2020-2021 Playoff Predictions
This article is being published just before the start of the 2021
playoffs because the final composition of the playoff field was not
determined until the NBA completed its Play-In Tournament last night; when the dust cleared and the final buzzer sounded, the Boston Celtics and Washington Wizards claimed the final two playoff spots in the East, and the L.A. Lakers and Memphis Grizzlies grabbed the final two playoff spots in the West.
It feels like the 2020-21 season started so soon after the conclusion of the 2020 "bubble" playoffs that if the two seasons were cars they would have crashed into each other. Apparently, many of the league's players felt like they had been in car crashes: between the "health and safety protocols," a rash of injuries, and the loathsome twin horses of the basketball apocalypse (tanking/load management), during the 2020-21 season NBA fans saw too much Jay Scrubb and not enough Kawhi Leonard. Here are the 2020-21 regular season games played totals for several members of the 2020 All-NBA First, Second, or Third Teams:
Ben Simmons: 58 (out of 72)
Pascal Siakam: 56
Kawhi Leonard: 52
Jimmy Butler: 52
LeBron James: 45
James Harden: 44
Anthony Davis: 36
Kevin Durant: 35
Add Joel Embiid to that list; he played 51 out of 72 games this season after playing 51 out of 72 games last season. Embiid did not make the 2020 All-NBA Team because he missed so many games, but this season the media selected him as a top three finalist in MVP voting despite the fact that he missed nearly 30% of the games. The historical standard is that an NBA MVP must play in at least 85% of the scheduled games, which adds up to at least 70 games in the traditional 82 game season, and at least 61 games in a 72 game season; the only exception is Bill Walton, who won the 1978 regular season MVP despite playing in only 58 out of 82 games--but Portland went 48-10 in those games after Walton captured the 1977 Finals MVP for leading the Trail Blazers to the championship.
Nikola Jokic not only had perfect "attendance" but he had A+ "grades": 26.4 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 8.3 apg, .566 FG%. Jokic's Denver Nuggets finished third in the West even though Jamal Murray suffered a season-ending injury and missed 24 games; the Nuggets went 47-25 overall, and 16-8 without Murray, which is a further indication of how valuable Jokic is. Two-time reigning MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo averaged 28.1 ppg, 11.0 rpg, and 5.9 apg with .569 FG% while playing in 61 games and leading Milwaukee to the third best record in the East (46-26); his numbers are comparable to the numbers he posted during his MVP seasons, and he should have finished no worse than second in the MVP voting, but he is not a top three finisher, with the prevailing narrative that the voters are now tired of voting for him (which makes no sense, but that kind of illogical thinking helps explain why Michael Jordan and LeBron James did not win as many regular season MVPs as they should have).
If the MVP voting were conducted rationally and followed logical historical precedents regarding (1) the minimum number of games played, (2) the significance of posting triple doubles, and (3) impact on winning for an injury-depleted team, then Russell Westbrook would finish in the top five this season. Westbrook overcame a bout with COVID-19 plus various injuries to play in 65 games, and he averaged a triple double for the fourth time in five seasons while breaking Oscar Robertson's career triple double record, but
don't be surprised if the media members reward the "truant" students
over the straight A student who rarely missed a "class."
Siakam's Toronto Raptors did not qualify for the playoffs, but the other "truant" students listed above are all expected to be ready to go for the playoffs. LeBron James (four championships), Kevin Durant (two championships), and Kawhi Leonard (two championships) seek to add to their already extensive postseason resumes, while many of the others are seeking their first title.
The following predictions are based on my analysis of what I expect to
happen under ideal circumstances: in other words, if there are no
further injuries and no COVID-19-related disruptions, which teams are
most likely to prevail in seven game playoff series when the home court advantage is minimized due to attendance limitations?
Here are my first round predictions:
Eastern Conference
#1 Philadelphia (49-23) versus #8 Washington (34-38)
When he was healthy enough to play, Joel Embiid played better than he has ever played before, posting career highs in scoring (28.5 ppg), field goal percentage (.513), three point field goal percentage (.377), free throw percentage (.859), and steals (1.0 spg) while setting a career low in three point field goal attempts per game. Only those who are in Philadelphia's locker room know if the coaching change from Brett Brown to Doc Rivers made the difference, or if Embiid has just matured as a player to the point that he understands he is a big man who should play in the paint and shoot three pointers selectively. The main drawbacks throughout Embiid's career have been health and conditioning (there is almost certainly a connection between the two).
The Wizards were hit hard by COVID-19, and they had to take a two week hiatus early in the season. They started out 7-17 and looked dead in the water. Then, Russell Westbrook reemerged as the best all-around guard in the league, averaging a triple double for the fourth time in five seasons and breaking Oscar Robertson's career triple double record as the Wizards closed the season with a 16-7 flourish that qualified them for the Play-In Tournament. Bradley Beal joined the long list of players who have had career seasons
playing alongside Westbrook--including Kevin Durant, Paul George, and
James Harden. The Wizards stumbled versus the Celtics in the first game of the Play-In Tournament, but then blew out the Indiana Pacers to qualify for the playoffs for the first time since 2018.
If the Wizards can force a lot of turnovers and convert those extra possessions into easy baskets then they could make this series interesting, but if Embiid plays the way that he did during the regular season then the Wizards have no answer. When he is healthy and in shape, Embiid is one of the top five players
in the league. Embiid has yet to prove that he can carry a team to a
title, but he seems to be healthy enough and in good enough shape to at
least carry the 76ers past the first round, something he was not able to
do last season. Philadelphia will win in five games.
#2 Brooklyn (48-24) versus #7 Boston (36-36)
The Brooklyn Nets' "Big Three" of Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and James Harden barely played the equivalent of one playoff series together this season. Is it realistic to expect a championship run from a team that has not been able to maintain the health of key players and has not had sufficient time to develop chemistry? Talent matters a lot in the NBA, and it is indisputable that this team is stacked with talent, to the extent that former All-Stars Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan are role players for the Nets. The Nets are not great at defense (ranking 21st in points allowed, though they also ranked seventh in defensive field goal percentage) or rebounding (14th), but they are very good at shooting (first in field goal percentage) and scoring (second); teams with that profile usually lose in the playoffs to teams that are more well-rounded and tough--but the Celtics have been an up and down team all season, and their level of play is not the same as that of the Boston squads that reached the Eastern Conference Finals three times in the previous four years.
The Celtics are a mediocre team statistically across the board (14th in defensive field goal percentage, 15th in rebounding, 16th in scoring), befitting the. 500 record that they posted this season. Jayson Tatum averaged a career-high 26.4 ppg, and that does not include the 50 points that he dropped on the Washington Wizards in Boston's 118-100 win in the Play-In Tournament. Tatum made the All-NBA Third Team last season, and he should be placed no lower than the All-NBA Second Team this season. Losing All-Star Jaylen Brown to a season-ending wrist injury is a major blow for the Celtics, who were unlikely to beat the Nets even at full strength.
Unless the Nets suffer major injuries or some kind of mental breakdown, they should win this series without too much trouble. Brooklyn will win in five games.
#3 Milwaukee (46-26) versus #6 Miami (40-32)
The Heat upset the top seeded Bucks in the second round last season, and it is to Milwaukee's credit that they did not do tanking/load management shenanigans to try to avoid this matchup. The Heat are getting healthier now and are probably better than their record suggests, but the addition of Jrue Holiday gives the Bucks a multi-dimensional threat who scores, makes plays, and defends. He is an excellent complement alongside Antetokounmpo and the underrated Khris Middleton, who averaged 20.4 ppg, 6.0 rpg, and a career-high 5.4 apg this season.
The Bucks led the league in scoring (120.1 ppg) but they also ranked third in field goal percentage (.487), so they scored efficiently. The Bucks dropped to 22nd in points allowed (114.2 ppg) but they ranked second in rebounding (48.1 rpg), third in point differential (5.9 ppg), and fifth in defensive field goal percentage (.456).
Jimmy Butler is a tremendous two-way player and leader, and the Heat are always well-coached with Erik Spoelstra at the helm, but--after back to back years of falling short of expectations--this may be the Bucks' year. The Bucks have flown underneath the radar as Philadelphia and Brooklyn received most of the attention, but this Bucks team is more talented, more together, and better balanced than the squads from the past couple years that failed to reach the NBA Finals. The Heat will battle on every possession from opening tip to final buzzer, and this will not be an easy series, but Milwaukee will win in six games.
#4 New York (41-31) versus #5 Atlanta (41-31)
The Knicks have home court advantage based on the tiebreak, and that could be significant, particularly because both teams lack playoff experience. The Knicks have the best player in the series--Julius Randle, who should easily win the Most Improved Player award--and in a close matchup that is often the difference that matters the most. The Hawks have been much improved since replacing Coach Lloyd Pierce with Nate McMillan, but the Hawks do not have an answer for Randle's ability to score both in the paint and from the perimeter. Both teams look like they will obtain a lot of playoff experience in the next few seasons. New York will win in six games.
Western Conference
#1 Utah Jazz (52-20) versus #8 Memphis (38-34)
The Jazz are a deep and well-balanced team led by the scoring/playmaking exploits of Donovan Mitchell (26.4 ppg, 5.2 apg), and the paint presence of Rudy Gobert (14.3 ppg, 13.5 rpg, .675 FG%, 2.7 bpg). Mike Conley and Joe Ingles are excellent playmakers/three point shooters, while Jordan Clarkson is a Sixth Man Award candidate. This season, Utah ranked first in point differential (9.2 ppg), first in rebounding (48.3 rpg), second in defensive field goal percentage (.447), third in points allowed (107.2 ppg), and fourth in scoring (116.4 ppg). Media attention has focused on the Lakers, the Clippers, the Nets, and the 76ers, but Utah has the statistical profile of a championship team both offensively and defensively.
Memphis is the youngest team to make the playoffs since Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook led the Oklahoma City Thunder to the postseason 10 years ago. Ja Morant is a dynamic scorer and playmaker, Dillon Brooks has emerged as an elite defender (even though he fouls too much), and the Grizzlies have a solid rotation of big men who provide a physical presence in the paint. The Grizzlies do not have enough talent or experience to beat the Jazz, but if the Jazz are careless then the Grizzlies could take a couple games. I expect the Jazz to be very focused, and I predict that Utah will win in five games.
#2 Phoenix Suns (51-21) versus #7 L.A. Lakers (42-30)
Raise your hand if you picked Phoenix to have the second best record in the NBA this season. If your hand is up now, you are a liar. If you gave the Suns' players lie detector tests even they would have to admit that they did not expect this. The Suns were a team on the rise (pardon the pun) prior to acquiring Chris Paul, but his playmaking, leadership, timely scoring, and feistiness were just what this young squad needed. That being said, Paul is an undersized player who historically has worn down and/or gotten injured in the playoffs. Bigger players can slow him down and wear him down during the postseason, and the opposing team can exploit Paul's size to score over him and/or force double teams that will generate open shots after the double-teamed player passes. The Suns fit the mold of a team whose regular season success will not translate well to the playoffs, particularly against a bigger, more physical, and more experienced opponent.
The main questions about the Lakers pertain to health and conditioning. The roster is stacked, led by LeBron James and Anthony Davis--two of the top five players in the NBA when they are functioning at their peak levels. Davis has never been a durable player or a player renowned for his capacity to play through seemingly minor injuries, but his high skill level is indisputable and he is well-suited to being 1B to James' 1A. James says and does puzzling things at times--he definitely made sure that everyone in the world knew that he had been poked in the eye before he nailed the dagger three pointer to beat the Golden State Warriors in the Play-In Tournament--but his ability to play at a consistently high level for such a long career is remarkable. If his body holds up, then the Lakers will be difficult to beat. The tricky part about that is that every player's body breaks down eventually, and with a player of James' age you never know when that breakdown will happen. Kobe Bryant was playing at an MVP level until he ruptured his Achilles, and then he was never the same after that devastating injury. James may be a few weeks away from winning his fifth title, or he may have already made his last deep playoff run. Whatever happens, I do not expect James' Lakers to be eliminated by an inexperienced team with a 6-0 point guard. The L.A. Lakers will win in six games.
#3 Denver (47-25) versus #6 Portland (42-30)
As mentioned above, Nikola Jokic has been the best, most durable, and most consistent player in the NBA this season. The Nuggets have established themselves as a perennial upper echelon team, posting the second best record in the Western Conference in 2019, the third best record in the Western Conference last season (plus a trip to the Western Conference Finals), and the third best record in the Western Conference this season.
I respect Damian Lillard. He plays hard, he has not fled Portland to be part of a super team, and he seems like an all-around standup guy. Unfortunately, he will never win a title as his team's best player because he is TDS--too darn small. As noted above regarding Chris Paul, the best players who are 6-7 and bigger can defend smaller players on switches, or can use their size to pair up with a teammate to trap a smaller player, but guys like Paul and Lillard will almost always be defensive liabilities in the playoffs (even though Paul has always been an excellent defensive player, he is still vulnerable when switched on to a bigger opponent). Denver will win in six games.
#4 L.A. Clippers (47-25) versus #5 Dallas (42-30)
It would appear that this is the first round matchup that the Clippers wanted. I would say to be careful what you wish for--no team with Luka Doncic is going to be an easy out--but the Mavericks are not good enough defensively to beat the Clippers four times in a seven game series.
If I were a Clippers fan I would keep repeating "In Kawhi we trust" and I would try to forget about last year's flameout after taking a 3-1 lead versus Denver, not to mention Paul George's somewhat checkered postseason resume. Will Kawhi Leonard be healthy enough to play at a high enough level to make up for the moments when George disappears? Will Rajon Rondo drive the opposing team crazy before he drives his own team crazy? I love Rondo's intelligence, heart, and competitive fire, but it is obvious that it takes a special group of players to handle his personality. The L.A. Clippers will win in six games.
-----
Thus, I expect the second round matchups to be Philadelphia-New York, Brooklyn-Milwaukee, Utah-L.A. Clippers, and Denver-L.A. Lakers.
If Embiid stays healthy, Philadelphia will beat New York in five games. Brooklyn versus Milwaukee looks like a seven game classic that could come down to the last possession. I predict that the basketball gods will smile upon Giannis Antetokounmpo versus the guys jumping from team to team to form a super team.
The Clippers should be better than the Jazz. Maybe the Clippers will prove that they are better than the Jazz--but right now the Jazz seem like the more cohesive unit, so I will take the Jazz in seven games.
If I knew that the Lakers would be fully healthy (or reasonably close to fully healthy) then I would take them over Denver even if Jamal Murray were able to play. Murray is out, but the health of LeBron James and Anthony Davis is far from certain. I am going to assume that they will be healthy enough for the Lakers to beat the Nuggets in a tough seven game series.
Philadelphia versus Milwaukee brings back memories of some classic 1980s playoff series. Back then, the 76ers won until Julius "Dr. J" Erving moved past his prime. Now, the 76ers will be favored to relive past glory, but I like the Bucks in seven games.
In order to return to the NBA Finals, the Lakers will have to survive the Play-In Tournament plus being the road team in three straight playoff series. I think that by the time the Lakers reach the Western Conference Finals they will be worn down, and the Jazz will beat them in seven games.
An NBA Finals featuring Utah versus Milwaukee may not be the NBA's marketing dream, but the games will be contested at a high level at both ends of the court. Various players are described as unicorns (one of a kind talents) but Giannis Antetokounmpo is THE unicorn right now: he scores, passes, and defends at an elite level. He is not a great outside shooter, but he is good enough that he can make teams pay if they ignore him. Milwaukee will win in six games, capturing the franchise's first NBA title since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oscar Robertson, and Bobby Dandridge won the 1971 championship.
********************
Here is a summary of the results of my previous predictions both for playoff qualifiers and for the outcomes of playoff series:
In my 2020-2021 Eastern Conference Preview I correctly picked six of this season's eight playoff teams and I went six for eight in my 2020-2021 Western Conference Preview. Here are my statistics for previous seasons:
2020: East 7/8, West 6/8
2019: East 6/8, West 7/8
2018: East 6/8, West 6/8
2017: East 5/8, West 7/8
2016: East 5/8, West 6/8
2015: East 5/8, West 7/8
2014: East 6/8, West 6/8
2013: East 7/8, West 6/8
2012: East 8/8, West 7/8
2011: East 5/8, West 5/8
2010: East 6/8, West 7/8
2009: East 6/8, West 7/8
2008: East 5/8, West 7/8
2007: East 7/8, West 6/8
2006: East 6/8, West 6/8
That adds up to 96/128 in the East and 102/128 in the West for an overall accuracy rate of .773.
Here is my record in terms of picking the results of playoff series:
2020: 10/15
2019: 10/15
2018: 11/15
2017: 14/15
2016: 12/15
2015: 10/15
2014: 13/15
2013: 14/15
2012: 11/15
2011: 10/15
2010: 10/15
2009: 10/15
2008: 12/15
2007: 12/15
2006: 10/15
2005: 9/15
Total: 178/240 (.742)
At the end of each of my playoff previews I predict which teams will
make it to the NBA Finals; in the past 16 years I have correctly picked
17 of the 32 NBA Finals participants. In five of those 16 years (including 2016 and 2017) I got
both teams right and twice I got both teams right and predicted
the correct result (2007, 2017). I correctly picked the NBA Champion before
the playoffs began four times: 2007, 2013, 2017, 2018.
I track these results separately from the series by series predictions
because a lot can change from the start of the playoffs to the NBA
Finals, so my prediction right before the NBA Finals may differ from
what I predicted when the playoffs began.
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, Denver Nuggets, Donovan Mitchell, Giannis Antetokounmpo, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Milwaukee Bucks, Nikola Jokic, Philadelphia 76ers, Rudy Gobert, Utah Jazz
posted by David Friedman @ 1:03 AM
Grizzlies Eliminate Warriors in Final Game of Play-In Tournament
Form held in the NBA's Play-In Tournament until the final overtime moments of the final game, when the young ninth place Memphis Grizzlies took out the eighth place Golden State Warriors on Golden State's home court to earn the Western Conference's eighth playoff seed. Ja Morant led Memphis with 35 points, including two big baskets to clinch the 117-112 overtime victory, and he also had six assists, six rebounds, and four steals. Stephen Curry scored a game-high 39 points on 13-28 field goal shooting, but he also had a game-high seven turnovers as the Warriors coughed up the ball 21 times.
The Warriors' sloppy ballhandling hurt them at the start of the game. Golden State committed three turnovers in the first four minutes, and Memphis took an 18-6 lead while shooting 7-7 from the field. There is a natural tendency to focus on what happens at the end of a game, but that careless beginning meant that Golden State spent most of the game fighting an uphill battle.
The Warriors rallied to take a 27-26 lead before the end of the first quarter, but the Grizzlies were up 30-29 heading into the second quarter. When Golden State called a timeout at the 3:17 mark of the second quarter, the Grizzlies had extended their advantage to 57-42. Each of the 10 Grizzlies who had entered the game had scored as Memphis led 62-49 at halftime. Morant had 12 points, three rebounds, and three assists to pace the balanced attack. Stephen Curry scored 17 first half points, but he shot just 5-14 from the field. Memphis pushed the lead to 67-53 in the third quarter, but only clung to a 78-73 advantage heading into the fourth quarter.
Memphis seemed to be on the verge of securing victory before Golden State scored nine straight points to tie the score at 97 on two Curry free throws with 1:12 remaining in the fourth quarter. Kyle Anderson hit two free throws to put Memphis up 99-97 with 55 seconds left, but then Andrew Wiggins' layup tied the score at 99 at the 33 second mark. The Grizzlies committed a 24 second violation after a disjointed possession to give the Warriors a chance to win, but Draymond Green missed a layup as time expired in regulation.
The teams traded baskets in an exciting overtime period, but Memphis landed the final blows: a three pointer by Xavier Tillman, followed by a pair of Morant jumpers to make the score 114-109 with 4.5 seconds remaining. Jordan Poole hit a three pointer with 2.2 seconds left to trim the margin to two, but then Desmond Bane closed out the scoring with a three point play.
Curry has already been announced as an MVP finalist, meaning that he finished no lower than third in the voting. Imagine for a moment if, say, Kobe Bryant or Russell Westbrook had failed to win an elimination game at home against a lower seeded team, and thus missed the playoffs. What would the headline be? What would the narrative be? During the 2006 and 2007 seasons, Kobe Bryant was more productive and more dominant offensively than Curry was this season, and Bryant made the All-Defensive First Team during both of those campaigns. In 2006, Bryant's Lakers--with no other All-Stars--pushed the Phoenix Suns (led by MVP Steve Nash plus a host of All-Star caliber players) to seven games in the first round of the playoffs. Nevertheless, the media narrative was that Bryant could not win the MVP because his team did not win enough games. So, how can Curry have a top three finish in the MVP voting while playing for a team that finished eighth only to then "play out" of the playoffs? Nikola Jokic deserves to win the MVP, but part of me wants to see Curry win as lasting testament in the record book to the stupidity and hypocrisy of the MVP voters.
It was hard to miss the snide remarks about "playoff Westbrook" after his Wizards lost the first Play-In game versus Boston (a team that has appeared in the Eastern Conference Finals three of the past four years)--but Westbrook led his team to a blowout win against Indiana to clinch a playoff berth. "Playoff Westbrook" is a reality this season, while "Playoff Curry" is just wishful thinking this season. Where are the basketball geniuses who declared that the Warriors' offense functions better without Kevin Durant?
Curry put up impressive numbers versus the Grizzlies after his slow start, but the bottom line is that he is the "people's choice" for MVP and he could not deliver a win at home in an elimination game against a young team with no playoff experience. If Bryant or Westbrook had produced a similar result then they would be criticized for failing, even if Bryant scored 50 points or if Westbrook put up 20-20-20. It is fascinating how winning matters so much except for when the narrative is that winning does not matter.
Just to be crystal clear, I think that Curry is a great player--all I am saying is that the MVP voters repeatedly display stupidity and hypocrisy when they twist logic into knots to explain their inconsistent criteria. None of this is Curry's fault; he plays hard, and he is very productive--he was just not more valuable this season than Nikola Jokic or Giannis Antetokounmpo, who should have finished 1-2 in the balloting. If winning matters, if elevating a depleted roster to the playoffs matters, then Curry was demonstrably not as valuable this season as Westbrook. COVID-19 and injuries decimated the Wizards, but thanks to Westbrook averaging a triple double for the season--for a record fourth time in the past five seasons--the Wizards recovered to earn a playoff berth. Westbrook's 2020-21 campaign may be the most underrated great season in NBA history. Curry's 2020-21 campaign was productive and worthy of All-NBA Team recognition, but if he wins the MVP it may be the most overrated great season in NBA history.
Labels: Golden State Warriors, Ja Morant, Memphis Grizzlies, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 12:50 AM
The Incomparable Marv Albert, Forever "The Voice of the NBA"
Marv Albert has announced that he will retire after doing the play by play of the 2021 Eastern Conference Finals for TNT. Albert, who will turn 80 on June 12, is one of the most decorated and respected broadcasters ever. He received the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's Curt Gowdy Media Award in 1997, plus five national Emmys, three local (New York) Emmys, 20 selections as the New York State Sportscaster of the Year, and a host of other honors, including his 2014 induction in the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association Hall of Fame.
Albert has called New York Rangers hockey games, nationally televised NFL games, boxing, horse racing, and Wimbledon. Between his television and radio duties, Albert called eight Super Bowls, 12 NBA Finals, eight Stanley Cup Finals, and four Olympic Games.
However, Albert will forever be remembered as "The Voice of the NBA," providing a soundtrack of memorable NBA calls that have endured across generations--from "Now here comes Willis--and the crowd is going wild!" to "A SPECTACULAR move by Michael Jordan" to "Extensive garbage time" to "On the hop!" to his trademark "Yes!" Those calls need no explanation or context for any NBA fan. Albert had a long stint as a local broadcaster for the New York Knicks, and a shorter run later in his career with the New Jersey Nets, but he is perhaps best known for his work for the NBA on NBC and his work for TNT's NBA coverage. He meshed well with a variety of broadcast partners, but he always had special chemistry with Marv Fratello, who Albert affectionately dubbed "The Czar of the Telestrator."
Chris Webber's abrupt recent departure from TNT has opened up some color commentating opportunities, and it was a treat to watch and hear Albert reunited with Fratello--for the first time in several years--for TNT's broadcast of Washington's 142-115 victory over Indiana in the Play-In Tournament. Albert has always combined good knowledge of the game with a smooth vocal delivery, and the capacity to inject humor in the broadcast without taking the focus off of the game, particularly if the game is competitive. For a long time, if he was on the call you knew that you were watching a big game, and you knew that he would deliver an enjoyable and informative broadcast. As the saying goes, Father Time is undefeated, but even in his twilight years Albert still calls a very good game, and a better game than most of his peers, some of whom are barely half his age. He more than withstood the test of time, and he had a courtside seat from the Chamberlain/Russell era all the way through the latter stages of LeBron James' career.
Labels: Indiana Pacers, Marv Albert, Mike Fratello, NBA, Washington Wizards
posted by David Friedman @ 11:55 PM
Wizards Make Pacers Disappear, Clinch Playoff Berth Despite Starting the Season With a 7-17 Record
The Washington Wizards blew out the Indiana Pacers 142-115 in the Play-In Tournament to clinch the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference playoffs. Three of the five Play-In Tournament games have been decided by at least 18 points, so the overall competition level has been less than fantastic. Bradley Beal scored a game-high 25 points in just 28 minutes, but Russell Westbrook set the tone with his all-around play, amassing a game-high +30 plus/minus number as he scored 18 points, dished a game-high 15 assists, and grabbed eight rebounds. He nearly had a triple double in the first half alone, and if the game had been close enough to require him to play more than 33 minutes he likely would have posted a triple double. Malcolm Brogdon led the Pacers with 24 points, and Domantas Sabonis notched a triple double (19 points, 11 rebounds, 10 assists) before fouling out after playing 32 minutes.
The last time the Wizards/Bullets franchise won a winner take all game was 1979, and the last time that they qualified for the playoffs was 2018. To say that this franchise does not have a modern winning tradition is an understatement. A lot of well-known names have played for the Wizards in the past four decades--including Michael Jordan at the end of his career--without producing much postseason success, but Westbrook has played a major role in turning this team around after injuries and COVID-19 left the Wizards languishing with a 7-17 record.
Westbrook led the league in assists for the third time in the past four seasons with a career-high 11.7 rpg average, and he ranked a career-high sixth in the league in rebounding with a career-high 11.5 rpg average. The last guard to rank in the top 10 in rebounding (other than Westbrook himself, who has now accomplished the feat four times) is Oscar Robertson in 1961-62, when he ranked ninth as a second year player. Westbrook also averaged 22.2 ppg (24th in the league). The only other players who ranked in the top 25 in scoring, rebounding, and assists this season are Nikola Jokic (the presumptive MVP), Giannis Antetokounmpo (the two-time reigning MVP), Julius Randle, and Luka Doncic. Four of those five players have been mentioned as MVP candidates. Westbrook is the odd man out, treated with a puzzling amount of disrespect for a player who consistently plays hard while filling up the boxscore in multiple categories.
As great as Westbrook was during the 2020-21 season, he took his game to another level every time he played against the Pacers. Westbrook averaged a triple double versus the Pacers during the regular season
as the Wizards swept the season series 3-0--and not a normal triple
double, but what can only be called a "Westbrook triple double": 27.3
ppg, 20.0 apg, 18.0 rpg. Only Oscar Robertson and Wilt Chamberlain ever
repeatedly posted outsize triple doubles like that, but Westbrook is the all-time triple double champion and he does not have many "small" triple doubles.
Westbrook offered a harsh assessment of his performance in the Wizards first Play-In Tournament game (a 118-100 loss to the Boston Celtics), but if redemption is necessary for producing 20 points, 14 rebounds, five assists, three steals, and two blocked shots--which is actually a below average game by the ridiculously high standards that Westbrook has set for himself--then he more than achieved it versus the Pacers.
Labels: Bradley Beal, Domantas Sabonis, Indiana Pacers, Malcolm Brogdon, Russell Westbrook, Washington Wizards
posted by David Friedman @ 11:16 PM
Nine Versus Ten Does Not Add Up to Fantastic Basketball
If you grew up in the 1980s, you remember the commercials that declared, "NBA Action--It's Fantastic!"
If you watched the ninth seed versus 10th seed matchups in the 2021 NBA Play-In Tournament then fantastic is not the first word that comes to mind. Here are the final scores:
Indiana 144, Charlotte 117
Memphis 100, San Antonio 96
The first game was a non-competitive blowout throughout, while the second game started as a blowout before turning into a competitive--if not artful--contest: the victorious Grizzlies shot .444 from the field overall and scored just 44 second half points, while the Spurs bricked their way to .351 field goal shooting.
The Pacers hit the Hornets with 40 first quarter points, and they could have scored 160 points in the game if that had been necessary or desirable. The Grizzlies dropped 38 first quarter points on the dull Spurs. The Spurs rallied to cut the lead to two in the second quarter--how nice of them to show up at all--but the Grizzlies led 56-49 at halftime. The Spurs briefly took the lead in the fourth quarter but overall they trailed for the vast majority of the game.
Casual, uninformed fans may think that the fourth quarter or even the final five minutes are the most important segments of an NBA game, but--as Doug Collins used to point out--the NBA is a first quarter league. The tone is often set in the first quarter, and that is also when the matchup advantages that will decide the game are often identified and probed. The Spurs dug themselves into a huge hole with their lackadaisical start, and it is not surprising that they lost.
It is interesting--if a bit off topic--that so many people talk about Tom Brady versus Bill Belichick (forgetting that Belichick led the Cleveland Browns to the playoffs, and led New England to a 11-5 record when Brady missed the 2008 season after suffering an ACL injury in the first quarter of the first game), but little is said about Tim Duncan or Kawhi Leonard versus Gregg Popovich; the Spurs have not won a playoff series since the last time they had a healthy Leonard (2017), and they have been a sub-.500 team each of the past two seasons. This is just another example of how media members decide what the preferred narrative is, and then stick with that narrative no matter what happens. Many media members do not like Belichick, and thus they will jump at any real or imagined opportunity to criticize him; many media members like Popovich, and thus he will not be criticized even if the Spurs post losing records for the next five years. I think that Popovich is an excellent coach, but that is not the point: the point is that the media picks favorites (and enemies) for subjective reasons, and then slants coverage accordingly. If it is reasonable to make a big deal about Tom Brady winning a Super Bowl with Tampa Bay while New England missed the playoffs, then it is reasonable to make a big deal about Kawhi Leonard winning an NBA title with Toronto while San Antonio has gone from contender to pretender.
Back to the Play-In Tournament. Boston versus Washington was close for a half before the Celtics pulled away for a 118-100 win in the seven-eight Eastern Conference matchup, while Golden State took a quick 15-4 lead versus the L.A. Lakers, and Mark Jackson observed that the Lakers spent most of the first half in "chill mode." Golden State was ahead 55-42 at halftime. Stephen Curry topped the Warriors with 15 first half points (including a three pointer to beat the halftime buzzer), while LeBron James (six points on 1-7 field goal shooting) and Anthony Davis (five points on 2-12 field goal shooting) combined to score 11 points on 3-19 field goal shooting in what ESPN's "Screamin' A" Smith had breathlessly hyped as the most anticipated game of the season. Really? Before the season, who was hoping to see the Lakers and the Warriors competing for the seventh and eighth playoff seeds? In the first half, the Lakers shot .311 from the field, while the Warriors shot .413.
In the second half, the Lakers' two stars finally showed up, and the Warriors fed the Lakers' fast break with several careless turnovers. The score was tied at 100 when James received the ball well past the three point line with the shot clock about to expire and 58 seconds left in the contest. James fired away and drained what turned out to be the final points of the game, as the Lakers won 103-100. That three point shot will be the highlight play that is shown on a loop, but--as ESPN's Tim Legler correctly noted after the game--the Lakers won the game because of "flat out physical power in the paint." The Lakers used their size to overpower the Warriors at both ends of the court. James scored 16 second half points on 6-10 field goal shooting and he finished with 22 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists. Davis scored 20 second half points on 8-12 field goal shooting. The Lakers are so good, big, and talented that they can sleepwalk through half the game and still beat the Warriors.
What about the NBA being a first quarter league? If you watched the whole Lakers-Warriors game, then you saw that the Warriors lacked the necessary size and skill to keep James and Davis out of the paint. James and Davis were not effective or efficient in the first quarter or first half, but that had more to do with them than the Warriors. Once James and Davis played up to their capabilities and exploited their obvious matchup advantages, the Warriors had no answers. Golden State's big early lead all but guaranteed that the Lakers would not win by a large margin, but if you watched the game with understanding you realized that the contest was there for the taking for the Lakers; the Lakers' stars played horribly in the first half and the Warriors still could barely put together a double digit halftime lead!
Meanwhile, Curry--who has become the people's choice for the MVP even though his team will miss the playoffs if they do not beat the Grizzlies on Friday night--could not even get a shot off in the final minute with his team down by three points. Curry is 6-3--not 6-8 like James, or 6-10 like Davis--and size matters in the NBA. If James wants to get off a shot in the last minute of a playoff (or Play-In) game, the only player who can stop him is James himself (if he decides to pass the ball). Remember all of the foolish talk a couple years ago about how much better Golden State's offense supposedly was with Kevin Durant out of the lineup? Do you think that Durant would have gotten off a shot in the final minute of this game? We already know the answer, because we have seen Durant dribble the ball up the court in the NBA Finals, and hit a pressure shot over James en route to outplaying James, winning a championship, and earning the Finals MVP.
Curry is a great player. He had a game-high 37 points on 12-23 field goal shooting--but a great 6-3 player will never be more valuable than a great player who is taller, bigger, and stronger. It is baffling that anyone would think that Curry, as great as he is, is a more valuable basketball player than Nikola Jokic or Giannis Antetokounmpo this season, or that in previous seasons Curry was more valuable than players like LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, and Kevin Durant when those players were healthy enough to play most of the regular season games.
Jayson Tatutm's 50 point game versus the Wizards and James' triple double capped off by a game-winning shot are the signature moments of the 2021 Play-In Tournament thus far, but the NBA has not even decided if those statistics will be counted as regular season, playoff, or something else. I am ready for the Play-In Tournament to be over and for the playoffs to begin.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Charlotte Hornets, Golden State Warriors, Indiana Pacers, Jayson Tatum, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Memphis Grizzlies, San Antonio Spurs, Washington Wizards
posted by David Friedman @ 2:02 AM
Flopping is Cheating
Bob Ryan's 2014 memoir Scribe: My Life in Sports recounts a story that happened in 1976 but is very relevant to today's NBA game. Boston center Dave Cowens, former MVP and future Hall of Famer/Top 50 player, became incensed when scrappy Houston guard Mike Newlin was twice rewarded by the referees for flopping after Cowens made minimal to no contact with Newlin. Cowens responded by knocking Newlin over and then screaming to the nearest referee, "Now that's a foul."
At the time, Ryan did not care for Cowens' vigilante justice, and Ryan expressed his disapproval in his Boston Globe Sunday notes column. Cowens then sent a letter to Ryan, John Nucatola (the NBA's officiating supervisor), Larry Fleischer (executive director of the Players' Association), and Newlin. Cowens requested that his letter be published in the Boston Globe as a rebuttal to Ryan's piece, and the newspaper published the letter on March 14, 1976. Here is Cowens' letter, as reprinted in Scribe:
THE PURPOSE--To once and for all impress upon the referees, coaches, players and fans that fraudulent, deceiving and flagrant acts of pretending to be fouled when little or no contact is made, is just as outrageously unsportsmanlike as knocking a player to the floor. I would not and never have taught youngsters to play other than by the rules, morals, ethics and character of the game.
The following list are the reasons why I disagree with the acting that is going on in high school, college and professional basketball.
1. Pretending makes players think they can achieve their goal without putting in the work or effort that it takes to develop any skill or talent.
2. Hostilities arise among the players who are obviously being victimized by the actor's ability to make officials react instinctively to any flagrant, out-of-place action.
3. It distracts anyone who attends the game to study fundamental basketball skills and traits of the game, i.e. scouts, coaches, players, etc.
4. It arouses the ignorant fans who react vehemently to violent gestures or seemingly unsportsmanlike conduct (almost always on the home court of the actor) and can lead to minor uprisings, thrown articles on the court, etc.
5. If this practice continues unrestrained or the actor is allowed to utilize this fraudulent exercise successfully, it will gradually become an accepted strategy and will be taught to kids more enthusiastically by their coaches. After all, everyone wants to win and will take advantage of any ploy to do so. This way, a weak defensive player will have another method of getting by without having to learn how to learn how to play defense properly.
You may think I am exaggerating this point and I am sure the public is tired of hearing about this technicality, but I have noticed that the number of pretenders has risen over the past three or four years resulting in numerous invisible contact fouls being assessed. This happens especially when the fundamentally sound strategy of creating mismatches close to the basket, with the smaller player taking a dive because of the high percentage that the big man will score. Nowadays, some average defensive big men are taking to falling down unnecessarily to get the more skilled big men in foul trouble, leaving the better player at a disadvantage. This, in plain words, is "cheating."
As an articulate, knowledgeable and enthusiastic sports journalist, your comments on my being a terrific basketball player reinforced your expertise on the game (just kidding), but your observation that I must learn to act better is not in my repertoire.
I would appreciate receiving equal time on this matter and request that this letter be printed unedited in the Boston Globe. As I once told you, I believe it is your responsibility to report the facts and your opinions are note-worthy, but this is an issue of principle and whether or not you agree with me has little to do with the respect that I have for you and the contributions you have made to the Boston sports scene.
The NBA needs more players who play--and think--like Dave Cowens. He is correct that flopping is cheating, and that is one reason why I am much less impressed by James Harden than other people are; from my perspective, the many free throws that he has received for tricking NBA referees are not proof of his skill, but proof that the league rewards cheating and shortcuts over fundamentals and hard work. That is not to say that Harden has no fundamental skills or that he has not worked hard on some aspects of his game, but I would be much more entertained by Cowens flattening a flopping Harden then I would be by seeing Harden add two (and often three) unearned points to his scoring totals.
Harden is far from the only flopper--unfortunately--but I can think of no player who has benefited as much from flopping as he has.
Labels: Bob Ryan, Dave Cowens, James Harden, Mike Newlin
posted by David Friedman @ 6:51 PM
Thoughts on the NBA's Play-In Tournament
The NBA utilized Play-In games as part of the resumption of the 2019-20 season in the Orlando "bubble." The concept involved giving the teams that were contending for the eighth seed a reason to come to Orlando and compete (the teams that were completely out of contention were not invited to the "bubble"). The "bubble" experiment was deemed successful, and the NBA decided to include a Play-In Tournament with the compressed 72 game schedule in the 2020-21 campaign.
Under this season's rules, the top six teams in each conference qualify for the playoffs. The seventh seed has homecourt advantage in a game versus the eighth seed, with the winner of that contest receiving the seventh seed. The loser of that game plays the winner of the game between the ninth seed and the 10th seed to determine who gets the eighth seed. Thus, the teams that finish seventh or eighth have two chances to play in to the playoffs, while the teams that finish ninth or 10th must win two games in order to get the eighth seed. It may sound complicated, but the process is straightforward.
What is not straightforward is determining the implications of the Play-In Tournament. In the "old days," the top eight teams in each conference qualified for the playoffs while the remaining teams went into the Draft Lottery. Sustaining excellence--or, at least, sustaining a record above .500--over the course of an 82 game season meant something; the long grind of the NBA season followed by seven game playoff series meant that the best teams worked their way to the top. Now, a team can display consistency over the course of the season only to be eliminated from playoff contention in one game or two games.
Thus, the NBA not only has a Draft Lottery but it also has a form of a playoff lottery, similar to the NCAA Tournament, in which an inferior team can benefit when the superior team suffers foul trouble or an injury. The legendary Willis Reed moment in the 1970 NBA Finals happened in game seven, but he suffered the injury prior to that, and his Knicks were routed by the Lakers in game six; if that great series had been a one game showdown then the outcome may have been different (depending on when Reed suffered the injury, whether he could play, and how both teams reacted to the situation with the championship up for grabs in one game). More recently, the Lakers lost game three of the 2000 NBA Finals versus the Pacers when Kobe Bryant was unable to play due to a sprained ankle, but the Lakers won the series in six games. Over the course of a series, the best team generally wins, but in a one game winner take all scenario the outcome is more randomized.
The NBA may believe that randomized outcomes will increase attendance, TV ratings, and revenue. Also, the Play-In Tournament does not directly affect the championship (unless one of the participants improbably advances all the way to the NBA Finals), so the randomization is confined to the lower portion of the playoff bracket.
Nevertheless, the Play-In Tournament devalues the regular season games. Teams in the lower portion of the standings do not have to try hard every game; they only have to win enough games to finish 10th and then try their luck in the Play-In Tournament--and that 10th seeded team that only tried hard during some games may still get hot, beat the ninth seed, and then knock out a seventh seeded team that played hard every night to finish seventh.
The main purposes of the Play-In Tournament are (1) generate more revenue by having more games and (2) discourage tanking by creating an incentive for teams to chase the 10th seed. Despite the influx of "stat gurus" into NBA front offices, the league is starting to understand that it is an awful look when nearly half of the teams are tanking either because a playoff berth is out of reach or because some teams would rather hit rock bottom (to have the best chance at getting a top draft pick) than get the eighth seed only to be swept in the first round. However, even the fact that tanking does not work has not stopped teams from tanking, so at this point it is not clear how to get tanking under control.
Time will tell if adding these Play-In Tournament games generates more revenue, but it probably will. It will be more challenging to discourage tanking because it is difficult to legislate competitiveness: if teams do not want to compete then they will find (or create) reasons/excuses to not compete. Some people argue that the Play-In Tournament has decreased tanking this season, but I am skeptical; I think that the Play-In Tournament has just changed who is tanking and why they are tanking.
We are seeing some of the teams at the top of the standings resting players because they either do not know who they will play in the first round (remember, the seventh and eighth spots are now up for grabs among four different teams) or they do not care who they will play in the first round. "Resting" players who are healthy enough to play is a form of tanking. The NBA has come a long way--and not for the better--from the days when Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and the 1996-97 Chicago Bulls went all out to go for their 70th win after they had long since clinched home court advantage (and after they had won a then-record 72 games en route to the NBA title the previous season); the Bulls lost that "meaningless" game that was anything but meaningless to anyone who is a bona fide competitor: Jordan played nearly 40 minutes and Pippen played nearly 38 minutes. If some of today's star players had played for the 1997 Bulls then the Bulls might have spent a month "resting" before the playoffs.
We are seeing teams in the middle of the playoff standings selectively resting players to arrange (or avoid) specific playoff matchups.
We are also still seeing teams that are outside of playoff contention blatantly tanking to try to get the number one overall draft pick.
Sit back and enjoy the drama as one of the league's best teams "rests" its stars versus a bottom feeding team that is putting out its worst possible lineup! It is hard to beat a game such as the recent "showdown" between the L.A. Clippers and the Houston Rockets; fans who paid for tickets to see Kawhi Leonard and Paul George must have been ecstatic to see Jay Scrubb make his first NBA start (I am not making up that name, and I mean no disrespect to Mr. Scrubb--who I am sure worked very hard to reach the NBA--but fans are not paying top dollar to see him play).
There is a wise old saying that if you mess with the basketball gods then the basketball gods will mess with you. If there is any justice, the basketball gods will smile on Giannis Antetokounmpo and the Milwaukee Bucks--who are embracing the challenge of facing the Miami Heat team that eliminated them from the playoffs last season--and the basketball gods will not look too kindly on teams that are trying to take a shortcut to a championship by avoiding certain matchups.
This tanking nonsense will continue as long as the fans keep paying for it by buying tickets, buying merchandise, and supporting the media providers who pay the NBA a fortune for the right to broadcast the games.
The tanking issue has sadly become a deep-rooted problem, but there is a way to make the Play-In Tournament more equitable for the teams battling for the eighth seed. Jeff Van Gundy suggested that the Play-In Tournament should only involve the eighth and ninth place teams in each conference, and that an eighth place team should be able to qualify for the playoffs automatically by finishing far enough ahead of the ninth place team. I agree that the seventh seeded team should not have to participate in the Play-In Tournament, and I agree that if the eighth seeded team can create enough separation then the ninth seeded team should be eliminated from consideration.
There used to be a little time after the regular season ended to write a thoughtful playoff preview, but now the first round begins the day after the final Play-In Tournament game concludes. This compressed season has been so disrupted by "health and safety protocols," injuries, and load management/tanking that it may not be possible to accurately predict what will happen in the playoffs, but the mad dash from Play-In Tournament to the playoffs makes a difficult (but enjoyable) project even more challenging.
What are my predictions for the Play-In Tournament? The disjointed nature of this season makes it hard to figure out who is really healthy and which teams have built up sustainable chemistry, but I am going to go chalk for the most part: in the West I expect the Lakers' size and talent to prevail over the Warriors, the Grizzlies to win their home game against the Spurs, and the Warriors to beat the Grizzlies; in the East I expect the surging Wizards to upset the mercurial Celtics to take the seventh seed, the Pacers to beat the Hornets, and the Celtics to defeat the Pacers to sneak in as the eighth seed. Thus, I expect the current seventh and eighth seeds in both conferences to ultimately make the playoffs, with the Celtics and Wizards flipping positions.
As an NBA fan for over 40 years, will I watch the Play-In Tournament games? Of course. I watch great NBA basketball, good NBA basketball, and bad NBA basketball, so I will watch these games, too. The games will probably be competitive and entertaining, and the league's media partners will no doubt go into hype overdrive, particularly if there are spectacular plays and close finishes--but the existence of the Play-In Tournament (and the reasons why it exists) are symptomatic of why so many long-time fans do not think that today's NBA is better than the NBA of yesteryear. It used to be a badge of honor to play all 82 games--and to play hard in all 82 games. The fact that this seems like a quaint, outdated notion is sad--and if there are doctors, trainers, or anyone else who will assert that "science" has provided new insights about the need for players to rest, then I have a simple solution: cut back the length of the season to whatever the new "science" deems to be healthy, fine teams a significant amount of money every time they "rest" an otherwise healthy player, and use the fine money to refund the ticket prices paid by fans who expected to see Kawhi Leonard but instead saw Jay Scrubb. That way the players will be healthy, and the fans will only pay top dollar to see top players.
Labels: Boston Celtics, Charlotte Hornets, Golden State Warriors, Indiana Pacers, L.A.Lakers, Memphis Grizzlies, San Antonio Spurs, Washington Wizards
posted by David Friedman @ 8:05 PM
The 2021 Basketball Hall of Fame Class Includes Chris Bosh, Bob Dandridge, Paul Pierce, Ben Wallace, and Chris Webber
The announcement of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame class traditionally takes place during Final Four weekend, but for the second year in a row that was not the case. Last year, the Hall of Fame announcement took place in a socially-distanced setting after the NCAA Tournament was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This year, the announcement took place just one day after the delayed induction ceremony for the Class of 2020.
The Class of 2021 includes five players who are being inducted primarily because of their NBA careers: Chris Bosh, Bob Dandridge, Paul Pierce, Ben Wallace, and Chris Webber. Toni Kukoc--who had a very good but not great NBA career--is also being inducted, but he was selected by the international committee. Rick Adelman, Cotton Fitzsimmons, and Bill Russell are being inducted because of their NBA coaching careers. Russell joins John Wooden, Bill Sharman, Lenny Wilkens, and Tommy Heinsohn as the only people inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame as players and as coaches. Two-time NCAA champion Jay Wright is being inducted as a college coach, while Lauren Jackson and Yolanda Griffith are being inducted as WNBA players. Clarence Jenkins is being inducted as an Early African-American pioneer, Val Ackerman is being inducted because of her service as WNBA Commissioner, and Howard Garfinkel is being inducted as the founder of the legendary Five-Star basketball camp. Pearl Moore is being inducted as the selection of the Women’s Veterans Committee.
I first wrote about Dandridge in the October 2004 issue of Basketball Digest. In my article about the 2019 Basketball Hall of Fame Induction ceremony, I implored the Hall of Fame voters to do right by Dandridge: "I enjoyed watching the 2019 Basketball Hall of Fame ceremony and I
learned some things about various inductees that I did not know, but I
also feel bad for players like Bob Dandridge
who have seemingly been forgotten. Dandridge was a two-way player who
performed a key role for two NBA championship teams (1971 Bucks, 1978
Bullets). Will Dandridge have to wait to be inducted posthumously like
Braun was this year and like Roger Brown was in 2013?"
During the past two decades, I have specifically mentioned several players who deserve Hall of Fame recognition--including Roger Brown, Mel Daniels, Artis Gilmore, Spencer Haywood, and Bob Dandridge--and I am delighted that each of them has finally received the honor that they earned with their high-level playing careers. Sadly, Brown was inducted posthumously, but Daniels, Gilmore, Haywood, and Dandridge survived long enough to know that they had been officially tapped for basketball immortality.
Bosh's career was on a Hall of Fame trajectory even before he joined forces with LeBron James and Dwyane Wade in Miami, but playing a key role on two championship teams solidified his status. Similarly, Pierce was likely headed to the Hall of Fame prior to 2008, but winning the Finals MVP for a stacked Boston team ensured that he would be inducted. Wallace's career path is remarkable, starting with being an undrafted player from an HBCU and then culminating with being the heart and soul of Detroit's 2004 championship team. Along the way, Wallace won four Defensive Player of the Year awards, tying Dikembe Mutombo's record (the honor has been handed out annually since the 1982-83 season).
Webber is an interesting and complex case. The Basketball Hall of Fame honors accomplishments at all levels of the sport, and Webber performed at a high level in high school, college, and the NBA. However, he played on talented teams that failed to win NCAA and NBA titles in no small part due either to him failing in clutch moments and/or just being outperformed by the best player on the opposing team. That is not to suggest that winning a championship should be a prerequisite for Hall of Fame induction, but when the best player on talented teams repeatedly falls short on the biggest stage that raises eyebrows. When Webber retired from the NBA, I did not rank him as a Hall of Famer.
Further, although there is not a specific or official character requirement for Hall of Fame induction--and many current Hall of Famers might be ruled out if there were--it is worth noting that Webber pleaded guilty in federal district court to one count of criminal contempt after he lied about receiving money from disgraced "booster" Ed Martin. As a result of Martin's testimony that he provided more than $200,000 in cash and gifts to Webber prior to Webber joining the NBA, Webber's individual NCAA honors and awards were vacated, as were University of Michigan's Final Four appearances in 1992 and 1993. The NCAA also forbade the University of Michigan from having any official association with Webber for 10 years (that ban expired in 2013).
Advocates for Webber's induction who claim to be baffled by why it took several years for him to be tapped are being disingenuous at best; he was never the best player at his position in the NBA, he did not win a championship in college or the NBA, and his actions brought disrepute on both his name and his school's name. Considering the backlog of clearly worthy players who were not inducted until the past few years--including several names mentioned above--it is hardly an injustice that Webber was not selected until now.
All of that being said, I understand the arguments in Webber's favor, including his multidimensional skill set, and his impressive statistics: purely from the standpoint of individual statistics, Webber had a better career than fellow 2021 inductee Dandridge, and Webber's statistics are also better than other players who have previously been inducted.
The Basketball Hall of Fame may be more subjective and secretive about its selection process than any of the other Halls of Fame for the major North American sports. It is obvious that Kukoc did not have a Hall of Fame-caliber NBA career, but he was selected based on his international career. What "decoder ring" is used to translate international statistics, awards, and team success to compare them with NBA statistics, awards, and team success? In other words--and to cite a specific example--how was it determined that Dino Radja deserved induction many years before Dandridge? I am not suggesting that Radja is not worthy--he is considered one of the greatest FIBA players of all-time--but I am just emphasizing that having one Hall of Fame tasked with recognizing the NBA, the NCAA, the women's game, the Early African-American pioneers, the international game, etc. is a situation that will inevitably lead to inequities and snubs.
The coaching selections are also difficult to understand at times. Russell won two titles as an NBA coach, but he was also the best player on those teams, and he had already won nine titles as a player before becoming a coach. The teams Russell coached for which he did not play were not particularly successful, and he last coached in the NBA more than 30 years ago, so he did not have some recent coaching accomplishment that suddenly merits recognition. This feels a bit like a lifetime achievement award. I must emphasize that I am 100% in favor of honoring Russell; he has become an underrated player in the sense that he should be mentioned in every "GOAT" conversation but he is often cast aside as pundits narrow their field of vision to just Michael Jordan and LeBron James. However, it might make more sense to honor Russell as a contributor than as a coach. On the other hand, he was the first African-American coach to win an NBA title, so maybe the reality is that as a pioneer he is receiving overdue recognition for breaking barriers.
Adelman and Fitzsimmons both rank highly on the all-time wins list, and both did not win an NBA title. Both also coached their final NBA games many years ago. Again, maybe this is just an example of overdue recognition being belatedly bestowed. There are not written (or even unwritten) rules regarding what it takes to be a Hall of Famer, so the process is by definition subjective. Adelman and Fitzsimmons are worthy candidates; I just don't understand the process in terms of who is selected, who is bypassed, who is honored while still actively coaching (such as Jay Wright), and who is not recognized until decades after retiring (or, in Fitzsimmons' case, 17 years after he passed away and over 20 years after he stopped coaching).
The Hall of Fame has inducted approximately 400 people and teams from various categories in over 60 years, so I disagree with the notion that the Hall of Fame is "watered down"; if anything, worthy pro basketball players have been left out because of the Hall of Fame's determination to honor a broad spectrum of basketball accomplishments instead of focusing on pro basketball. The creation of a separate pro basketball Hall of Fame--perhaps with automatic, retroactive induction of all pro basketball players already inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame so that efforts moving forward would be focused on players who have been ignored--would be beneficial, but as long as the NBA is partnering with the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame it seems unlikely that the league would participate in creating an entity that would might appear to be competing for the attention and money of basketball fans.
Labels: Ben Wallace, Bill Russell, Bob Dandridge, Chris Bosh, Chris Webber, Cotton Fitzsimmons, Paul Pierce, Rick Adelman, Toni Kukoc
posted by David Friedman @ 2:34 AM
Kobe Bryant Headlines the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony
The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Class of 2020 was announced in April 2020, but the induction ceremony was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the most recent Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Induction took place in September 2019. The Class of 2020 includes Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett.
The Class of 2020 had been eagerly anticipated for several years, but the anticipation took a tragic turn with the death of Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, and seven others in a January 2020 helicopter crash. We will never hear Bryant's acceptance speech. What tone would he have set? Would he have been serious, humorous, defiant, or some combination of all of the above? Michael Jordan, who was tapped by Bryant's widow Vanessa to be Bryant's Hall of Fame presenter, used his 2009 Hall of Fame acceptance speech as a platform to settle old scores, both real and imagined. Some people were offended, others were amused, but no one could deny that Jordan was displaying his authentic self.
We saw a different, softer side of Jordan when he spoke at Bryant's memorial service last year, but we will never know how Bryant would have handled his special Hall of Fame moment. However, Vanessa Bryant delivered a remarkably poised and thoughtful speech on behalf of her husband. How can someone who lost her husband and one of her daughters in such a sudden and shocking fashion not only keep her emotions together but speak so eloquently? I recall the snarky ways that many media members referred to her after she married Bryant, and I am reminded yet again why I do not trust what the media says unless those assertions are supported by significant and objective evidence.
Vanessa Bryant thanked Jordan for being Kobe Bryant's presenter: "Kobe admired you. This means so much to us." Then, Vanessa said, "I used to always avoid praising my husband in public, because I felt
like he got enough praise from his fans around the world and someone had
to bring him back to reality. Right now, I'm sure he's laughing in
heaven because I'm about to praise him in public for his accomplishments
on one of the most public stages."
Vanessa provided some insight about how much Hall of Fame induction meant to Kobe: "He didn't really talk about upcoming awards, but he did mention this
one a week before Gigi passed. My husband and I were sitting at our
kitchen island, and he and I had a conversation about my mother- and
father-in-law attending tonight's enshrinement. I invited my mother- and
father-in-law to tonight's enshrinement to thank them for bringing one
of the most amazing human beings into this world. Pam and Joe, thank you
for raising Kobe to be exceptional. Thank you to all of Kobe's family.
Sharia, you've gone above and beyond. I love you."
Vanessa added, "If my husband were here tonight, he
would have a long list of people to thank that helped inspire him and
equip him to be in the Hall of Fame. Family, friends,
mentors, the Lakers, teammates, muses and opponents."
She sounded most like Kobe when she also thanked the doubters and the critics for inspiring Kobe to prove them wrong: "I do know that he would thank everyone
that helped him get here, including the people that doubted him and the
people that worked against him and told him he couldn't attain his
goals. He would thank all of them for motivating him to be
here. After all, he proved you wrong."
Vanessa provided a short list of the many injuries that Kobe overcame during his career, and she explained why he regularly played through those injuries: "People
don't know this, but one of the reasons my husband played through
injuries and pain was because he said he remembered being a little kid
sitting in the nosebleeds with his dad to watch his favorite player
play. He could recall the car ride,
the convos and the excitement of being lucky enough to have a seat in
the arena. Kobe didn't want to disappoint his fans, especially the ones in the 300
sections that saved up to watch him play--the kids with the same
excitement he once had."
Kobe Bryant did not practice "load management," and the game would be much better off if that odious phrase disappeared from NBA life.
Vanessa concluded, "Congratulations baby. All of your hard work and sacrifice has paid off.
You once told me, if you are going to bet on someone, bet on yourself.
I'm glad you bet on yourself, you overachiever. You did it. You're in the Hall of Fame now. You are a true champ. You're
not just an MVP. You're an all-time great. I'm so proud of you. I love
you forever and always. Kobe. Bean. Bryant."
Bryant and Duncan are two of the four "modern" members of my Pantheon, along with Shaquille O'Neal and LeBron James. Those four players collectively won 18 NBA championships, dominating the post-Michael Jordan era for two decades. Bryant's Lakers defeated Duncan's Spurs four times in six playoff
series, winning 18 out of 30 playoff games. Bryant's Lakers also defeated
Garnett's teams (Timberwolves/Celtics) three times in four playoff
series, winning 14 out of 25 playoff games. Bryant won five championships--tied with Duncan for the most NBA titles won by a star player in the post-Jordan era--plus two Finals MVPs (2009-10), and one regular season MVP (2008). Bryant finished in the top five in regular season MVP voting 11 times, and a good argument can be made that he deserved to win multiple regular season MVPs.
Duncan was not flashy, but he was efficient, fundamentally sound, and durable. He won his first NBA title in 1999 (his second pro season), and he won his fifth NBA title in 2014. Other than free throw shooting, Duncan had no skill set weaknesses. Duncan won two regular season MVPs (2002-03) and three Finals MVPs (1999, 2003, 2005). Duncan is routinely--and correctly--called the greatest power forward of all-time, yet it seems that media members and fans tend to underrate him. I have not and will not select one player as the greatest player of all-time, but it is not clear why only LeBron James is widely touted for that distinction among the four best players of the post-Jordan era. O'Neal, Duncan, and Bryant (listed in chronological order) each posted better Finals winning percentages than James (4-2 for O'Neal, 5-1 for Duncan, 5-2 for Bryant, 4-6 for James). Finals winning percentage is not the only--or even necessarily the most important--measure of greatness, but it means something, particularly since James spent a good portion of his prime trying (and mostly failing) to win championships while Duncan and Bryant both added to their championship totals. James never faced Bryant in a playoff series, but James went just 1-2 versus Duncan in the NBA Finals. Asserting that James is somehow a superior winner to Jordan (who went 6-0 in the NBA Finals) is bizarre, and asserting that James is a superior winner to Bill Russell (who went 11-1 in the NBA Finals) is nonsensical, particularly when James has not even established himself as the greatest winner of the post-Jordan era. Long story short, Duncan deserves more praise and recognition than he receives, but he is not the type of player or person who would whine about being disrespected while he is being handed a Finals MVP award.
Duncan began his speech by mentioning that this is the most nervous he had ever been, including all of his appearances in the NBA Finals. Despite his evident discomfort with public speaking, he spoke articulately, and he lavished praise on those who helped him along the way, including his parents, his coaches, and his teammates. He did not pick up a basketball until he was 14--his goal to become an Olympic swimmer was thwarted when a hurricane destroyed the swimming pool where he trained--but less than a decade later he was an NBA champion and a Finals MVP.
Garnett was not as polished or as efficient as Duncan in terms of low post scoring, nor was Garnett as effective protecting the paint (even though Garnett had much greater leaping ability than Duncan). Except for the 2003-04 season when Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell handled the clutch scoring duties as the Timberwolves advanced to the Western Conference Finals, Garnett's Minnesota teams did not accomplish much in the playoffs; he won his only NBA title in 2008 with Paul Pierce capturing the Finals MVP, and with Pierce combining with Ray Allen to handle the clutch scoring responsibilities for the Boston Celtics. This may sound strange and it is not meant as a criticism but just as an accurate description: Garnett was a very high functioning role player. Make no mistake, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and he is included in my 50 Greatest Players List, but his value was most notable in terms of high energy, rebounding, defense, and setting screens. Garnett was not going to take over a game offensively down the stretch, and he could not have won a championship without playing alongside multiple Hall of Famers who could take over a game offensively down the stretch; in that sense, Garnett differed from Bryant, Duncan, James, and even O'Neal, who could take over games offensively down the stretch despite being a poor free throw shooter.
Garnett volunteered to be the first Hall of Famer presented, joking that he wanted to get his speech in before the retired players fell asleep. Garnett graciously thanked Bill Willoughby, Darryl Dawkins, Moses Malone, and Spencer Haywood. In the 1970s, Willoughby, Dawkins, and Malone paved the way for high school players to jump directly to pro basketball without attending college, a path that no other player followed until Garnett accomplished this in 1995. Haywood won a U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in the NBA instituting a "hardship" rule (now called "early entry") that benefited not only the high schoolers listed above, but also NBA legends who left college before their classes graduated, including Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Michael Jordan.
The other 2020 Basketball Hall of Fame inductees include Eddie Sutton, Tamika Catchings, Kim Mulkey, Barbara Stevens, and Patrick Baumann. All of the Hall of Famers have inspirational life stories, but in this space I focus primarily on the NBA; the fourth 2020 inductee with significant NBA connections is Rudy Tomjanovich. He coached Bryant briefly in the 2004-05 season before health issues compelled him to resign at the Lakers' coach, but Tomjanovich is being inducted as a coach primarily because he led the Houston Rockets to back to back titles in 1994-95. His Rockets had a never say die attitude, epitomized by his famous quote, "Don't ever underestimate the heart of a champion!" That championship success would be meaningful to anyone, but the special meaning for Tomjanovich is that he will no longer be most remembered as the victim of Kermit Washington's savage punch that nearly killed him. Tomjanovich was an All-Star for the Rockets before suffering serious injuries from that punch, and he recovered enough to make the All-Star team again, but he was never the same as a player. It is testament to his heart of a champion that he not only returned to the court successfully but that he became such a great and beloved coach. Tomjanovich thanked the many coaches and commentators who spoke up about his worthiness as a Hall of Famer, and he used the platform provided by his speech to make a passionate appeal that Robert Horry--who won two championships while playing for Tomjanovich en route to capturing seven NBA titles overall--deserves to be inducted.
Labels: Basketball Hall of Fame, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Rudy Tomjanovich, Tim Duncan, Vanessa Bryant
posted by David Friedman @ 12:44 AM
