Phoenix Rises in the West
The Phoenix Suns have the longest current winning streak in the NBA--six games--and have won eight of their last ten games to climb to second place in the Pacific Division. When Amare Stoudemire went under the knife for microfracture surgery many pundits assumed that Phoenix would plummet in the standings. ESPN's Tim Legler offered one of the more optimistic predictions, saying that he thought that Phoenix could hang around the .500 mark until Stoudemire came back. I discounted the doomsayers in my November 4 post, writing, "Even without the injured Amare Stoudemire, the Suns are a potent team...Phoenix is still one of the better teams in the league." Here is a link to that post:
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2005/11/will-shaqs-injury-tip-easts-balance-of.htmlIt should be noted that Phoenix has played eight of its last ten games at home and that two of the Suns' recent wins are against doormats Atlanta and Toronto--but with All-Stars Shawn Marion (19.3 ppg) and Steve Nash (18.3 ppg) setting the pace and four other Suns averaging double figures in points, the Suns are a dangerous opponent for any team. Phoenix averages a league leading 103.3 ppg and, more importantly, the Suns rank fourth in point differential (5.7 ppg), trailing only Detroit, San Antonio and Memphis. The Suns are holding opponents to .429 shooting from the field while making their shots at a .462 clip. That .033 differential is virtually identical to their performance last year (.032). The Suns are getting outrebounded, as expected, but even last year with Stoudemire the Suns were outrebounded by their opponents, albeit by a smaller margin. Look for the Suns to continue to do more than just tread water while Stoudemire rehabilitates his knee.
posted by David Friedman @ 2:34 AM
Sam Cassell's Onions
When two-time Super Bowl winning coach Bill Parcells fought to have more control over personnel decisions he memorably reasoned that if he was going to cook the dinner then he wanted to buy the groceries. It turns out that onions are the ingredient that the Los Angeles Clippers have been missing for years. Broadcaster Bill Raftery is found of exclaiming "Onions!" after a player makes a key play that requires a lot of heart--only he is actually referring to a different body part. He was once asked why he uses the word "onions" and he explained that he wanted to keep his job. Sam Cassell is "onions" personified and after he makes a big shot he sometimes makes a gesture to let everyone know it--Sam, kids are watching and your track record as a crunch time performer is well documented, so the theatrics are not necessary. Cassell is fearless in the clutch, as he showed as a young guard on two Houston Rockets championship teams; he also hit many big shots during Minnesota's run to the Western Conference Finals in 2004. So, the discerning reader may ask, why didn't I pick the Clippers to be a playoff team? I never doubted Cassell's skills, but he only played in 59 games last year, averaging 13.5 ppg--his worst output since 1994-95, his second year in the league. I thought that the 36 year old Cassell's body had broken down, but so far he has appeared in every game and his numbers are back to their usual level. Through 15 games, Cassell ranks third on the Clippers with 16.3 ppg and leads the team in assists (7.4 apg), steals (1.13 spg) and free throw percentage (.906; bench warmer James Singleton is shooting .929 but only has 14 attempts compared to Cassell's 64 FTA). Whether or not the Clippers are "for real" hinges greatly on Cassell staying healthy for the whole season.
posted by David Friedman @ 8:40 PM
Kobe's FGAs
Kobe Bryant is regularly attempting 30-plus field goals a game now, drawing the wrath of the studio analysts on TNT and ESPN. TNT ran a graphic indicating that Kobe has had more 30-plus FGA games this season than studio analysts Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller and Kenny Smith had in their careers. A moment of comedy ensued when Barkley asserted that anyone who attempts 30 shots in a game is hurting his team and that he never took 30 shots in a game during his career; of course, host Ernie Johnson then immediately pointed out that Barkley did have a few 30-plus FGA games in his career. A larger point (no pun intended) about Barkley's shooting was not mentioned: the Chuckster launched 2020 three pointers during his career, connecting at a .266 rate. Some of those were surely end of the quarter half court heaves, particularly early in his career when the three pointer was not a regular part of most teams' offenses; still, I'd be interested to know how exactly Barkley was helping his team with his bombs away approach from the perimeter.
The issue is not how many shots Kobe attempts but rather the quality of those shots. He is at his best when he posts up, drives to the hoop or attempts a mid-range jump shot after the Lakers run the triangle offense. The problem is that most of the Lakers do not yet completely understand how to run the triangle offense, upsetting the precise rhythm that is essential for that system to work. Sometimes this results in Kobe receiving the ball late in the shot clock with few good options. Other times the opponent's defense ignores Kobe's confused teammates and simply converges on Kobe; Kobe sometimes forces shots in that situation rather than passing the ball. I used to play some pickup basketball with Dale DeGroat (a member of the musical group Zapp) and he had a perfect way of describing what Kobe is thinking in those situations: "I can do bad by myself." In other words, Kobe has seen his teammates miss shots, fumble the ball out of bounds and not know where they are supposed to be on the floor. Even when multiple defenders converge on him, Kobe figures that he has at least as good a chance of scoring as his teammates do.
The worst thing that Kobe is doing now is shooting pull-up three pointers in transition early in the shot clock; these are low percentage shots that the Lakers have little opportunity to rebound if they miss. This is another instance of "I can do bad by myself" thinking. Kobe figures that the offense is going to break down anyway, possibly leaving him facing a double-team as the shot clock winds down, so he would rather take a deep shot against one defender early in the shot clock. If he would drive to the hoop in those situations or have enough confidence in his teammates to run the offense, his field goal percentage would rise.
The assertion that Kobe is selfish ignores the fact that Kobe served as the primary facilitator in the triangle offense on three championship teams. Someone once did a study that showed that more of Shaq's assisted field goals came on passes from Kobe than from any other Laker. Remember the lob from Kobe to Shaq that punctuated the Lakers' dramatic seventh game win against the Portland Trailblazers in the 2000 Western Conference Finals? The problem with the Lakers is not Kobe's FGAs but the steep learning curve that the rest of the team is experiencing with the triangle offense--and a lack of consistency on defense. Last night Kobe shot 9-16 from the field and had nine rebounds and eight assists, but the Lakers squandered an 18 point lead, surrendering 39 points in the fourth quarter to lose 113-108 to the Minnesota Timberwolves. Kobe's inflated FGA totals are a result of the Lakers's struggles, not the cause of them.
posted by David Friedman @ 7:55 PM
Mainstream Media Misinformation
Recently we had an interesting exchange at the Association for Professional Basketball Research (APBR) discussion group
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR/on the subject of the reliability of various forms of media. One poster indicated that he does not read blogs at all because he only trusts information that comes from mainstream, commercial media; he believes that there are more controls in place there to ensure accuracy and accountability. I countered that every source of information should be consumed with a critical eye/mind. I have written for mainstream outlets such as Hoop, Basketball Digest and Sports Collectors Digest in addition to maintaining this blog, so I do not have an ax to grind relating to this issue.
Informed readers/viewers of mainstream media realize that name brand outlets sometimes convey information that is misleading, deceptive or just flat out wrong. Here are a couple examples from the first month of the NBA season. On Friday's edition of the ESPN show "Rome is Burning," Jim Rome and his panel discussed Larry Brown's coaching legacy. One of the panelists suggested that when Brown is eventually inducted into the Hall of Fame it will take a big quilt to include the logos of all the teams that he has coached. Neither Rome nor the other panelist pointed out that (1) Brown was inducted in the Hall of Fame in 2002 and (2) the Basketball Hall of Fame does not induct an individual as a member of a particular team (the panelist was probably thinking of the Baseball Hall of Fame, which creates a bust depicting the player wearing a cap from the team with which he is most identified if he played for more than one franchise).
Before we look at the next example, consider these two statements: "(Eddy) Curry is not just a good defender but is in actual fact an excellent defender..."; "...on average, Curry's poor defensive rebounding, subpar shot blocking makes for an overall poor defensive presence in the middle." What do you notice? If you said that the author should have used "make" when referring to multiple items instead of "makes," you are probably an English teacher; of course, what stands out is that the two statements make completely opposing assertions. Each statement was preceded by a lengthy recitation of statistics. What's so unusual about this? Well, the same author produced both sentences--the first appeared at the APBR Metrics forum in March and the second in an SI.com article in November. As the saying goes, the author feels strongly both ways about Curry's performance on defense, which is very convenient; whether or not Curry plays well on defense during the rest of this season, the author of these statements will be able to write that he predicted correctly.
The March statement came in response to my contention that Curry is a poor rebounder and defensive player. The quote that defines Curry's rebounding shortcomings came during his time as a Chicago Bull when his exasperated coach Scott Skiles was asked what the 6-11, 285 Curry needs to do to rebound better. "Jump," Skiles replied. With Curry the physical tools have always been present, but the rebounding and defensive production have been poor. Needless to say, I was surprised when the author not only argued against what is plainly obvious but also resorted to ad hominem remarks during the course of the exchange. In face to face conversations, usually the first person to lose control and start screaming is the one who knows that he has nothing substantive to offer to make his case, so he is forced to resort to distracting histrionics--"sound and fury signifying nothing." In the online world, insults and snide remarks are the equivalent of screaming.
When I read the SI.com article that made exactly the point that I had stated in March--and completely contradicted what the article's author had so vehemently asserted at that time--I wondered what had caused the article's author to change his mind; I also noticed that the article erred in stating that Shaquille O'Neal led the NBA in turnovers in 2004-05. He in fact did not even lead his own team in that category. So I posted a comment at APBR Metrics noting the mistake about Shaq's turnovers and asking if Curry has done something in the first 10 games this year that merits such a completely different evaluation of his defensive play. The author chose not to respond and the APBR Metrics administrator suggested that I should write to him privately. It seems odd that someone would write bold, contradictory statements for public consumption and then be unwilling to explain them publicly but I did email this author; I have not received a response. Eventually, others also chimed in on the subject and the author finally posted a response at APBR Metrics, making references to Prozac and the evolution versus creationism debate. He concluded that he will not waste his time explaining what he is saying to anyone who is not smart enough to figure out what he meant. Although this is apparently intended to be a shot at me, in fact it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who read his contradictory statements and is not able to understand how both assertions could be accurate. Then the APBR Metrics administrator locked the topic, preventing anyone from making further posts on the subject. When someone resorts to ad hominem remarks, it is extremely tempting to fire back in kind--but that just lowers the level of discourse even further. I make a point of responding quickly and cordially to any feedback that I receive about my writing--there is no reason or justification to insult one's readers. It is disappointing that not everyone adheres to this approach.
Interested readers can find the whole APBR Metrics discussion of this topic here:
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=440/The original Curry statement appeared in a topic about Antoine Walker, a discussion that began with a simple question about Boston's resurgence after trading for Walker but degenerated into non-productive, off topic comments (including bringing Curry, a one-dimensional center, into a discussion about Walker, a power forward who rebounds, shoots threes and is a good playmaker). You can judge for yourself how/when that transformation happened. That topic can be found here:
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?t=132&highlight=antoine+walker/I later had the opportunity to speak with Hall of Famer Tom Heinsohn, Celtics General Manager Danny Ainge, Celtics Coach Doc Rivers and longtime NBA writer Bob Ryan about Antoine Walker. I used their quotes in my two part article about Walker. Here are links to that story:
Part I:
http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/basketball_spotlight/117473
/Part II:
http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/basketball_spotlight/117474
/
posted by David Friedman @ 6:30 PM
