Denver Versus Phoenix Preview
Western Conference Second Round
#3 Denver (47-25) vs. #2 Phoenix (51-21)
Season series: Denver, 2-1
Phoenix can win if…Devin Booker is the best player on the court, if Deandre Ayton is able to contain Nikola Jokic without needing too much double-team assistance, and if Chris Paul is able to produce more than the "triple singles" that he posted during the first round. Booker (29.7 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 5.0 apg, .488 FG%) was easily the best player on either team as the Suns defeated the L.A. Lakers 4-2, while Ayton
(15.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, .796 FG%--no, the latter number is not a typo!) dominated the Lakers in the paint. Booker has been the Suns' best player all season long, but perhaps it took the Suns winning even after Paul was limited by injury for more people to recognize how versatile and valuable Booker is. Other than Booker and Ayton, none of the Suns' seven main rotation players shot better than .415 from the field versus the Lakers, but the Suns held the Lakers to .414 field goal shooting so the Suns could survive and advance despite only having efficient offensive contributions from their two best players.
Denver will win because…Nikola Jokic is the best player in the NBA, and he is surrounded by an excellent supporting cast. Jokic averaged 33.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, and 4.5 apg with shooting splits of .528/.429/.917 as the Nuggets beat the Portland Trail Blazers 4-2 in the first round. Michael Porter Jr. ranked second on the Nuggets in scoring (18.8 ppg) and rebounding (6.7 rpg) versus Portland as the Nuggets overcame the absence of injured guards Jamal Murray and Will Barton.
Other things to consider: Denver reached the Western Conference Finals last season, and the Nuggets have had one of the top three regular season records in the West in each of the past three seasons. This is a young team, but not an inexperienced team in terms of ranking among the elite and in terms of making an extended playoff run. In contrast, most of Phoenix' players have little to no playoff experience, and even their veteran leader Chris Paul has made just one trip to the Western Conference Finals. It is rare that a team goes from being a non-contender to being a Conference Finalist in just one year. It is not impossible, and the Suns are clearly a very talented team, but the Nuggets' experience will be a factor, particularly in any games that are close.
Throughout his career, Paul has worn down and/or suffered an injury during the playoffs. He injured his right shoulder during the first game of the first round, and he had a subpar performance during that series (9.2 ppg, 7.7 apg, 3.5 rpg, .386 FG%). The Suns advanced to the second round not because of Paul's play but despite Paul's ineffectiveness. The Suns overcame Paul's injury because of the exceptional production of Booker and Ayton plus the even more serious injury suffered by the Lakers' Anthony Davis.
The Nuggets are still without the services of injured All-Star guard Jamal Murray (Will Barton may be available versus the Suns), but overall their roster is healthier and deeper than the Lakers' roster that was overwhelmed by the Suns' speed, quickness, and athleticism. If Paul is not able to play much better than he did in the first round then the Suns have no chance, but even if Paul is close to 100% I still expect the Nuggets to prevail.
Denver will defeat Phoenix in six games.
Labels: Chris Paul, Deandre Ayton, Denver Nuggets, Devin Booker, Michael Porter Jr., Nikola Jokic, Phoenix Suns
posted by David Friedman @ 9:15 PM
LeBron James and the Legacy Question
LeBron James' legacy is secure. He is a Pantheon-level player, and nothing that he does as his career winds down is going to change that. I understand why some people rank him as the greatest player of all-time based on his size, athleticism, skill set, and durability, but I also understand (and tend to agree with) people who rank James as a very great player but not the greatest player.
It is amazing that it took until James' twilight years for him to lose a first round playoff series (though it should be noted that he has missed the playoffs three times, while Pantheon members Bill Russell and Julius Erving never missed the playoffs). A first round loss as the defending champion does not invalidate last year's championship or any of James' four championships.
James' blatant craving for approval--including an exhortation after last year's NBA Finals that he receive "respect" that he feels he has earned but not been granted--is tiresome, but should not affect how we view his accomplishments; nothing said by James or anyone else changes what he has done. However, when he demands "respect" and when he makes outlandish declarations (such as asserting that Cleveland's 2016 NBA title cemented his status as the greatest player of all-time) it is only natural to carefully scrutinize James' career to test the validity of his statements.
James' career includes many spectacular highs, and a few ignominious lows. As I wrote two years ago, "LeBron James is a supremely gifted basketball player who has had a great
career but who has also been disruptive to multiple franchises. Have
other great players been demanding and difficult at times? Yes, but in
most instances not to the extent that James has been and not in ways
that make it appear that winning as many championships as possible is
not the top priority."
James squandered two excellent opportunities to win championships during his prime: he quit versus Boston in the second round of the 2010 Eastern Conference playoffs and--despite leaving Cleveland to form a "Big Three" in Miami--he lost in the 2011 NBA Finals to a team that had just one All-Star player in his prime (Dirk Nowitzki).
James won one title mainly because of a great shot by Ray Allen (2013). Allen's shot is much more important to James' legacy than the clutch Finals shots hit by John Paxson and Steve Kerr are to Michael Jordan's legacy; if Paxson or Kerr had missed their shots, Jordan's Bulls would have played a seventh game in each of those series. On the other hand, if Allen had missed his shot then the San Antonio Spurs would have celebrated yet another championship win over James.
James won his fourth title during a bizzare "bubble" playoffs after a shortened regular season split into two segments--a unprecedented break that was very beneficial for an older player such as James.
The reality is that James' four titles place him one title short of his contemporaries Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan, and two titles short of Michael Jordan, whose final retirement happened not long before James jumped straight from high school to the NBA. James perhaps "should" have won more titles, and--were it not for Ray Allen's shot and the vagaries of the "bubble"--he "could" have won fewer titles, but four titles as an All-NBA caliber player are more than enough to secure Pantheon status (which, in my estimation, James had reached even before he won his first title).
Due to a combination of personal circumstances, mentality, and the rules in place during various eras, Bill Russell, Jerry West, Magic Johnson, Tim Duncan, and Kobe Bryant pursued championships with just one team, while James has repeatedly sought out greener pastures to build "super teams." I am not a fan of the "super teams" that are built by depriving small market teams of their best players, but James' choice to handle his business that way does not lower (or raise) my ranking of his career.
It will be interesting to see if James' current ankle injury is just a temporary challenge to be overcome, or if he has entered the twilight phase experienced by former Lakers West and Bryant, who played at the highest level for a long time until--rather suddenly--their bodies immediately and permanently stopped them from playing at the highest level on a consistent basis.
Anthony Davis has never been a durable player--James had the good fortune of not only winning a title during the odd "bubble" season but also of playing alongside Davis during that rare season in which Davis was not limited by injury. One suspects that if James seeks to prolong his career by ceding the number one role to Davis then the Lakers will not win another title during James' career, because Davis does not appear to be a player who is built to shoulder that kind of load.
Labels: Anthony Davis, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James
posted by David Friedman @ 6:53 PM
Portland Loses in First Round for Fourth Time in Five Years
Damian Lillard averaged 34.3 ppg with .463/.449/.940 shooting splits during the first round of the playoffs, but his Portland Trail Blazers still lost 4-2 to the Denver Nuggets. Lillard set the NBA single series record with 35 three pointers made, including a playoff single game record 12 three pointers in his scintillating 55 point performance in Portland's 147-140 double overtime loss in game five.
Despite all of the attention that is paid to numbers/"analytics" in recent years, there is still a significant lack of understanding and discernment regarding which numbers are meaningful and how to interpret those numbers. To cite two examples, a lot of attention is paid to overall shooting efficiency and last second shots. Shooting efficiency matters, but it must be placed in context by understanding a player's role and skill set. A player who is very efficient on a small number of field goal attempts is not a franchise player, but a player whose numbers may not look efficient may still be a franchise player if he has the necessary skill set and mentality to control a game down the stretch because controlling a game down the stretch matters more than hitting last second shots; to some extent, last second shots are random events. Kobe Bryant's game-winning shot versus the Phoenix Suns during game four of the 2006 NBA playoffs is an exciting and oft-replayed highlight, but Bryant's ability to control a game down the stretch--which he displayed in many games in the NBA Finals and Conference Finals en route to winning five NBA titles--is more impressive and meaningful. Yes, you need the right skill set and mentality to make a buzzer beater, but it is easier to hit one shot than it is to take over a game for an extended period of time.
Lillard's "logo shots" are fun to watch, and he deserves credit for honing his craft to the extent that he is willing and able to make those shots--but Lillard is not consistently able to take over playoff games down the stretch for extended periods of time. Yes, if the game is close in the final seconds he can hit a "logo shot" to save his team, but late in a playoff series he is more likely to wear down than he is to take over. Lillard had a very productive series versus Denver, but--as often
happens with smaller players--he wore down and he did not have much left
in the tank late in game six with the outcome still up for grabs: he
shot 1-9 from the field in the second half, including 1-5 in the fourth
quarter.
I respect Lillard's work ethic, his skill set, and his mentality of trying to win in Portland as opposed to going somewhere else to form a "super team." It is not disrespectful to Lillard to state the truth: an undersized player is not going to lead a team to an NBA title,
especially when that undersized player relies on long jumpers for a team that
is subpar defensively and cannot survive high variance shooting. Even if Lillard can make 40% of his "logo shots"--and he clearly cannot do that late in a series when he is worn down--that would still mean that 60% of the possessions during which he shoots those shots are empty possessions (not including a few offensive rebounds or defensive fouls). A poor defensive team cannot survive that many empty possessions.
What about Stephen Curry? Do his three championship rings refute the contentions made in the above paragraph? No, because Curry's "logo shots" are not the main reason that his teams won championships; he is a great player, and those shots are great highlights, but each Golden State championship team was very good collectively on defense and also featured several exceptional individual defensive players, including but not limited to Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, and Klay Thompson. Without that defensive foundation, the Warriors would not have won a single championship, no matter how many "logo shots" Curry made. It is worth noting that Curry has yet to win a Finals MVP, and it is also worth noting that the Warriors did not become a multiple-championship winning team until they acquired Kevin Durant, who is nearly a foot taller than Curry and Lillard. Durant not only can take over games and playoff series down the stretch, but he is also an above average defensive player.
This is Portland's fourth first round exit in the past five seasons,
sandwiched around losing 4-0 to the Golden State Warriors in the 2019
Western Conference Finals. Lillard is very realistic about where Portland should be ranked among the best NBA teams: "I mean, we didn't win a championship, so obviously where we are now isn't good enough. I don't know what a shakeup looks like or what changes will be
made or could be made, but obviously as is it wasn't good enough. We
came up short against a team without their starting point guard and
shooting guard (Jamal Murray and Will Barton)...Obviously, where we are isn't good enough to win a championship if
it's not good enough to get out of a first-round series with two of
their best three or four players not on the floor."
Lillard is not fooled by Portland's one Western Conference Finals appearance. He knows that the Trail Blazers as presently constituted are not a legit championship contender. In my evaluation of Daryl Morey's tenure in Houston, I noted, "In the past 13 years, 10 Eastern Conference teams and 10
Western Conference teams made at least one Conference Finals appearance
and six teams in each conference made at least two Conference Finals
appearances." Stating that Portland's one Western Conference Finals appearance during the Lillard era is fluky and not particularly significant is not, as some might say, "hate": the statistical evidence demonstrates that making it to the Conference Finals once is not exceptional in a league designed to maximize parity, and that point is reinforced by the reality that at no other time during the Lillard era have the Trail Blazers come close to duplicating that feat. Something not particularly unusual that only happened once in the midst of years of mediocrity is, by definition, fluky and not particularly significant.
Those historical and statistical facts take nothing away from Lillard's individual statistics, skill set, and work ethic. He deserves much respect for everything that he has accomplished. That being said, in order for Lillard to win a championship in Portland the Trail Blazers must add a dominant wing player or post player, and the team must cultivate a defensive mindset.
---
Carmelo Anthony's legacy is much-discussed but poorly understood. Based on his college career and his prolific NBA statistics he is a lock to be inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. However, he is at least one level below the greatest players of his time, guys like Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, and Shaquille O'Neal. Anthony does not quite make it to the next level, either, because that group includes (to list just a few, in no particular order) Dwyane Wade, Stephen Curry, Kawhi Leonard, and Russell Westbrook. Just as it is not "hate" or disrespect to accurately rank Lillard, it is not "hate" or "disrespect" to accurately rank Anthony.
After Portland beat Denver 123-109 in the first game of the series, I wrote the following about Carmelo Anthony:
Anthony's emergence as a somewhat effective sixth man (13.4 ppg on
.421 field goal shooting while starting just three of 69 games during
the regular season) has inspired many commentators to wax poetic about
what a supposed injustice it was that Anthony was out of the league for
over a year. Let's set the record straight: Anthony will be inducted in
the Basketball Hall of Fame primarily because of his scoring (and also
for leading Syracuse to the 2003 NCAA title), but he is no longer
capable of consistently being a big-time scorer, and the other areas of
the game that were never strong suits have not improved. Therefore, he
is best suited to coming off of the bench--and when that idea was first
proposed to him, he laughed out loud, much like Lamar Odom said that
Phil Jackson "must have bumped his head" when Jackson determined that
Odom should be the Lakers' sixth man. Unlike Anthony, though, Odom soon
embraced his new role. When Anthony refused to accept his role and/or be
effective/comfortable in that role, he ended up out of the league; when
Anthony decided to accept that role and be reasonably productive
(albeit not very efficient) in that role, Portland signed him.
In
the last four games that Anthony played in before the playoffs (he was
inactive for two games during this run), he scored three points (1-3
field goal shooting), 18 points (7-13 field goal shooting), five points
(1-7 field goal shooting), and 10 points (3-10 field goal shooting).
That works out to 9.0 ppg on .364 field goal shooting--and before anyone
calls this "cherry picking," those numbers are not that much worse than
his season averages, and if you scan through his 2020-21 game log you
see 25 games in which he shot less than .400 from the field--that is
more than one out of three of his total games played. Anthony shot .300
or less from the field in 18 games. Maybe if he was still a primary
offensive threat who was drawing double teams to open up the floor we
might be able to cut him some slack for all of that bricklaying, but he
is the team's fifth leading scorer--and he is not making much of a
contribution in rebounding (11th on the team in rebounds per minute),
assists (eighth on the team in assists per minute) or defense.
Do
the commentators who say things like "Carmelo Anthony is a walking
bucket" realize how uninformed they sound every time they open their
mouths? Carmelo Anthony is an aging former All-Star who is still capable
of scoring double figures, albeit not very efficiently.
There
is no doubt that Anthony enjoyed scoring 18 points versus his former
team in game one. How many 18 point games will he have in this series?
He matched or exceeded that total in 19 out of 69 games this season, so
if this series goes seven games he might have one more 18 point game,
but there is a decent chance that this turns out to be his highest
scoring and best shooting game in the series.
That is not "hate";
that is just looking at his production, and projecting what is most
likely to happen. If Anthony can exceed his established production rate,
good for him.
That analysis aged very well: Anthony did not reach the 18 point mark again in the series. Anthony posted solid numbers in Portland's game six loss (14 points on 5-9 field goal shooting, five rebounds, four assists), but his game-worst -17 plus/minus number provides at least a glimpse at his impact on team success.
Anthony's individual efficiency during game six was unusual. During the series, he averaged 12.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, and 1.5 apg while shooting .417 from the field. He ranked fifth on the team in scoring. Denver outscored Portland by 1.3 ppg overall, but Denver outscored Portland by 8 ppg when Anthony was on the court. Whether you prefer to evaluate players by the eye test, by skill set analysis, by individual box score numbers, or by plus/minus, it is difficult to find an objective reason to assert that Anthony had a positive impact for Portland during the playoffs.
Many commentators have expressed confusion--if not outrage--that Anthony was out of the NBA for over a year. There is nothing confusing or outrageous about what happened. At this stage of his career, Anthony is an inefficient, one dimensional player who does not draw double teams and does not provide much value other than scoring. He cannot be a starter or top scoring option on any team hoping to make a deep playoff run--but, Anthony initially scoffed at the notion that he should now be a bench player with a reduced role. In contrast, Vince Carter accepted such a role reduction gracefully, and he left the NBA on his terms after playing a record 22 seasons.
Anthony's absence from the NBA and his subsequent return are easily understood by anyone who objectively examines his declining skills, the role best suited to those skills, and his initial reluctance to accept that role.
Many media members who have had direct interactions with Anthony say positive things about him. That may explain why so many media members spoke up on Anthony's behalf when he was not in the league, and why they continue to speak up on his behalf now--but personal sentiment (whether positive or negative) should not play a role in player evaluation.
Labels: Carmelo Anthony, Damian Lillard, Kobe Bryant, Portland Trail Blazers
posted by David Friedman @ 5:45 PM
Philadelphia Versus Atlanta Preview
Eastern Conference Second Round
#1 Philadelphia (49-23) vs. #5 Atlanta (41-31)
Season series: Philadelphia, 2-1
Atlanta can win if…Trae Young averages at least 30 ppg, 10 apg, and .450 field goal shooting--in other words, if Young matches or exceeds his first round production. Also, it is vital that the Hawks' big men by committee combine to limit Joel Embiid to less than 25 ppg without having to rely on double teams that create driving lanes and/or open shots for Embiid's teammates (or, alternatively, Embiid's knee injury keeps him out of the lineup or reduces his productivity).
Philadelphia will win because…the 76ers are bigger, more talented, and have more depth. When healthy and motivated, Joel Embiid is a matchup nightmare. He averaged 24.0 ppg on .635 field goal shooting in four games versus the Washington Wizards in the first round (he missed one game due to a knee injury), but even more significant that Embiid's individual numbers are the 76ers' team numbers when he is on the court compared to when he is out of the game: the 76ers look like a championship contender when Embiid plays, but they just look like a good, solid team--at best--when he does not play. Ben Simmons, who nearly averaged a triple double in the first round (14.8 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 9.2 apg), must remain productive at both ends of the court. Tobias Harris led the 76ers in scoring in the first round (25.0 ppg) while also averaging 10.0 rpg; he is an All-Star caliber player whose size, mobility, and shooting touch create matchup problems.
Other things to consider: The Hawks have looked like a different team since Nate McMillan took over as coach from Lloyd Pierce. Atlanta started the season 14-20 under Pierce, but went 27-11 the rest of the way with McMillan at the helm. I was not sure to what extent that transformation would extend to the postseason, but the Hawks smothered the Knicks' Julius Randle (holding him to 18.0 ppg on .298 field goal shooting in a 4-1 first round victory). I underestimated the Hawks prior to the first round, and it is possible that I am still underestimating them, but even if one accepts the notion that the "new" Hawks are comparable to the 76ers the series should still tilt in Philadelphia's favor due to having the best individual player (Embiid) plus having home court advantage.
The main challenge in predicting the outcome of any series involving the 76ers is gauging Embiid's health, conditioning, and level of mental engagement.
For this round, I am making positive assumptions about Embiid that, if incorrect, will change the result, but I am picking Philadelphia to win in five games.
Labels: Atlanta Hawks, Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers, Tobias Harris, Trae Young
posted by David Friedman @ 7:59 PM
Milwaukee Versus Brooklyn Preview
Eastern Conference Second Round
#3 Milwaukee (46-26) vs. #2 Brooklyn (48-24)
Season series: Milwaukee, 2-1
Brooklyn can win if…the Nets commit to consistently playing solid defense, and then completing those possessions with a defensive rebound. The Nets ranked just 21st in points allowed this season, though they posted a good defensive field goal percentage (.459, seventh in the league). The Nets are an average rebounding team, ranking 14th in the league. Prior to the playoffs, the Nets' vaunted "Big Three" of Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and James Harden had barely played the equivalent of one playoff series together this year. That lack of continuity did not matter much when the Nets defeated the overwhelmed and injury-riddled Boston Celtics 4-1 in the first round, but the Bucks are a better team than the Celtics at both ends of the court.
Milwaukee will win because…the
Nets have no one who can match up with Antetopkounmpo, but the Bucks--with the addition of Jrue Holiday to form a "Big Three" with Antetokounmpo and Khris Middleton--can at least slow down Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and James Harden.
Antetokounmpo averaged 23.5 ppg, 15.0 rpg, and 7.8 apg as the Bucks swept the defending Eastern Conference Champion Miami Heat in the first round. Middleton contributed 21.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, and 4.3 apg in that series, while Holiday added 15.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, and a team-high 9.8 apg. Antetokounmpo is the 2020 Defensive Player of the Year, Holiday is a two-time member of the All-Defensive Team who should receive that honor again this season, and Middleton is an above average defender. The Bucks will miss Donte DiVincenzo, a starting guard who suffered a season-ending ankle injury in game three versus Miami, but this roster is filled with tough, two-way players. The Nets have great players, but it will not be easy for them to hunt or create mismatches versus the Bucks.
Other things to consider: Milwaukee scored at least 117 points in each of their regular season games versus Brooklyn. Antetokounmpo scored 34 points (13-26 FGs), 49 points (21-36 FGs), and 36 points (11-30 FGs) in those games (39.7 ppg, .489 FG%). The Nets are respected and feared for their offensive prowess, but the Bucks also have a great offense. The difference between the teams is that the Bucks are better defensively, both in terms of mindset and also in terms of personnel.
Durant has emerged as the the Nets' leader. That should not surprise anyone who has followed the careers of Durant, Irving, and Harden. Durant is a two-time Finals MVP, while Irving played his best basketball as the second option to LeBron James as part of Cleveland's version of a Big Three (with Kevin Love as the third option), and Harden's playoff resume is littered with subpar performances when the lights have been the brightest.
Versus Boston, Durant led the Nets in scoring (32.6 ppg), rebounding (7.4 rpg), blocked shots (2.2 bpg), and field goals attempted (97). Harden averaged 27.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, and a team-high 10.6 apg. He is the primary playmaker and the third scoring option; Irving ranked second in field goals attempted (87, 15 more than Harden) but he finished third in scoring (24.8 ppg) because Harden posted his best field goal percentage for any series in his career (.556). This is just the fourth time in 24 career playoff series that Harden has shot at least .500 from the field, but he has shot .420 or worse from the field in 14 playoff series.
If the Nets win the 2021 NBA title, many commentators will likely use that success as a reason to tout Harden's greatness--but if the Nets win the 2021 NBA title playing the way that they did against the Celtics then that will validate what I have been writing about Harden for nearly a decade: he is an All-Star caliber player who is best suited to being the second or third option on a championship team. When Harden's shot attempts and role are reduced to the appropriate level, his efficiency increases and his team's likelihood of winning increases. Harden's 72 field goal attempts in the first round versus the Celtics are his fewest field goal attempts in a playoff series since he was the third option for Oklahoma City nearly a decade ago. Harden shot at least .480 from the field in four of his eight playoff series with Oklahoma City, but he shot at least .480 from the field in just one of his 15 playoff series when he was miscast as the number one option in Houston.
The Bucks are a more well-rounded team than the Nets, but if the Nets keep their squad together and if Irving and Harden continue to play supporting roles to Durant then the Nets will be championship contenders for at least the next two to three years.
This year, though, the Bucks will defeat the Nets in six games.
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, Giannis Antetokounmpo, James Harden, Jrue Holiday, Kevin Durant, Khris Middleton, Kyrie Irving, Milwaukee Bucks
posted by David Friedman @ 11:49 PM
Blaming A Referee for Losing After Posting a "Triple Single" is Not Great Leadership
Scott Foster consistently grades out as one of the NBA's top referees. He is widely respected among both current and former players; for example, retired player Richard Jefferson recently said that when he was a player for the road team Foster was a referee that he loved to see because Foster would not be swayed by the home crowd, while Kendrick Perkins noted that Foster does not let star players--like Chris Paul--get away with things that some referees overlook. Speaking of Paul, after Paul's Phoenix Suns lost 109-95 to the Lakers in game three of their first round series Paul did not take personal responsibility for his poor play. Instead, he repeatedly mentioned 11 games in a row, a not very subtle reference to Scott Foster; Paul's teams have lost the last 11 playoff games that Foster refereed. Paul is an undersized point guard whose body often gets hurt and/or wears down under the mental and physical duress of postseason play. This is predictable--I factor this into my playoff previews--and it is yet another example of why Size--Specifically, Height--Matters in the NBA.
Anyone who watches the NBA regularly knows that Chris Paul bullies referees, and that he often gets away with both illegal handchecking and flopping. Paul has been fined by the league for his derogatory comments about referees. It will be interesting to see if NBA Commissioner Adam Silver fines Paul. If Silver fails to do so, then he is tacitly granting validity to Paul's narrative that the NBA is negligently--if not willfully--assigning a biased referee to Paul's games to make sure that Paul's team loses.
Paul is often called the best leader in the NBA, and he is the current President of the NBA Players Association. Paul is attacking the credibility of an employer who pays him millions of dollars per year as part of a multi-billion dollar business that is based in no small part on the credibility of the competition between teams; without that credibility, the NBA is not in the sports business but rather in show business (maybe that business model would still work--it has worked for pro wrestling for decades--but that has never been the NBA's business model, and fans of pure basketball would be repulsed if the outcomes of games were proved to be predetermined).
It must also be mentioned that Paul's comments are not only an attack on the NBA's credibility but a deflection of personal responsibility for his second seeded Suns trailing 2-1 against the seventh seeded Lakers.
Here are Paul's numbers in the first three games:
Game 1: Seven points, eight assists, four rebounds, 3-8 field goal shooting, +6 plus/minus in 36 minutes in a nine point win.
Game 2: Six points, five assists, three rebounds, 2-5 field goal shooting, -2 plus/minus in 23 minutes in a seven point loss.
Game 3: seven points, six assists, five rebounds, 3-8 field goal shooting, -20 plus/minus in 27 minutes in a 14 point loss.
"But Chris Paul is bravely playing hurt!" you may exclaim. First, LeBron James and Anthony Davis--among other players on both teams--are also playing hurt. Many, if not most, NBA players are playing hurt by the time the playoffs begin. Second, if Paul is so hurt that he cannot shoot, cannot make plays at his normal rate, and is consistently a member of underperforming lineups (i.e., the Suns are playing better this series when he is not in the game) then either the coach should bench him or Paul, who is described as a great leader who cares about team success, should take the burden off of the coach by admitting, "Hey coach, I am just not healthy enough to play at a level that will help the team."
Great leaders do not attack the credibility of the business that feeds their families. Great leaders do not insist on playing if their level of play is harming the team.
The media narratives about players such as Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry, and others are fascinating to observe. Chris Paul is supposedly a great leader even after he posts a "triple single" with an awful plus/minus number while "leading" his favored team to a blowout loss.
Russell Westbrook is supposedly a terrible leader even though he helped turn around the season of a not particularly talented team that was devastated by COVID-19 and various injuries. Yesterday, after Westbrook--who was a game-time decision due to an ankle injury--posted 26 points, 12 rebounds, and 10 assists (team-high numbers in all three categories) in Washington's 132-103 game three loss to Philadelphia at least one commentator called this an "empty" triple double. You can be sure that if Westbrook put up Chris Paul-like numbers of seven points, six assists, and five rebounds then that same commentator would have attacked Westbrook for quitting. Westbrook had as many rebounds in that game as Paul has in three games versus the Lakers! Westbrook's plus/minus number (-15) was better than the plus/minus number of every Washington starter except for Alex Len, whose plus/minus number was -14 in just 11 minutes. The Wizards are the eighth seeded team playing the number one seeded team, but Westbrook had a great game while playing hurt against a superior team. Paul is on course to lead his second seeded team to defeat while playing terribly. Who is the better player and better leader? This is not just about one season or three playoff games; the numbers and the true narrative (not the media's fictional narrative) are consistent throughout both players' careers. Westbrook was an All-NBA Team level performer for four teams that reached the Western Conference Finals, including one team that made it to the NBA Finals. He is currently tied for third on the all-time playoff list with 11 triple doubles (matching Jason Kidd, and trailing only Magic Johnson's 30 and LeBron James' 28). It would be fascinating to look up the media coverage of other playoff triple doubles to see how many have been described as "empty." Granted, the same commentator who called Westbrook's triple double "empty" also called Jimmy Butler's triple double "empty"--but Butler posted 12 points on 4-15 field goal shooting with 10 rebounds, 10 assists, and a -18 plus/minus number in a 17 point loss as his sixth seeded Heat were swept by the third seeded Bucks to become one of the few Conference champions ever swept in the next year's playoffs. There is no comparison between how Butler played and how Westbrook played; lumping those two performances together is intellectually lazy, at best.
Stephen Curry is lauded as a top three MVP candidate for leading his team to "play out" (instead of "play in") to the playoffs despite having two opportunities to win one game to qualify for the playoffs. Damian Lillard has recently pointed out that last season his own MVP candidacy was dismissed because of his team's low playoff seeding, and Lillard said that to be consistent the media should not tout Curry as this season's MVP. My consistent take is that Lillard was not a legit MVP candidate last season, nor is Curry a legit MVP candidate this season. I agree with Lillard that the media's MVP narratives are not consistent or fair.
There is no doubt that Curry is one of the top 50 players of all-time, nor is there any doubt that for most of his career Paul has been one of the NBA's top point guards. I do not deny their greatness, or the value of anything that either player has accomplished. The operative question is to figure out why so many media members display blatant favoritism toward some players and blatant antagonism toward others when the facts do not support the aggressively repeated narratives.
I will not speculate about what the agenda or agendas of media coverage may be, but to deny that media coverage is agenda-driven is to be blind, deaf, and dumb.
Labels: Chris Paul, L.A. Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Russell Westbrook, Scott Foster, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 11:51 AM
