Why the Preseason Now Matters

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Nowadays, anyone in any part of the world can at least watch extended highlights from virtually every NBA game, including the preseason.  But, oh sh*t, there's 30 teams, playing an 82-game regular season, not even counting the playoffs, i.e the part that really matters.  So it's hard to be genuinely interested in more than just a handful of them.

Silver and co. may end up shooting themselves in the foot with all of this parity shit.  For instance, let's take Jaylen Brown, place him on one team, put Lebron on another and then leave the remaining Sixers' more or less as it is.  None of those teams would absolutely be must watch, unless they're winning a lot of games.

With fans now accustomed to watching Lebron and with Steph more or less falling off, there's really only one singular must-watch player, whether he's on a good team or not, and that's Wemby.  Second on the list would probably be Ant-Man, when his team is actually winning.  If they decide to defuse the league by making every big star play on a separate team, welcome to boredom city.

In some rare occasions there could be three or four absolutely must-watch guys playing simultaneously.  But in athletics, age and injury can derail even the biggest stars.  For instance, remember how must watch Ja Morant was a few seasons ago (even though his team won more games without him).  And what about Vinsanity, the dunking machine who was for a time even more popular in basketball circles than Jordan?  During the last 10+ seasons of his career, he was only able to produce one worthy highlight.

All of this is my roundabout way of saying that I have no intention of watching every preseason game.  But I will once again monitor the standings and news, because they could be quite telling for the season to come.  The preseason isn't as insignificant as it used to be, and there are a number of reasons why.

THE OFFSEASON HAS CHANGED

Back in the old days, the biggest offseason roster changes tended to be the acquisition of rookies, who rarely made a notable immediate impact.  Or another way of looking at it is that it was only the worst teams who made headlines during the summer, because there wasn't as much of a reason to make major changes to the better ones.

Generally speaking, it's only garbage squads that get high draft picks.  And it wasn't until around the turn of the century that frequent trades really became common.

And even when a star was traded, in the late 20th century, it rarely resulted in an instant contender, if at all.  Take Chris Webber for instance.  He was perennial allstar-ish who was traded what, like three times in less than a decade and only played on a contender during the last of those stops.

A superstar like Moses Malone going to the Sixers and them winning that same season is rare.  Playing for the best team possible isn't cheating in and of itself; it's logic.  I already covered that a few years back, when defending Durant.

SUPERSTARS NOW SWITCH TEAMS ALL THE TIME

One of the reasons we now see more player movement is because, oh shit, how long were the contract back in the days?  Scottie Pippen signed for what, seven years?  It was Jordan who I think started breaking that mold, after he retired the first time and came back.

So player movement isn't only about trades but also free agency.  And now that guys are signing shorter contracts, sometimes even for a year or two, besides the divas who commonly demand trades, there tends to be a a number of superstars available every offseason.

WHY FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN?

I also think back in the old days, organizations had more grit.  When we say the NBA used to be tougher, that isn't only about physicality or whatever.  Generally, if organizations had a worthy roster, they would build on it gradually.  There was more faith in player development, you know, dudes actually getting better over time, individually or collectively.

I'm not trying to make it sound all idyllic and shit.  But I think it was just more of an understanding that things take time.  And we don't even have to go that far back to see this, like look at Kobe for instance and how bad the Lakers were after Shaq left.  No top-5 superstar these day would endure something like that.

It's Lebron who has firmly broken that mold.  Remember how bad the Lakers also were during the last few years of Kobe's career?  LBJ could never tolerate such a roster, even now in his elder seasons.  But in his case, with all of the pressure or whatever, it's understandable.  The bigger issue is the lesser dudes also adopting that same mentality.

So long as players want to win, even taking pay cuts to do so, it isn't likely that universal parity is going to be achieved, because generally speaking, you have to play with other stars to have a chance to win a championship.  And as long as everyone is compatible, the more the merrier.

CONCLUSION

Did I digress?  The conclusive point is that since so many stars and even impactful role players are changing teams annually, now the preseason matters, because at least half the rosters go through major offseason changes, even discounting the acquisition of rookies.  There were a lot of exceptional rookies last season.  But as you can see, in the grand scheme of things it didn't really mean shit for the teams they were on.  Even Wemby when he first came in, you know what I'm saying?

The bigger offseason  news these days is damn, how many superstars changed teams even this past summer?  And how many other squads acquired players like, say, Kessler or Dort or Morant who'll likely be starting?  So it's like every season, teams have to readjust and test new lineups, and that's why the preseason matters more.  Dudes are no longer fielding like the same core rosters for four or five seasons straight.

This is something I came to appreciate in 2021, when the Lakers acquired Westbrook and lost every game that preseason.  People just brushed it off like 'oh, these games don't matter. There's no way a roster with that much talent could lose'.  But oh shit, those practices were in fact foretelling.  

Every Team's "X-Factor" (Atlantic Division)

This is the first part in a series I want to use to look at "the x-factor" on every team, not in terms of the star that needs to play well for them to win but rather the player who most fills a position of need, no matter.  And spoiler alert - there's likely to be a lot of (obscure) bigs on this list, since one of the aftereffects of the small ball era being a lack of noteworthy big men, or them being concentrated on certain teams...

BOSTON CELTICS: RON HARPER JR.

...such as the Celtics.  Heading into training camp, they're rich in positional diversity.  But I'm going with Ron "Nepo Bro" Harper as the x-factor because, at least imo, this offseason they paid him more than he was worth, at $3.5/year over 4 years.  Or let me say what's surprising is that they actually may want to keep him that long.

If I remember correctly, he started one of those pivotal playoff games last season - for about three minutes, not to be seen again.  So the logical insinuation is that Harper Jr. either has potential that's not evident by his play, or the Celts actually perceive a future with him, which then implies that he can fill some type of needed void.

BROOKLYN NETS: MICHAEL PORTER JR.

I don't even know most of the dudes on this roster, so I'm just going to go with the star, as he's more or less the only reason worth watching.  An unexpected superstar may arise from the midst - a Steph if you will - but that doesn't really seem likely.  And as for Randle, I'm sort of a fan, but that performance in Game 6 scarred me.

NEW YORK KNICKS: MOHAMED DIAWARA

There's currently headlines circulating about how Mike Brown is putting pressure on Mohamed Diawara, a virtual unknown, who perhaps none of us wouldn't even know if not for him being on the Knicks.  But singling him out does make sense.

Drummond cannot backup KAT in every application.  Meanwhile, Diawara is younger, and they obviously see potential in him.  It's possible that he was even drafted with the eventual departure of Robinson in mind.  But let's see if Wiseman also makes the team.  And I like Bruce Brown also, but it seems NYK likes bringing smaller Gs off the bench as opposed to those bigger G/F types.

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS: ARIEL HUKPORTI

This is what actually inspired me to start this series, looking at the Sixers' roster and seeing that they only have one backup C.  And that is - Ariel Hukporti(?), besides an F/C, Adem Bona, who at least I think I heard his name before.  Despite or perhaps even in light of all of the recent big moves, that's questionable braintrusting in the Wemby era.

TORONTO RAPTORS: TREY JEMISON

Outside of Poeltl, the Raptors don't have any fulltime C on the roster, though they have Trey Jemison(?) on a two-way contract.  In a perfect world it wouldn't really matter as, unless they are playing against Wemby himself, Toronto could just rollout Barnes at the 5, with Kawhi at the 4.  But you already know that ol' "Tender Vittles" is going to get hurt.  So obviously, they're intending to go small most of time.  But it still wouldn't hurt to have a viable, backup C.

CONCLUSION

It felt good doing this D-lister article, to show love to some of the guys who otherwise may never get incepted.  And yeah, I guess in theory, everyone in the NBA does get his chance.

Diawara averaged 1pt and 2rbs during the playoffs, but currently, his name is all over headlines.  The implication is that if a team drafts or invites you to training camp or whatever, you can fill some type of need.  And out of every squad on this list, the Celtics, ironically enough, appear to be the most wembyproof.

Wow, Six Contenders in the East

I can't say I ever saw anything like this before, so many contenders in a single conference, at least in my opinion.  Usually, there may not even be six solid contenders in the entire league.

The closest I can think of, in terms of a conference being this competitive, was the turn-of-the-century West, but even they only had four or five,  All of the NBA champions from 1999 to 2003 were from the WC, and if it were fairer, i.e. if the Lakers weren't favored so much, it's possible that none of them would have been repeats.

To note, this post is a not a prediction for the upcoming season.  Unlike most pundits, I think the preseason actually matters, especially these days.  So I want to wait 'til it's over and observe as much as I can before going there.

This list is solely based on talent, i.e. teams in the East who are actually talented enough to win a championship against the improved competition.  But of course only one, if any, will take home the trophy, and talent is not the only factor.

CLEVELAND CAVALIERS

What can go right - the Beard taking no iso jumpers at all, unless absolutely necessary.

What can go wrong - the bench not representing.

For example, I recently came across this video that suggested the ECF was rigged in the Knicks' favor.  Idk if that's true or not, but it goes back to something I observed about the Cavs a couple of seasons ago, that they don't seem to be particularly liked by the powers-that-be.  That's why, I can understand why they would want Lebron back, even if only to regain favoritism from the higher-ups.

But that said, their starting five is exceptional, even if not necessarily compatible.  In fact, they're so top heavy that the most famous member of their bench is Thomas Bryant, which I would say is far from ideal.  So someone(s) in the lower ranks is going to definitely have to outplay their notoriety.

WASHINGTON WIZARDS

What can go right - dudes realizing they have arguably the deepest roster in the NBA.

What can go wrong - dudes remembering that they are in fact the Wizards.

Without looking at like statistics and those sorts of things, I'd say off the top of my head that Washington has been the worst team in the East over the last 30+ years.  There's only once they've been sorta contenders, during the Wall + Beal era.  But as it currently stands, they definitely have the pieces to cover each other's strengths and weaknesses, especially if Dybantsa lives up to the hype.  Let's just hope that somewhere along the lines dudes don't be like 'wait a minute, we're the Wizards'.

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS

What can go right: by some miracle, they score an above-average backup big.

What can go wrong: Embiid continuing to be the longest-tenured injured superstar in NBA history.

The Knicks are the reigning champs, but the single player measuring stick in the league is Wemby, and even a "healthy" Joel likely can't hang with Victor.  Meanwhile, as it currently stands, dudes have no other big of note on the roster, at all.  If Hartenstein + Holmgren can't even hang with Wemby these days, I strongly doubt if Lebron + Embiid can.

MIAMI HEAT

What can go right: everyone outside of Bam and Giannis making their open jumpshots.

What can go wrong: Adebayo getting hurt.

If Bam gets hurt, then this team basically degenerates to the Giannis Buck 2.0, which isn't ideal.  Since the Heat have a better culture than Milwaukee that may not be literally true, but you know what I mean.  But the good news is that he's not known for being injury prone. 

TORONTO RAPTORS

What can go right: Poeltl regaining his San Antonio form.

What can go wrong: Kawhi once again being 'load managed' into nonfactorism.

I believe they can take the East even without Poeltl representing.  Barnes at the 5 and Leonard at the 4 is nothing to scoff at.  I have more belief in that pair than elder Lebron + Embiid.  But of course, Kawhi's playability isn't consistent at all.

NEW YORK KNICKS

What can go right: the starters, as good as they already are, taking a step forward.

What can go wrong: any of those starters suffering a prolonged injury, especially during the postseason.

The Knicks aren't as top heavy as the Cavs, but I'd say it'd be even worse if they lost a starter, even if it's Josh Hart, who isn't a stat machine but is like the soul of the team.  They have a few backup Gs but no notable backup big outside of Andre "KFC" Drummond, which isn't really ideal.  I'm hoping that James Wiseman, who's been sorta undervalued (as a Warriors' draftee, of course) will make the roster, as they obviously need him.

HONORABLE MENTION: BOSTON CELTICS

What can go right: everyone remains healthy.

What can go wrong: PG13's and Mitchell's injury history catching up with them.

I kinda want to believe in Boston, but it's hard when a team with championship aspirations willingly gives up its best player.  If it were really all about the money, you would think they'd given up Tatum instead.

CONCLUSION

There's really only three options when it comes to parity.  Either every team is going to garbage, mediocre or contenders.

Meanwhile, there's EC squads, most notably the Magic and also, btw, the Hornets, who didn't even make this list but still upgraded this offseason.  So it's going to be highly competitive.  And it's funny that the most-popular names on this list, the Sixers and Knicks, like their biggest threats aren't opponents as much as the prospect for injuries.