well for him.

This may be the first and last time that Stan Van Gundy gets compared to John Travolta.

Meanwhile, Mickael Pietrus assigned himself his own cinematic inspiration. Before Game 5, he watched "Borat."

7. A Laker Benchwarmer Savors a Personal Victory
Laker forward Josh Powell played just 73 minutes during these playoffs, but he more than earned the sense of victory and relief that comes with his first championship ring. Needing money to support his family, Powell left North Carolina State in 2003. Long, skilled, athletic and tough he was so impressive at some of his workouts that he was briefly discussed as a lottery pick -- although he ultimately went undrafted, and has played for several team overseas in the NBA in the interim.

One of his workouts was for the Washington Wizards, where Patrick Ewing was then an assistant coach.

After the workout, Ewing stunned Powell, by telling him that he would never make the NBA.

Powell has not forgotten. "Every time I see him," he says, he remembers the words that once cut him. "It was just motivation. I can't do nothing but respect it, if that's his opinion. It just drove me to go hard. It drove me to stay hungry."

About then, some NBA personnel came through the champagne-soaked Laker locker room with the gleaming NBA championship trophy. Powell finishes his thought, reaching for the trophy: "Everything worked out for the best ... now let me see that thing right there ..."

8. Courtney Lee's Missed Alley-Oop
Despite point #1, aren't we all going to remember that Game 2 was almost decided on a buzzer-beating alley-oop? One of the most electric missed opportunities in NBA Finals History.

9. Goodbyes?
In addition to playing for a title, Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza were essent
ially playing for their Laker lives this post-season. Both are free agents and, each could have played their last game as a Laker. Of course, there's nothing like a championship to encourage an owner to spend to keep a team together. 

Which could be concern for the likes of Orlando's Hedo Turkoglu and Marcin Gortat -- both of whom could command big dollars on the open market this summer. Losing either player, but especially Turkoglu, could be a blow to an Orlando team with a lot of promise.

The other big goodbye that must be anticipated one of these years: Phil Jackson's. If Tex Winter was right that Jackson was motivated by a desire for ten rings, then what's going to keep Jackson in the hunt now?

Posted by Kevin Arnovitz

The Orlando Magic don't have an unstoppable one-on-one player who can manufacture points out of thin air. When they want something, they have to execute. And for the better part of eight months, they've demonstrated a singular ability to do that. Orlando has mastered the art of finding the open shot, and it was the league's most efficient defensive team in the regular season -- all of it predicated on execution. 

The shot that will haunt Stan Van Gundy and the Magic. (Elsa/Getty Images)

That's why the final 10.8 seconds of regulation in Game 4 were so tragic for Orlando. On two consecutive possessions -- one defensive, the next offensive -- the Magic had a chance to ice the game, and all that it required was basic execution, the sort of fundamental basketball Orlando has made a living at this season. 
Leading 87-84 with only 10.8 seconds remaining, the Magic needed to deny the Lakers a 3-pointer.

The Lakers opted to inbound the ball in front of their own bench. Ariza was the inbounder and he had two targets in front of him -- Kobe Bryant and Derek Fisher. Stan Van Gundy had assigned Hedo Turkoglu, Mickael Pietrus and Jameer Nelson to defend the backcourt.

Ariza was able to get the inbounds pass into Bryant along the sideline, but Turkoglu and Pietrus immediately swarmed the ball. Against pressure, Bryant quickly hit Ariza with a perfect pass up the left sideline. Nelson picked up Ariza, who shuttled the ball across the court to Fisher along the right sideline. Nelson made a beeline over to Fisher but, for whatever reason, dropped back inside the 3-point arc, conceding Fisher a clean look from 25 feet.

The familiar lefty slingshot is good, and the game is tied.  

After the game, Stan Van Gundy was asked whether the plan was to foul the Lakers and put them on the line: 

No, we thought 11 seconds was too early, especially the way we were shooting free throws tonight.  So we thought it was too early. But you know, in retrospect, we gave him so much space to shoot the ball. We played like we were trying to prevent the layup. I thought we did a good job, we denied Bryant the ball, and then we just didn't play Derek Fisher, just didn't guard him. But no, it was my decision with 11 seconds not to foul.  Yes, I regret it now, but only in retrospect. I mean, normally to me 11 is too early.  You foul, they make two free throws, you cut it to one. You're still at six or seven seconds ... I thought it was too early at 11, though when they took it full court, I'll have to go back and look at that. That one will haunt me forever, but we could have played that play a lot better.

However long the debate about whether to foul or not to foul when leading by three rages on, both sides of the issue can agree on one thing: When the ball comes up the floor, defend the line. Stan Van Gundy will have to live with his decision not to commit a backcourt foul, but Jameer Nelson's inability to deny Fisher the space for the shot was equally fatal. The Magic, just ten seconds away from knotting the series at 2-2, were likely staring at another overtime period ... but they still had a chance to put the game away in regulation.

---

The Magic isn't lacking for candidates to hit game-winning daggers, and on their first attempt to get the ball in with 4.6 seconds remaining, Hedo Turkoglu -- the inbounder -- was clearly looking for Rashard Lewis to pop out to the left corner. The Lakers defended the scheme well, and forced the Magic to try again. 

On the second attempt, all kinds of things were happening: 

• Rashard Lewis ran interference on the inbounds play, which freed Pietrus up to collect the ball from Turkoglu about 30 feet from the hoop. Lamar Odom, who got caught on the action, was left to cover Pietrus, while Kobe Bryant drew Rashard Lewis on the switch. 
• After his solid down screen to free up Pietrus, Lewis swung around Dwight Howard in the middle of the lane to fade to his favorite spot along the 3-point line on the left side. He dragged Pau Gasol -- Howard's man -- with him.
  
• ...which meant that Dwight Howard now had position deep, deep, deep in the post against Kobe Bryant.
  

When Pietrus got the inbounds pass, Ariza and Odom immediately trapped him, which meant Turkoglu was wide open at the top of the arc. Turkoglu called for the ball, but Pietrus was undeterred. Even though Turkoglu had an open look and Howard was positioned eight feet from the rim against a much smaller defender, Pietrus continued his left-handed drive across the arc. As if those two missed opportunities for open shots weren't enough, Pau Gasol generously gave Pietrus a third option when the Lakers' big man sloughed off Lewis in the left corner to provide another line of defense between Pietrus and the basket. Pietrus wouldn't be denied. He heaved an off-balanced runner off his left leg that didn't have a prayer.  

The blown opportunity on the offensive end was even more cruelly ironic for the Magic. Just as they have all season long, the Magic managed to get themselves wide open looks all over the floor -- Turkoglu as the forgotten inbounder, Howard down low on the mismatch, the sharpshooting Lewis at his favorite spot. The precision employed to get these shots has been the Magic's greatest asset. But in the closing seconds of regulation Thursday night, they abandoned what had worked for them so well for more than 100 games. 

Posted by Kevin Arnovitz

In a postseason that lasts more than eight weeks, it's hard to appreciate the full scope of what a team has experienced. While most of us were falling in love with the Boston-Chicago series, the Magic were enduring their own emotional turbulence  -- buzzer-beaters, blown leads, sweet vengeance, a suspension for their franchise player, and more sweet vengeance.  And that was just the first round.

Shock and Awe: Not an unfamiliar site on the Magic bench this postseason. (Jeff Gross/AFP/Getty Images)

"I've said it throughout the season and throughout these playoffs, the one thing that you can't question with our team is their resilience in situations like that," Orlando Magic head coach Stan Van Gundy said after his team's Game 3 win over the Lakers. "Whether it's from game to game, minute to minute, our team will keep playing."

Normally these sorts of statements are filled with clichés, but not in Orlando's case. Whether the Magic win the NBA title this season or not, they'll have built up enough scar tissue for future battle. Here's a sample of the gut-wrenching ups-and-downs from the Magic's 2009 playoff odyssey:

• Heartbreak: First Round, Game 1 -- Philadelphia 100, Orlando 98
  As if blowing an 18-point second-half lead weren't devastating enough for the Magic, Andre Iguodala stuck a fadeaway dagger with 2.2 seconds remaining to steal homecourt advantage from the Magic. After the game, Magic coach Stan Van Gundy questioned his team's effort, and added, "I was surprised not only for our lack of intensity defensively, but I was really surprised with our lack of focus."
  
  Rebound: First Round, Game 2 -- Orlando 96, Philadelphia 87
  Hours after Dwight Howard is named the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year, it appeared as if the Magic might cough up another 18-point second-half lead. Howard fouled out of the game at a precarious moment in the fourth quarter. But the Magic hung on, and squared the series at 1-1, with a couple of key drives into the heart of the Sixers defense by Anthony Johnson and Rashard Lewis.
  
  
• Heartbreak: First Round, Game 3 -- Philadelphia 96, Orlando 94
  It might have lacked the instant drama of Iguodala's big shot, but Thad Young's baseline drive/step-through/fumble/recovery/spin/layup in a tie game was just as mortifying for the Magic. After Rashard Lewis tied the game with a 3-pointer midway through the fourth quarter, the Magic didn't score for nearly four minutes down the stretch. The only consolation for Orlando was the fact that it was the Sixers who nearly blew the double-digit lead this time around.
  
  Rebound: First Round, Game 4 -- Orlando 84, Philadelphia 81
  Victimized by two Philly game-winners in their first three games, the Magic exact revenge on the Sixers' homecourt. With 14.8 seconds to go and the game tied at 81, Hedo Turkoglu drained a 25-footer over Thad Young with less than a second remaining. Turkoglu was euphoric after the game. "It feels great," he said. "It's a new series now."
  
  

Redemption: The Magic have a penchant for bouncing back in style. (Jesse D. Garrabrant/AFP/Getty Images)

• Heartbreak: Conference Semifinals, Game 5 -- Boston 92, Orlando 88
  In Game 4, Orlando lost on Glen Davis' game-winning jumper off a pick-and-roll with Paul Pierce. As badly as that hurt, it paled in comparison to blowing a 14-point fourth quarter lead. Critics of Van Gundy -- Howard most prominent among them -- moaned about the number of touches Howard was getting (or not getting) in the fourth quarter.
  
  Rebound: Conference Semifinals, Game 6 -- Orlando 83, Boston 75
  In their first elimination game of the postseason, the Magic rallied from a 10-point deficit in the third quarter behind Howard's 23 points and 22 rebounds. Following the game, Celtics coach Doc Rivers was in awe of Howard's performance. "I guess Dwight Howard was right," Rivers said. "My gosh. He was unbelievable." Howard's numbers were nice, but it was the Magic defense, which held Boston to 77 points on 92 possessions, that pushed the series to a seventh game.
  
  
• Heartbreak: Conference Finals, Game 2 -- Cleveland 96, Orlando 95
  Turkoglu had just drained a runner in the lane to give the Magic a two-point lead with a second remaining, and a likely 2-0 series lead headed home to Orlando. But that was before LeBron James' exhibition of the unconscious. Stan Van Gundy's resigned, what-are-you-gonna-do tilt of the head expressed the sheer improbability of the shot.
  
  Rebound: Conference Finals, Game 3 -- Orlando 99, Boston 89
  Orlando responded to the most heartbreaking playoff loss of recent memory with a grind-it-out affair that saw the two teams combine for 86 free throws. LeBron James accused Anthony Johnson of throwing a cheap elbow at Mo Williams that left the Cavs' point guard with two cuts above his left eye. The Magic embraced the physical turn the series was taking. "We just kept fighting. That's what we got to do, we fight to the end," Howard said after the game.
  
  
• Heartbreak: NBA Finals, Game 2 -- Lakers 101, Orlando 96 (OT)
  Courtney Lee came oh so close to knotting the NBA Finals at a game apiece. He caught the inbounds lob pass from Hedo Turkoglu, but the putback skated off the glass and bounced off the front lip of the rim. The Magic were literally an inch from changing the entire tenor of the series, but instead left Los Angeles empty-handed, needing to win four out of five games to take the title.
  
  Rebound: NBA Finals, Game 3 -- Orlando 108, Lakers 104
  Buried by most observers, the Magic picked up the pieces on their home floor. They withstood the kind of outburst from Kobe Bryant in the first quarter that typically spells doom for Lakers' opponents. More important, the Magic's beleaguered guards found the bottom of the net, as they combined to go 18 for 28 from the field, and 7 for 8 from the line.