FIBA 2010

Who else is excited for the 2010 FIBA World Basketball Championship? Didn't know it was coming up? Or that it existed at all? Don't worry, here's the rundown. Oh, and psst, it's August 28-September 12.

This year's tournament is in Turkey. The 24 participating nations are divided into groups of six, and play one game against each other teams in their group (five games in five days). The two teams in each group with the worst records are then eliminated, leaving the remaining 16 teams to fill out a single-elimination bracket.

We invented the sport, so we should expect to pretty much destroy everyone right? Well, not so much. We've won only three times since 1950. The first year that the US actually sent pro players was 2002, and while the team wasn't exactly a bunch of superstars, dropping out in the quarterfinals to Yugoslavia was a huge disappointment. The 2006 roster was similar to the Beijing Olympics "Redeem Team," including MEGA TEAM, aka Lebron, D-Wade, and Chris Bosh. That team lost to Greece, 95-101, in the semifinals before beating Argentina in the third place game.

The 2010 roster is currently at 13 men, so one of these guys won't make the trip to Turkey. But here are the boys in the red, white, and blue:

Guards: Chauncey Billups, Stephen Curry, Eric Gordon, Andre Iguodala, Rajon Rondo, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook; Forwards: Kevin Durant, Rudy Gay, Danny Granger, Lamar Odom, Kevin Love; Center: Tyson Chandler

I'm excited about Durant getting this chance to really break out as a superstar. The rest of the team is pretty oddly constructed. Rose, Rondo, Westbrook, Curry and Billups are the cream of the Point Guard crop in today's NBA, but do we really need all five of them? The roster is also pretty small, with just one Center and only two other guys at 6'-10" (Love and Odom). The USA is in Group B along with Brazil, Croatia, Iran, Slovenia, Tunisia. Our first game will be vs. Croatia (ESPN, 11pm ET). Get excited.

Cumulative Voting in Chandler

Putting off "how elections work" for one more post, this article about city spending on the new City Hall and Arizona Ave. improvements becoming the dominant issue in Chandler's election got me thinking about how these sorts of things would play out under cumulative voting.

Let's suppose that spending really is the decisive issue in this election, and that other factors like campaign spending, endorsements and incumbency play no role. Let's also suppose that most voters will vote for candidates pledging to reduce spending. Finally, let's take the candidates positions on the two projects above as indicative of their view of city spending.

Three candidates, opposed to both projects, are in the "spending is inherently evil" category: Roe, Taylor, and Weninger. One candidate, Trinity, is in the "spending can do good things" category. The other two, Hartke and Wallace, are both rhetorically and historically somewhere in the middle. Suppose voters are also divided into three camps, too. 50% are flatly anti-spending, 30% are pro-spending, and 20% are in the middle (not crazy, but worried higher spending will lead to higher property taxes while they're already hurting). For simplicity's sake, there are 100 voters.

Under the current election system (requiring 50%+1) we would expect the three anti-spending candidates to win. The anti-spending 50% all vote for Roe-Taylor-Weninger. The pro-spending 30% vote for Trinity along with Hartke-Wallace (the next closest to their preferences). And the middle 20% vote for Hartke-Wallace and then spread their third votes evenly across the other four candidates.* The results would look like this:

Candidate	Anti 50%	Middle 20%	Pro 30%	Total
Roe*	50	5		55
Taylor*	50	5		55
Weninger*	50	5		55
Hartke		20	30	50
Wallace		20	30	50
Trinity		5	30	35

* = winner

Now, let's re-do the election using cumulative voting (each voter can distribute their 3 votes however they'd like). We assume that voters have strong preferences and will cast a second/third vote for their preferred candidate rather than support a less-than-ideal candidate. Voters have no means of choosing between preferred candidates, and will choose to divide their votes evenly among them.

Anti-spending voters will divide their votes among their 3 preferred candidates. The pro-spending voters will each give all 3 of their votes to Trinity. The middle 20% will split their votes evenly between Hartke and Wallace (half will give 2 votes to Hartke, half to Wallace):

Candidate	Anti 50%	Middle 20%	Pro 30%	Total
Roe	50			50
Taylor	50			50
Weninger	50			50
Hartke		30		30
Wallace		30		30
Trinity*			90	90

Trinity would win, along with two of the anti-spending candidates. Note that the pro-spending side breaks through (and not the middle) both because it is the largest minority and because it consolidates its support behind one candidate. Suppose the middle 20% organized to only support Hartke. He would claim all 60 of their votes and win a seat as well. The proper response of the anti-spending 50% would be to only support 2 candidates, returning to equilibrium at 1-pro-spending candidate and 2 anti-spending candidates emerging from the election.

The anti-spending side still holds the policy reins, so the cumulative scenario is functionally different only in that it guarantees at least one opposition faction a public forum for its opposition. The strong incentives to organize with like-minded others created by a cumulative system also means more people organizing around city elections, which can't be a bad thing.

Can Point Guards Win NBA Titles?

Over the last twenty years, the most common route to the NBA championship has been to pair one elite superstar with another legitimate all-star (or better). Think through the last two decades: Jordan-Pippen, Olajuwon-Drexler, Shaq-Kobe, Shaq-Wade, and Kobe-Gasol have won 14 of the last 20 titles. 13 of those 14 times, both players made All-NBA (essentially the top 15 players in the league).

According to Wikipedia, All-NBA team voting:

“is conducted by a panel of sportswriters and broadcasters throughout the United States and Canada…

Players receive five points for a first team vote, three points for a second team vote, and one point for a third team vote. The five players with the highest point totals make the first team, with the next five making the second team and so forth…

…each team has consisted of two forwards, one center, and two guards beginning with the 1956 teams.”

First, a couple of notes on using All-NBA teams as data. 1) There is no distinction between point/shooting guards or small/power forwards; overall, there are 60 centers, 75 power forwards, 45 small forwards, 55 shooting guards, and 65 point guards. 2) Players are sometimes incorrectly categorized (Amar’e Stoudamire is always listed as a Center while he’s usually played PF) and some have switched the positions they were elected for between years (Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady, Paul Pierce).

Anyway, pairings of two All-NBA are common: 58 teams in 20 years. That’s to say that the competition among elite teams is tough enough that 78% of these “1-2 punch teams“ don’t win a title. The Suns even had three guys (Nash, Stoudamire, Marion) on the All-NBA teams in 2004-05 and didn’t win.

If one were a GM, one would want to know if history gave any clues as to how to go about putting together a “1-2 punch” of all-stars. Are any positions or combinations of positions especially valuable?

This converges with another topic I’ve wanted to explore. The Suns, for as long as I’ve known them, have been more often than not: 1) championship contenders/interesting in the Playoff discussion and 2) led into that discussion by an All-Star point guard and one other All-Star. Between KJ (3-time All-Star), Jason Kidd (3 All-Star games as a Sun), and Steve Nash (5 All-Star games as a Sun), we’ve had an All-Star point guard 11 of the last 21 years. KJ led us to the ’90 conference finals and with Barkley to the ’93 NBA finals. Nash, with Amar'e and Marion (until he was abandoned in favor of the great Shaq disaster in Feb. 2008) has brought us 3 conference finals appearances (all great series) in six seasons.

So why did we never break through? Is it related to having a point guard occupy one of our two slots?

Which brings me back to the 58 teams who had two All-NBA guys. It turns out that 27 did not feature an All-NBA point guard, while 31 of them did. Of the 27 without All-NBAs at point, 13 won championships. Of the 31 starring elite PGs, none won the title. Point guards have fared much worse than the other positions in the opportunities they’ve had to be paired with another All-NBA guy:

Position	Titles	Seasons with another All-NBA
SG	12	22
SF	6	11
C	5	27
PF	3	26
PG	0	31

The All-NBA pairs that won titles were: Jordan/Pippen (5), Shaq/Kobe (3), Kobe/Gasol (2), Olajuwon/Drexler, Wade/Shaq, & Garnett/Pierce.

Shooting guards have been them most successful, especially if named Jordan or Bryant (10 of the 13 titles between them). With this small sample (for each SF, PF, and C, all of the titles are held by a pair of guys), it’s hard to draw any conclusions except that PGs don’t seem to work as one of the two guys. Once the Nash era is finally (and sadly) over, the Suns’ front office might want to keep that in mind.

Then again, set aside Jordan and Kobe’s titles and you have this chart, so maybe we still don’t know much about building champions:

Position	Titles	Seasons with another All-NBA
SG	2	9
SF	1	6
C	2	21
PF	1	24
PG	0	31

As a bonus, here are the guys who made All-NBA at least 5 times and First Team at least 3 times.

They are undoubtedly the best players of these last two decades (in order of First Team appearances):

PF: Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, Charles Barkley, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, SF: Lebron James, Scottie Pippen, C: Shaq, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, PG: Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, SG: Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan

Next up, how elections work.

Prominent Jewish Athletes

Amare Stoudamire?

Heat got their 3-pt shooter

Regarding my NBA Eastern Conference run-down, the Heat got the 3-pt shooter I thought they needed. Eddie House will be bringing his 39% career 3-pt average to MEGA TEAM for 2 years.

Why is Tucson Liberal?

As we know, Arizona's two large metro areas occupy very different political territory. That's not exactly shocking to anyone. What's strange, I think, is the lack of a general understanding as to why that's the case. Explanations I've heard for Tucson's liberalism range from "more Latinos" or "socially liberal whites" to "it's just Tucson". I spent some time looking at Census data to see if I could begin to come up with a data-driven explanation.

Phoenix vs. Tucson
I started by just comparing the core cities. Tucson looks significantly more hospitable to Democrats than Phoenix in one demographic area - women. Tucson is 50.5% female (48.6% in Phoenix) and more of those women are single (34.7% to 30.9%). In a couple of other categories, Tucson actually looks like less friendly territory. Phoenix is both younger (median age 31.9 to 33.2) and more Latino (42.1% to 39.5%). Pulling back to the county level doesn't make much difference. Maricopa makes up some of the gender gap and widens the age gap (33.9 median age to 37.0 in Pima). The Phoenix suburbs pull down Maricopa's Latino numbers, allowing Pima to take a 32.7% to 30.3% edge. Big picture, though, the two counties look far too similar to be so different politically.

So what's the answer? I think it's two-fold.

First, Latinos in Tucson/Pima score much better on assimilation. Non-citizens are only 8.2% of Pima County (10.9% in Tucson). Compare that to 12.4% in Maricopa (18.5% in Phoenix). 8.2% is also the figure for Pima residents (11% in Tucson) who primarily speak Spanish and are NOT fluent in English. In Maricopa, that's 11.6% (18.1% in Phoenix). So while Pima may only have a slight edge in Latinos as a percentage of the population, they probably have a larger edge in Latinos who are likely voters.

Secondly, Tucson/Pima has a much larger lower-middle class than Phoenix/Maricopa. Median household income is $37,396 to $49,933 and $46,229 to $56,555 in the counties. Roughly 44% of Maricopa families (37% in Phoenix) have incomes above $75,000. In Pima, that's more like 37% (27% in Tucson). In 2008, Obama won AZ voters under $50,000 by 3 points. He lost the over $50,000 crowd by 15 points (both figures are nearly identical to the 2004 results). In 2008, that disparity was almost entirely evidenced among non-whites. Non-whites over $50,000 gave Obama only a 2-point edge, while non-whites under $50,000 chose him by an overwhelming 52-point margin. Unfortunately, CNN didn't publish exit poll results by both race and income until 2008, so we can't compare to past elections.

One last note on economics: Pima has a significantly higher proportion of its workforce in government (18.2% to 11.4%) and in the "education/healthcare/social work" fields (23.2% to 17.4%). I've never seen party preference by occupation, but I'm going to hazard a guess that both of those are big boons to Pima Democrats.

So.....?
There's never going to be ONE explanation for why Tucson/Pima is more liberal than Phoenix/Maricopa. A number of minor factors - slightly higher proportions of women, postgrads, and Latinos - all likely contribute to Tucson's liberalism. Making an educated guess here, I'm suggesting that three of the major factors driving Tucson to the left are: 1) a more efficacious Latino population, 2) a significantly larger under-$50k family population, especially among non-whites, and 3) a larger share of their workforce in government and social services.

Can Anyone Challenge LA in the West?

Seven teams finished within 7 wins of the Lakers' 57 last year, so it's not hard to imagine that at least one of them might seriously challenge LA's three-year hold on the West title. Of those seven, the Spurs are probably too old and the Thunder too young to pose a real threat. Having been raided by the Bulls and despite solid pick-ups Al Jefferson and Raja Bell, the Jazz' roster has some serious holes. Dallas only has 7, maybe 8 legitimate rotation players and their 2nd-best record in the West obscured an 8th-best point differential last year.

The Nuggets were clearly the 2nd best team in the West in 2008-2009, and might have been again in 2009-2010 if they hadn't fallen apart towards the end of the season while coach George Karl underwent chemotherapy. This year they've improved with the addition of Al Harrington (16.82). Chauncey Billups' PER is nearly equal to Kobe's (20.25 to 21.95), even if Kobe is underrated by that stat. The Nuggets' Ty Lawson and J.R. Smith are better than any of the Lakers' other guards.

The Lakers added Matt Barnes (13.66) as a back-up for Ron Artest (12.12) on the wing. Maybe together they're as talented as Carmelo Anthony (22.29), who is always capable of taking over a series. While Nene (18.95) and Harrington are no Gasol (22.97) and Bynum (20.26), Denver does have depth of quality big men to contend with LA's Big 3. I would give LA a slight edge in a best-of-seven series, and it would be a good one.

Only the Boston Celtics came closer that the Suns did to eliminating Los Angeles in the playoffs. For that reason, plus their fairly impressive recovery from losing Amare, we have to at least consider Phoenix. The Suns actually look to be more talented that the Lakers across both the guard and wing positions (Nash 21.67, Richardson 16.63, Childress 18.00, Hill 14.07, Dragic 14.87 against Kobe's underrated 21.95, Barnes 13.66, Artest 12.12, Blake 11.61, Vujacic 11.39, Fisher 9.29). Channing Frye (43.9 3pt%) and Hedo Turkoglu (37.4 3pt%, 4.1 asts) will spread LA's big men and possibly neutralize their defensive strengths. On the other hand, neither Robin Lopez nor the undersized Hakim Warrick seem likely to stop Gasol or Bynum, so it's hard to say that Phoenix would be a favorite. But I couldn't count them out.

Every year, the Blazers have the potential to be the top threat to the Lakers, if only they can stay healthy. With injury-prone stars like Brandon Roy (21.36, 17 games missed) and Greg Oden (23.14, 61 games missed), that's a pretty big challenge. At guard, the Blazers can't match Kobe, but Andre Miller (18.18), Rudy Fernandez (13.10), and Jerryd Bayless (14.38) are a solid group. Edge Lakers. At the wings, Roy and injury-limited Nicholas Batum (17.31) were both way better than Artest and Barnes in 2009-2010. Edge Blazers. If healthy, Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge (18.30), and Marcus Camby (17.91) would form a big 3 as impossible to defend as Gasol, Bynum and Odom. Portland's weak point might be a one-on-one match-up between the slow-footed Oden and a more athetic Bynum or Gasol.