Jalen Rose's Mixed Messages
Jalen Rose often provides insightful commentary and analysis, but he made some baffling statements yesterday on the "Jalen & Jacoby" show. Rose expressed concern and disdain about Michael Jordan's reported role as a mediator between the NBA owners and the NBA players during
the NBA strike. Rose noted that Jordan is the only black person who is a majority owner of an NBA team, and Rose suggested that it seems like white owners are not comfortable talking to a group of predominantly black players so the owners sent Jordan to speak on their behalf.
I am baffled by Rose's criticism, though I am reminded of the
racially charged comments directed toward Grant Hill by Jalen Rose and several of Rose's college teammates. Rose and others consistently assert that there are not enough majority owners who are black in sports where the majority of players are black. Rose and others consistently assert that diversity is important so that players can see owners who look like they do, who have had experiences like they have had, and who can serve as role models for other black people to become owners and executives. We are also told that there are not enough black head coaches, and that only black head coaches can relate to black athletes.
Given those assertions, one would assume that Rose would be thrilled that a majority owner who is black is playing a pivotal role in resolving the strike. If no black owners were involved then it is almost certain that Rose would assert that at a critical time like this there should be a black voice among the owners. Now, there is a black owner, and Rose diminishes Jordan's credibility by asserting that Jordan is taking a major role not because of Jordan's earned status as a great player and successful businessman but rather as a messenger for the white owners. If a white commentator had expressed Rose's take, that white commentator would rightly be accused of racism for judging Jordan not on his merits as a person but rather for the color of his skin.
Rose's take begins with speculation--I have seen no reports suggesting that white owners felt that they could not communicate with black players--and ends with demeaning Jordan (that may not have been Rose's intention, but that is the plain meaning of what Rose said). Also, contrary to Rose's assumption that white owners would not be comfortable speaking with black players, Milwaukee's owners publicly expressed full support for their striking players; that is just one example, and I am sure that there are other examples.
In an ideal world, opportunities to coach, to be an executive, and to be an owner would be available to whoever is most qualified to fill those roles regardless of race, religious preference, political affiliation, or any other categorization that is not related to competency. In an ideal world, a commentator would not assume that a prominent owner who is successfully mediating between the players and the owners was put in position to do so primarily because of his race. When I first heard reports about Jordan serving a mediating role I assumed that he is uniquely qualified not because of his race, but because he is the only person in the room who has experience both as a player and as an owner.
It is bizarre that Rose repeatedly states that there are not enough black coaches, executives, and owners, and then he makes statements that undermine Jordan's status as an important leader who helped resolve the NBA strike.
Rose is wrong about Jordan, and he is also wrong to simply state that we need more blacks in certain roles. We don't need more black coaches, executives, and owners, nor do we need fewer black coaches, executives, and owners. We need to make sure that the playing field is level in terms of opportunity. To the extent that the playing field is not equal, steps need to be taken to level the playing field. Bill Russell, K.C. Jones, and Lenny Wilkens are three examples of black players who received NBA coaching opportunities and rewarded their teams with at least one championship each. Masai Ujiri is arguably the best front office executive in the NBA. Michael Jordan has not been the most successful NBA owner, but he is certainly not the least successful owner, either.
No objective person who has any sense or knowledge doubts that there are black people who can be productive coaches, executives, and owners--but there should not be some arbitrary number to determine that there are "enough" coaches, executives, and owners who are black. It is a slippery slope to say that there are not "enough," as opposed to focusing on removing barriers to equality. How many would be "enough" and how many would be "too many" regarding one racial group or another?
Also, speaking of being a mediator or a leader, Rose did not say anything about LeBron James but it is fascinating to see and hear the reports regarding LeBron James' role in the NBA strike. In contrast to Jordan's productive contribution, it has been reported that James walked out of the initial players' meeting on Wednesday, and then in subsequent meetings he spoke last--after an action plan had already been formed and agreed upon--and talked down to the other players. In the days, weeks, and months to come we will no doubt learn more about exactly what happened, but these descriptions of James' shortcomings as a leader align with
previous reports about James' shortcomings as a leader in the Olympics, with Cleveland, and with Miami. James is extraordinarily talented, and he has accomplished a lot, but the forced narrative about him being a great leader does not withstand even cursory scrutiny.
Labels: Grant Hill, Jalen Rose, LeBron James, Michael Jordan
posted by David Friedman @ 1:10 AM
NBA Strike: What Next?
It is important to use correct and precise terminology. NBA players are currently on strike--resulting in the postponement of playoff games scheduled to be played on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday--and it has been reported that the strike will most likely end on Saturday. A strike is when employees do not report to work on schedule and/or refuse to perform their normal work duties.
A boycott is when consumers decide to not patronize a particular business or group of businesses. During the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. first achieved prominence as one of the leaders of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which was a protest against racial segregation on public buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Thus, if consumers decide to not pay for subscription services (cable or satellite providers) to watch NBA games, or to not purchase the products of NBA sponsors, that would be a boycott.
Generally, employees who are considering going on strike first issue a set of demands, and then they go on strike if those demands are not met. The NBA strike did not begin in an organized fashion with a set of demands; the Orlando Magic arrived on time for Wednesday's playoff game versus the Milwaukee Bucks, and were surprised that the Bucks did not show up for the game. Hours after the Bucks refused to play, the team emerged from the locker
room, and two players--George Hill and Sterling Brown--read a brief
statement but refused to answer any questions. Hill had recently stated publicly that it had been a mistake for the players to resume the season, because he believes that the games have become a distraction from social justice issues. Brown was tased and wrongly arrested by the Milwaukee Police in 2018; he has reportedly rejected a $400,000 settlement offer and instead he filed a civil rights suit against the Milwaukee Police Department.
In rapid succession after the Bucks went on strike, the two other NBA playoff games scheduled for Wednesday night were postponed, and several other leagues--including the WNBA--postponed their games.
The NBA could have forfeited the Bucks, and fined the team for going on strike, but--taking a larger view of the situation--the league opted to work behind the scenes to salvage the playoffs. The strike has been portrayed as if a collective decision was made to pause the playoffs, but the reality is that the Bucks--seemingly at the instigation of Hill and Brown, the only players who have spoken publicly--acted unilaterally and were prepared to forfeit the game and their salaries while the rest of the league did not know about this beforehand and then just went along with what the Bucks did.
Anyone who has a compassionate heart can understand why NBA players are frustrated, upset, angry, and fearful. Doc Rivers' heartfelt words after Tuesday's L.A. Clippers game are a powerful testament to how he and many other people feel about the Jacob Blake shooting, the George Floyd killing, and other incidents. It is also obvious that NBA players are dealing with a lot of mental/emotional stress from being in the "bubble" environment, as Clippers' player Paul George alluded to after Tuesday's game--and he is not the only player who has spoken about being under mental/emotional stress.
It is understandable why some players may feel like they should not have come to the "bubble" and/or feel like they should leave now. It should be noted that NBA players are not confined to the "bubble." They are free to leave at any time, and--after undergoing COVID-19 testing and quarantine--they are free to return.
That being said, the NBA spent over $100 million to put together a "bubble" environment that--up to this point--has succeeded in being free of COVID-19 while also providing entertaining basketball. If the players continued to strike and forced the playoffs to be canceled then that could cost the NBA hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars. If that were to happen, the NBA could exercise a clause that would end the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, which could lead to a lockout and result in the cancelation of next season.
The NBA has been at the forefront of supporting the causes and issues that the players are concerned about; a strike that harms the NBA hurts a business enterprise that not only advocates for social justice but also provides billions of dollars in salaries to players, who can then use that money for whatever causes they support.
Further, the general public is only familiar with a select few players; if the NBA were not in the "bubble" now then most people would not know who George Hill is, nor care what he says. The "bubble" provides an opportunity for the league, the teams, and the players to shine a spotlight on a variety of issues.
A prolonged strike would diminish the NBA's power and voice. A strike for a few days is unlikely to accomplish much. Therefore, the players painted themselves into a corner by impulsively deciding to strike, and they are fortunate that their employer is willing/able to provide a graceful exit from that corner by not classifying this strike as a strike.
The longer the players do not play, the less leverage they have, because the owners can ultimately survive without the NBA to a greater extent than the players can; if the league goes bankrupt, then most if not all of the owners can fall back on their other businesses and income sources. A few NBA players may already be set for life, but the majority are not.
The problem for the striking players is that they want things done immediately that the NBA has no control over. NBA players have repeatedly demanded that certain police officers be fired and/or arrested. The reality is that when a police officer discharges his weapon in the line of duty there will be an investigation that could take weeks or months; that is a formal process that is not going to be sped up no matter who protests, or goes on strike, or who calls a governor, attorney general, or prosecutor. That is why it is odd to act as if it is a great accomplishment that Milwaukee Bucks players reportedly had a conference call with government officials in Wisconsin. One, I am pretty sure that the players could have arranged such calls without striking. Two, such calls have, at most, symbolic value regarding this particular situation. Pressuring the authorities to act before all of the evidence has been collected and evaluated could result in the prosecutor having a flawed case that cannot be effectively prosecuted. One of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system is that there are built in rights and protections for anyone who is accused of a crime; if that process is not followed, then even a person who committed a crime can be set free.
This is not in any way a suggestion that players should "shut up and dribble." Rather, the point is for the players to have a plan as opposed to acting/reacting emotionally, even though those emotions are understandable. A strike will not speed up the judicial process, or change the outcome of that process. A strike will not harm racists, or change their thought processes. The best thing that the NBA players can do is use their voices and their money to advocate for the issues that matter the most to them. Playing the games is not a distraction; playing the games provides a platform that they would not otherwise have.
It is quite telling that when the players had a meeting on Wednesday night the vast majority of the teams voted to continue the playoffs; upon reflection, the players understood how little leverage they have--and how much they could lose if they canceled the playoffs by striking.
The media is quick to apply labels and utilize soundbites. I do not agree with anyone who calls the strike "brave," but I also do not agree with anyone who calls the strike "cowardly." Dr. King was brave; he was willing to be beaten and/or jailed for his cause. Muhammad Ali was brave; he gave up his heavyweight championship and the prime years of his boxing career for his cause. The NBA players know that Commissioner Adam Silver will support just about any social justice position that they take, and they know that unless they just leave the "bubble" en masse they will not face economic consequences for their actions. The players do not face the challenges and consequences that Dr. King and Muhammad Ali did. That safety net does not make the players "cowardly," though; I think that the players acted emotionally by striking, and that upon calmer reflection they are working with the owners to find a path forward that is mutually acceptable.
Much has been said about the importance of voting, and many NBA players, coaches, and commentators have been outspoken about this. Specifically, Shaquille O'Neal mentioned the importance of voting for governors, mayors, sheriffs, and other local officials. That is an interesting point, because it seems like many people are focused on just one line on the upcoming ballot. Over the past 32 years the White House has been inhabited by a Democrat for 16 years and by a Republican for 16 years. Many of the issues that are most often discussed and complained about--including but not limited to police brutality, incarceration rates, crime, poverty, the education system, health care--persist regardless of who the President is, because the importance of the President is similar to the importance of an NFL quarterback: Presidents and quarterbacks tend to receive too much credit for what goes right, and too much blame for what goes wrong. This does not mean that Presidents and quarterbacks are not important; it just means--in this context--that if the problems we are facing could be easily solved by one powerful person, then this would have already happened. If you understand the separation of powers and if you understand how government functions at the federal, state, and local levels, then you understand that it is foolish to reflexively create a positive or negative soundbite about one person every single time something good or something bad happens.
Just like football games are often won in the trenches, the officials who are in the trenches--including governors, mayors, sheriffs, and others--implement the policies and make the day to day decisions that have the most impact on our lives. It is worth doing some research about the states and cities that are faring the worst right now in whatever categories matter the most to you--COVID-19, police brutality, incarceration rates, crime, poverty, the education system, health care--and then examine who are the governors, mayors, sheriffs, and other elected officials in those areas. Has the same party or the same people been in power for a while in those areas? Politicians are great at making speeches and telling people what they want to hear--but did the people who have been running these places for decades build up a track record of success, or a track record of failure?
It is very important not just to vote, but to be an informed voter.
posted by David Friedman @ 11:55 PM
Efficiency Versus High Variance
"Stat gurus" outsmart themselves when they value offensive efficiency over every other factor. They have determined that three pointers and free throws are the most efficient NBA shots. While that may be true mathematically, it is not true in a relevant way in the real world; there is value in trying to improve offensive efficiency, but there is also value in improving proficiency in other areas, including defense and rebounding.
The league's collective three point percentage this season was .358; last season, the league's collective three point percentage was .355. Only seven qualifying players shot better than .420 from three point range this season, while in 2018-19 there were 12 qualifying players who shot better than .420 from three point range. Defense is better in the playoffs than the regular season, so if a team can shoot .380 or even .360 from three point range in the postseason that is quite efficient--and yet achieving such a percentage, even on a high volume of shots, by no means guarantees success. The Houston Rockets prove this annually in the playoffs, yet the "stat gurus" do not seem to be willing or able to draw proper conclusions from the evidence.
Offensive efficiency is not all that matters when trying to construct a championship team: the three point shot produces much more variance statistically than shots taken closer to the basket, meaning that a team that shoots .380 from three point range may shoot .250 from three point range in one game and then .510 from three point range the next game. If a team shoots a high volume of three pointers then it will almost certainly lose when shooting .250 from three point range, but that team is not assured of victory even when shooting .510 from three point range: a team that relies too heavily on three point shooting does not have a backup plan to use when those shots are not falling, but that team's opponents may be able to overcome giving up .510 three point shooting by forcing turnovers, winning the rebound battle, and attacking the paint for high percentage shots.
I made a similar point years ago when I
analyzed Gilbert Arenas' playing style: "...if Arenas shoots 6-9 from three point range in one playoff game and 1-9
in the next then the Wizards will go 1-1 at best in those games despite
the fact that his three point percentage would be .389. Having your
point guard jacking up eight or nine three pointers a game--particularly
on a team that is not good defensively anyway and has poor court
balance--is not a formula for postseason success."
"Stat gurus" think that if they put together a team of five Gilbert Arenas-type players shooting a collective .389 from three point range then this offensive efficiency will result in winning a championship--but this did not work out well for Arenas or his Wizards, and it will not work out well for any team that prioritizes three point shooting over building a well-balanced team.
"Stat gurus" and the media members who lavish praise on them act as if
their critics do not understand the basic math that three is more than
two. Everyone understands that a three point shot is worth more than a
two point shot*; unfortunately for "stat gurus" like Houston's Daryl Morey, basketball games are won and lost on the court, not on spreadsheets--and on the court you have to account for more factors than just shooting percentages. Three point shooters will wear down and get fatigued in a seven game series after battling against larger players in the paint. Also, when
Houston went all-in with small ball the Rockets accepted losing the rebound battle by a wide margin on a consistent basis, which puts tremendous pressure on them to not only shoot a high three point percentage but also to minimize turnovers--and players who are fatigued not only shoot worse but they tend to commit more turnovers. We see this happen every year in the playoffs with Houston in general and James Harden specifically, yet the "stat gurus" and their media sycophants never learn.
Last year, Harden's numbers went down across the board during the playoffs and he was unable to lead his Rockets past the Golden State Warriors sans Kevin Durant--but that was a continuation of a pattern for Harden and the Rockets.
Here are the Rockets' three point field goal percentages and
James Harden's three point field goal percentages for the last
five series that they have lost:
2019: Western Conference Second Round, 4-2 loss to Golden State: .367 (Houston); .351 (Harden)
2018: Western Conference Finals, 4-3 loss to Golden State: .314 (Houston); .244 (Harden)
2017: Western Conference Second Round, 4-2 loss to San Antonio: .366 (Houston); .308 (Harden)
2016: Western Conference First Round, 4-1 loss to Golden State: .268 (Houston); .310 (Harden)
2015: Western Conference Finals, 4-1 loss to Golden State: .333 (Houston); .429 (Harden)
Here are the Rockets' three point field goal percentages and James Harden's three point field goal percentages for those five regular seasons:
2019: .356 (Houston); .368 (Harden)
2018: .362 (Houston); .367 (Harden)
2017: .357 (Houston); .347 (Harden)
2016: .347 (Houston); .359 (Harden)
2015: .348 (Houston); .375 (Harden)
In four of the five series listed above, Harden shot worse from three point range than he did during the regular season that year, and in three of the five series listed above the Rockets shot worse from three point range than they did that year. The larger point that must be mentioned is that even when Houston's three point percentages are not bad, the variance from game to game makes it very difficult to win a playoff series against a good team.
We are seeing some of the same high variance patterns in Houston's first round series versus Oklahoma City. In Oklahoma City's 117-114 game four win, the Rockets opened the third quarter by making eight straight three pointers. This is the first time in the last 20 postseasons that a team opened a quarter by hitting eight consecutive three pointers. Then, the Rockets shot 5-26 from three point range during the rest of the second half, turning a 15 point lead into a three point loss.
The Rockets set a single game playoff record for three point shots attempted in game two versus the Thunder, and they broke that mark in game four. Their overall three point percentage during the first four games of this series is not bad--and yet they are two losses away from being eliminated in the first round for the fourth time in eight years.
It is too soon to say what will happen in this series; the Rockets won the first two games, and the Thunder countered by winning the next two games. Russell Westbrook has yet to play, and if he returns to action at anywhere close to his normal form then that should be enough to help the Rockets to eliminate the Thunder--but it is important to recognize that the same themes we see above are recurring for the Rockets, and whether the Rockets lose in the first round or the second round they will meet their demise the same way that they have for the past several years: pursuing an "efficient" strategy until they perish due to the high variance that is an inherent part of relying too much on three point shooting. These slumps that afflict Houston at the worst possible times are not flukes; they are the natural byproduct of a flawed, high-variance strategy, and the natural result of human beings becoming fatigued over the course of a seven game series--fatigue that is exacerbated when undersized players have to battle against larger players.
There is a false narrative that the Golden State Warriors proved that a three point shooting team can win an NBA title. The Warriors proved nothing of the sort. From 2015-2019, the Warriors ranked first, third, first, third, and third in defensive field goal percentage; not only did they have a backup plan if they suffered from cold three point shooting: they had a primary plan, namely make it very difficult for their opponents to score. Also, the Warriors did not become a championship dynasty until they added Kevin Durant, who added deadly midrange scoring (and, to be sure, another three point shooter) to the three point marksmanship provided by Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson.
In contrast, from 2015-2019 the Rockets ranked 12th, 19th, 23rd, 16th, and 19th in defensive field goal percentage; even when the Rockets make a lot of three pointers, they are still vulnerable against good teams--and the Rockets are dead against just about anyone if they do not make a lot of three pointers, because they cannot control the boards or limit their opponents' scoring.
Daryl Morey has been running this "stat guru" experiment in Houston since 2007. The Rockets have missed the playoffs three times, lost in the first round four times, lost in the second round three times, and lost in the Western Conference Finals two times. That adds up to being eliminated in the first round or earlier seven times in 12 years, with no NBA Finals appearances. Has there ever been a general manager or team president who held on to his position longer with more hype and less championship success than Morey?
---
*I can say from years of personal experience that in pickup games played to 12 points with three
pointers counting as two and regular field goals counting as one a post
player has no legitimate complaint about not receiving the ball unless
(1) he makes at least 60% of his shots and (2) his perimeter players
shoot worse than 30% from three point range: in such games, a 3-10 (.300) three
point shooter generates six points, while a 6-10 (.600) two point shooter also
generates six points (as a reliable three point shooter--particularly
from the relatively easy 19-9 three point line--I had many such
discussions with teammates who made less than half of their inside shots
but could not understand why I preferred to shoot threes instead of
passing to them so that they could brick layups). So, yes, I understand the value of the three point shot, and I understand under which circumstances three pointers are preferable to two point shots--and I also understand that a strategy based on shooting as many three pointers as possible while hoping for the best in terms of rebounding, defense, and all other factors is not a recipe for championship success at the NBA level.
Labels: Daryl Morey, Houston Rockets, James Harden, Oklahoma City Thunder, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 11:21 PM
Toronto Versus Boston Preview
Eastern Conference Second Round
#2 Toronto (53-19) vs. #3 Boston (48-24)
Season series: Boston, 3-1
Boston can win if…the Celtics' perimeter players--particularly Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, and Kemba Walker--outplay Pascal Siakam, Kyle Lowry, and Fred VanVleet. Tatum led Boston in scoring (27.0 ppg), rebounding (9.8 rpg), and blocked shots (2.3 bpg) during Boston's four game sweep of Philadelphia. Walker averaged 24.3 ppg versus Philadelphia, and Brown averaged 21.5 ppg. The Celtics lost Gordon Hayward to a season-ending injury in game one and seemingly did not miss a beat, but they will miss the talent and depth that he could have provided in this series.
VanVleet led Toronto in scoring (21.3 ppg) and assists (7.8 apg) as the Raptors swept Brooklyn. Siakam added 20.8 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and 4.8 apg, but he shot just .417 from the field; to beat Boston, Toronto will need for Siakam to maintain or increase his production while also boosting his efficiency. Kyle Lowry's box score numbers (12.5 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 4.8 apg) do not always capture his value.
If Tatum establishes himself as clearly the best player on the court during this series, then the Celtics could outlast the Raptors.
Toronto will win because…The Raptors are more battle-tested, and they are more consistent. Before this season, I underestimated this team. I knew that they would play hard and play smart, but I thought that without Kawhi Leonard they did not have enough talent to make a deep playoff run. Instead, several Raptors improved individually (including Siakam and VanVleet), and the team improved collectively; this squad has a legitimate chance to not only beat Boston but to advance to the NBA Finals. The Raptors play suffocating defense, and they have a lot of offensive weapons. The only thing that they lack is a proven superstar to take over close games down the stretch.
Other things to consider: This will be a hard fought and closely contested series that will probably not be decided until the closing moments of game seven. Before the season began, I expected Boston to be a better team than Toronto, but after watching the "first" regular season, the "second" regular season (the eight seeding games), and then the first round of the playoffs, I am impressed with Toronto's defense, toughness, and focus. Neither team has one of the top five players in the NBA--though Tatum and Siakam each could potentially reach that level--but both teams have a deep rotation of high quality players.
The lack of any home court advantages eliminates what otherwise could have been a huge factor: game seven being played in Toronto.
I am picking Toronto in seven games, but I would not be shocked if Boston wins the series.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Fred VanVleet, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, Kemba Walker, Kyle Lowry, Pascal Siakam, Toronto Raptors
posted by David Friedman @ 8:32 PM
Doncic Lets His Game Do His Talking
There are doers and there are talkers. Anyone can be a talker, but only people who have talent, focus, and determination can be doers. Some doers are also talkers, but their talk has meaning only because they are doers. Muhammad Ali, Reggie Jackson, and Deion Sanders are three examples of athletes who earned the right to talk by performing at a high level and winning championships. You may not like what they said or how they said it, but you had to respect their talent, their focus, and their determination. I respect non-talking doers like Julius Erving, Tim Duncan, and Kawhi Leonard, but I also respect Ali, Jackson, and Sanders because they put in the work to make sure that their deeds matched up to their boastful words.
The Dallas Mavericks' second year wunderkind Luka Doncic has not won a championship, but he seems to understand the difference between talking and doing. In game three of Dallas' first round series versus the L.A. Clippers, Montrezl Harrell directed profane comments at Doncic that included a derogatory mentioning of Doncic's skin color. Doncic answered in game four not with talking but with a whole lot of doing: 43 points, 17 rebounds, 13 assists, and a game-winning three point shot at the buzzer during overtime as Dallas defeated L.A. to tie the series at 2-2. Only two other players in NBA playoff history have had a 40-15-10
triple double: Oscar Robertson and Charles Barkley. Doncic also tied
Barkley for the second most points scored in a playoff triple double,
trailing only Russell Westbrook's 51.
It is interesting that the NBA has not disciplined Harrell, or even issued a public statement condemning what he said and making it clear that his conduct is unacceptable in the NBA. The league has previously issued substantial fines for various comments made by players during games, so the league's silence here is deafening. The NBA has to decide if it opposes demeaning language based on race, religion, sexual preference, or other categories. It is not acceptable that some categories of people are protected while others are not. Various media outlets reported that Harrell's Coach Doc Rivers told Harrell that what Harrell said is not acceptable. We also saw Harrell and Doncic speak to each other before game four. Harrell apologized to Doncic, and Doncic accepted Harrell's apology.
TNT's Charles Barkley rightly decried the NBA's double standard, while Shaquille O'Neal asserted that a different code applies to players during games because in the heat of the moment players say things that they do not really mean. Kenny Smith said that Harrell's remarks could be seen as "racist" but not "racism" because "racism" means that a person has power over another person. Smith said that Harrell has no power to keep Doncic out of the NBA, so Harrell is not engaging in racism. I don't know what Harrell thinks or feels in his mind and in his heart, but a racist comment is a racist comment based on the words and the context, not based on the skin color of the speaker. As Ernie Johnson noted, there is a difference between saying something like "That white boy is bad"--expressing admiration for a white player achieving success in a sport dominated by black players--and saying what Harrell said the way that Harrell said it. We know that Harrell's comment was not a compliment; only Harrell knows if it was a heat of the moment outburst, or an expression of racism--but we know that many times when a person makes a joke or makes a heat of the moment outburst that joke or outburst provides a glimpse into how that person really thinks/feels.
Smith agreed with Barkley that what Harrell said is not acceptable, and he also acknowledged O'Neal's point that NBA players often say things of that nature during games; Smith called this a "habit" that NBA players need to break.
Barkley's point is 100% correct. O'Neal may be right that players often talk like this, but Smith is right that players should stop doing this. Regarding the difference between "racist" and "racism," the dictionary definition of racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." There is a movement to redefine racism so that power is an essential component of the definition, but that is a distortion worthy of George Orwell's "1984." We should reject the notion that a person must be exercising power to be a racist; if you judge people based on race (or any characteristic other than their behavior, actions, and accomplishments) then you are a racist and you are engaged in racism. We already have words that encompass the power dynamic: when racism is combined with power then you have persecution and/or discrimination. It is flawed and dangerous thinking to promote the idea that certain people or certain groups of people cannot be racist because those people or those groups have been persecuted in the past or are being persecuted now.
Back to the game, and Doncic's dominance. Doncic was a game-time decision due to the sprained ankle that he
suffered in the previous game, but he did not use his injury as an
excuse or even talk about it unless he was asked about it. The Mavericks
trailed by 21 points in the first half and they were without the
services of Kristaps Porzingis--a late scratch due to a knee injury--but
they kept battling and playing hard.
The Philadelphia 76ers could learn a lot from watching the Mavericks.
Before the series, I picked the Clippers to win in six games because I expected Kawhi Leonard to perform at a high level at both ends of the court while I expected Doncic to perform at a high level only on offense. Doncic is far from being an elite defender like Leonard, but Doncic is so effective as a scorer/rebounder/playmaker that his contributions in those categories more than compensate for any relative defensive deficiencies. I think that the Clippers will win the next two games, but it will not be easy for them, and they could be staring down elimination in game seven if they do not tighten up their defense.
Leonard finished with 32 points, nine rebounds, and four assists. For most players that would be an exceptional performance, but by Leonard's high standards this was not a great game. He shot 10-22 from the field, and he missed a shot that could have won the game in regulation. Leonard had a -13 plus/minus number, suggesting that he did not control the game the way that he usually does. His teammate Lou Williams scored a game-high 36 points off of the bench.
Harrell had two points, one rebound, and one assist in 17 minutes. Paul George also had a "triple single": nine points, eight rebounds, three assists. George shot 3-14 from the field. Poor shooting has been a pattern for George throughout the series and, indeed, throughout his playoff career. At some point, this is not a "slump," but it is just who you are. Only a few games ago, George made fun of Damian Lillard for missing two free throws in a late game situation,
and I suggested that a player who has never won anything is not an authority on what it takes to win. More recently, George provided a profane reply on social media to anyone who criticized his playoff performances. Remember, George gave himself the nickname "Playoff P." Giving yourself a nickname rarely turns out well, and is inadvisable for anyone who has never won anything of substance; George has never reached the NBA Finals, and his career playoff field goal percentage is .418, including four playoff campaigns (out of nine) during which he shot worse than .400. George's field goal percentage through four games versus Dallas is below .300, so I don't want to see him at press conferences or on social media or in advertisements; the only place he should be seen outside of a game is in a gym working on his broken shooting stroke.
I picked the Clippers to win the 2020 NBA championship, and I stand by that selection not because of George or Harrell but because I believe in Kawhi Leonard and Doc Rivers. However, I wonder if Kawhi Leonard looks at his focused, tough-minded former teammates in Toronto and possibly regrets his decision to abandon them to move to L.A.
The bottom line is that Paul George and Montrezl Harrell have combined to win zero championships. Why are they talking?
George and Harrell need to talk less and do more. If Doncic were so inclined, he could provide a one word retort to Harrell and any other mouthy Clippers: "Scoreboard."
Labels: Dallas Mavericks, Kawhi Leonard, L.A. Clippers, Luka Doncic, Montrezl Harrell, Paul George
posted by David Friedman @ 3:40 AM
Tanking to the Bottom: Celtics Sweep 76ers
The book
"Tanking to the Top" should be removed from the nonfiction section and placed in the fiction section; the overhyped Philadelphia 76ers stopped actively trying to lose three years ago, but they have yet to advance past the second round of the playoffs, and they were just swept by the Boston Celtics (I will focus my attention on the Celtics in an upcoming article).
The explicit point of "The Process" is to avoid mediocrity by purposely losing for several years in order to accumulate draft picks and build a championship team; losing in the early rounds of the playoffs is a failure according to this way of thinking, because such teams are not championship contenders but they also do not have high draft picks that can be utilized to acquire franchise players.
It is fitting that Joel Embiid adopted the nickname "The Process," because he embodies everything that is wrong with tanking. Embiid is supposed to be the crown jewel of the 76ers' tanking, the franchise player who is expected to return the franchise to glory. Instead, Embiid missed the first two seasons of his career due to injury and he missed at least 18 games in each of the next four seasons. When Embiid is available, he too often has a low motor; he has enough talent to be a dominant player, but he lacks the mindset to consistently impose his will and dominate. He will look good in spurts--usually in the first half--but he tends to disappear when the game is on the line. During the Boston series, Embiid faded down the stretch in most games, and his field goal percentage declined as the series progressed: he shot .533 from the field in game one, .524 in game two, .350 in game three, and .444 in game four.
Despite Embiid's obvious and abundant athletic gifts, he is not developing or improving the way that one would expect a franchise player to develop and improve. His shotblocking has declined from 2.5 bpg in his first season to 1.8 bpg, 1.9 bpg, and 1.3 bpg. He has yet to shoot .500 from the field during a season, and after shooting .367 from three point range in his first season his career three point field goal percentage is .319. Embiid is often double-teamed but he has never averaged more than 3.7 apg.
Embiid is also clearly in less than peak physical condition, which at least partially explains--but in no way excuses--his inconsistency.
After Boston won game four 110-106, a reporter asked Embiid what the "issue" is for the 76ers. "That's a very stupid question," Embiid replied. No, it is an intelligent question, and the reporter asked it in a non-confrontational way, giving Embiid an opportunity to explain to the public--including 76ers' fans--why this team keeps falling well short of their goals. Instead, Embiid was petulant and dismissive. It is not cool when Gregg Popovich mocks reasonable questions (I have no problem with him mocking questions that are stupid, as opposed to questions he just does not want to answer)--but at least Popovich has multiple championships on his resume.
This season, Embiid's 76ers went 29-2 at home during the regular season but just 14-32 away from home (i.e., road games plus the eight seeding games played on a neutral court). The 76ers have talent, but they also have "issues," whether or not Embiid is willing to admit it. Tanking does not promote, cultivate, or develop a winning culture, so it is no surprise that a team built by tanking lacks mental toughness; the 76ers are frontrunners who rely on raw talent, but they do not maximize their talent, and they fold when they face adversity. This is a predictable outcome from tanking, and indeed I predicted this from the start, in contrast to the overheated praise many media members heaped on Sam Hinkie, the creator of "The Process."
The 76ers and their media supporters will no doubt offer up many excuses and rationalizations, but every team faces challenges and obstacles. The great teams overcome those challenges and obstacles, while lesser teams succumb. Also, it is important to correct the popular narrative regarding Philadelphia's loss to Toronto in the second round last year: supposedly, if Kawhi Leonard had missed the game-winning shot in game seven then the 76ers would have won that game and then possibly won the title. The reality is that the score was tied when Leonard launched his shot, so if he had missed then the game would have gone to overtime--and, based on Leonard's track record compared to the 76ers' track record, it is reasonable to believe that Leonard would have led Toronto to victory. It is also quite a stretch to assume that even if the 76ers had won that series then they would have won the Eastern Conference Finals and the NBA Finals. The current version of the 76ers has yet to win two playoff series in a year, so why would anyone assume that they would have won the two toughest series back to back even if they had been fortunate enough to beat Toronto?
The 76ers need to take a long, hard look at their roster, their coaching staff, and their entire approach. Hopefully, they will not decide to tank again, but will instead focus on working harder and smarter. There are no shortcuts to success, and there is no endeavor in which losing on purpose leads to long-term success. A nonfiction book should be written about the 76ers, but the message of that book should be cautionary, not celebratory.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers
posted by David Friedman @ 1:29 AM
