Why Have the Suns and Warriors Prospered While the Lakers Struggled?
The reigning Western Conference champion Phoenix Suns and the three-time NBA champion (2015, 2017-18) Golden State Warriors are tied for the NBA's best record (30-19), while the L.A. Lakers are seventh in the Western Conference (21-20). I picked the Lakers to be the Western Conference's best team, and I placed both Phoenix and Golden State in the West's top four (along with the Utah Jazz, who are currently third in the West). Why are the Suns and Warriors performing so much better than the Lakers as the season reaches its midpoint?
If you focus on mainstream media narratives--something that I would encourage you not to do for any subject, not just pro basketball--then you may believe that the Suns are successful because Chris Paul is the "point god," the Warriors are successful because they shoot a lot of three pointers, and the Lakers are struggling to stay above .500 because Russell Westbrook turns over the ball too frequently.
It is true that the Suns rank fourth in assists, and that Paul leads the NBA with 10.0 apg. However, the Suns also rank third in defensive field goal percentage, fifth in points allowed, eighth in rebounding, and sixth in steals.
It is true that the Warriors are a proficient and efficient three point shooting team, ranking fourth in three pointers made and eighth in three point field goal percentage. However, the Warriors also rank first in defensive field goal percentage, first in points allowed, fifth in rebounding, second in steals, and 10th in blocked shots.
The foundation for the success of both the Suns and the Warriors is based on defense and rebounding--the same factors that have been the foundation for championship success throughout NBA history. Why does the media focus so much on three point shooting and so little on defense and rebounding? One reason is that media members have become captivated by "advanced basketball statistics," and some media members have even obtained front office jobs in the NBA based on touting such numbers. One of the big narratives for "stat gurus" is the importance of three point shooting, so media members focus on three point shooting to the exclusion of almost any other aspect of basketball. Another reason is that defense and rebounding are much harder to understand and quantify than three point shooting; far too many media members are unwilling and/or incapable of understanding defense and rebounding, let along explaining defense and rebounding to the general public.
What about the Lakers? It is true that the Lakers rank 26th
in turnovers this season, which obviously is not good--but they ranked
28th last year without Westbrook, and they ranked 22nd in 2020 when they
won the "bubble" title. Westbrook's turnovers this year are in line with his career averages
per minute and per game. The narrative that he is just throwing the ball
all over the place is not supported by facts. He has always averaged
around 4 turnovers per game.
Here is an interesting list; see if you can guess what this list describes:
1) LeBron James
2) Karl Malone
3) Moses Malone
4) John Stockton
5) Russell Westbrook
6) Kobe Bryant
7) Jason Kidd
8) Julius Erving
9) Artis Gilmore
10) Isiah Thomas
Would
you agree that those are 10 great players? Would you agree that, other
than Karl Malone, Moses Malone, and Artis Gilmore, those are elite
playmakers? If you are not sure about that statement, note that other
than the Malones and Gilmore each was the primary playmaker for his team
at some point during his career.
That list is the 10 players in ABA/NBA history who have committed the most career regular season turnovers.
Do turnovers matter? Of course.
Do
live ball careless turnovers that result in fast breaks for the
opposing team matter? Of course--those are the worst turnovers.
Do
team turnovers matter more than individual turnovers? Yes. If one
player is handling the ball most of the time and "absorbing" turnovers
per game but he is also running the offense well and the team turnovers
are not high than that player's individual turnovers do not matter as
much as the team's overall turnover numbers.
As demonstrated above, the addition of Westbrook has not made the Lakers a much more turnover prone team.
I have previously demonstrated that rebounds are not fungible,
and that after Westbrook leaves a team his new team's rebounding tends
to improve while his previous team's rebounding tends to decline. The
Lakers are 12th in
rebounding after ranking 16th last season. The Wizards, Westbrook's
previous team, are 19th in rebounding this season after ranking 8th last
season. Therefore, Westbook has had a demonstrable impact on team
rebounding
in favor of his new team and not in favor of his old team, which is
consistent with what we have seen with Westbrook throughout his career.
The Lakers rank 26th in points allowed, and they rank 13th in defensive field goal percentage. Offense is not their problem: they are sixth in scoring and sixth in field goal percentage; forget all the memes you see of Westbrook turning the ball over, because the reality is that the Lakers are running a productive and efficient offense with Westbrook as the primary playmaker (8.2 apg, sixth in the league).
The Lakers' problem is defense; last season, the Lakers ranked second in points allowed and eighth in defensive field goal percentage. When the Lakers won the 2020 "bubble" championship, they ranked fourth in points allowed and eighth in defensive field goal percentage. The biggest reason for the Lakers' defensive decline from 2020 to now is Anthony Davis, who has spent much of the post-championship period being injured and/or disinterested. Commentators who posture and try to sound smart by blaming the Lakers' defensive woes on Westbrook's off ball defense do not know what they are talking about; whether or not Westbrook gambles for steals more often than he should is not nearly as big of an issue as Davis' unavailability, and his unwillingness to protect the paint when he is available. This is not just measured by blocked shots; if you watch the games and if you watch Davis then you know that he is not the defensive force that he was during the Lakers' championship run.
It is also worth noting that the Lakers have used 21 different starting lineups this season, and no lineup has been used more than five times; they have used 11 different starting lineups one time each.
In contrast, consider the stability enjoyed by the Suns and the Warriors. The Suns have used just six different starting lineups; their main starting lineup has appeared in 20 games, posting a 15-5 record (and their second most frequently used starting lineup has gone 6-0, with JaVale McGee at center instead of Deandre Ayton, and the other four players remaining the same). The Warriors have used just 11 different starting lineups; their main starting lineup has appeared in 27 games, posting a 22-5 record.
Continuity and health are critically important to sustained success in the NBA. That has always been true, and those factors are even more relevant with the additional variable of COVID-19, with its accompanying health and safety protocols forcing many players to miss games. Lack of continuity and lack of health have more of an impact on defense than on offense; if you throw five players together, they may be able to quickly figure out how to score at a decent rate, particularly if one or two of those players can create his own shot--but five players thrown together are not going to be able to quickly figure out how to be connected defensively.
The Suns and the Warriors sit atop the league mainly because of how well they defend and rebound.
The "Westbrook is a turnover machine" narrative is a distraction/deflection from the Lakers' real problems, namely (1) injuries, (2) Davis' toxic combination of often being hurt and rarely playing hard since the Lakers' won the "bubble" title, and (3) lack of consistently productive depth (which is at least in part connected to the injuries, which inevitably result in lower caliber players receiving more minutes).
Still not convinced? What if I told you that there are only four NBA players who currently rank in the top 30 in scoring, rebounding, and assists? Could you name those four players? Reigning MVP Nikola Jokic is one obvious choice, and reigning Finals MVP/two-time MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo should also be obvious. You may be surprised that James Harden is on the list this season; Harden is shooting poorly, has given up on playing defense, and is turning the ball over slightly more than Westbrook, but he is racking up rebounds and assists while still scoring over 20 ppg.
The fourth player, as you may have guessed, is Westbrook. Three of those players are locks to make the All-Star team, while Westbrook will likely receive zero consideration. Last season, Westbrook averaged a triple double while leading the league in assists (11.5 apg), ranking sixth in rebounding (11.5 rpg), and ranking 24th in scoring (22.2 ppg). He led the Wizards to the playoffs, but he did not make the All-NBA Team or even the All-Star team.
Meanwhile, Stephen Curry--who is posting the second worst shooting percentages of his career from both the field (.422) and from three point range (.387)--is touted as an MVP candidate while being the face of a Golden State team that is winning mainly because of great defense and rebounding (and Curry is not leading the charge in either of those categories).
As is often the case, the media-driven anti-Westbrook narrative--like many media-driven narratives--has little tangible connection to reality.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Chris Paul, Golden State Warriors, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Phoenix Suns, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 5:04 PM
19 Comments:
Westbrook slander has always been ridiculous, but the media is working overtime this year. Here are some other notes to keep in mind:
1.) LeBron is playing absolutely amazing, but this is just another year that a star teammate of Westbrook's is having a career year (in LeBron's case, his best offensive season in a while).
2.) I've been seeing the narrative that the Lakers moved LeBron to the center position for Westbrook, but that's absolutely false. Playing center has helped LeBron offensively AND the Lakers do not want to commit to playing Dwight Howard or the corpse of DeAndre Jordan.
3.) The media ALWAYS needs a scapegoat for LeBron and there is no player in the league more fit than Westbrook to get blamed for everything.
I still expect the Lakers to get their act together once fully healthy so I'll be laughing once everyone does a 180 with their narratives.... or they'll likely create more ways to blame everything on Russ.
Kyle Falls:
You make a good point that we can add LeBron's name to the long list of players who have had career seasons playing alongside Westbrook, including but not limited to Durant, George, Harden, and Beal.
LeBron is at least as big as Karl Malone and many teams play small ball now, so the notion of a 6-9, 260 player playing center in today's game should not be shocking. If anything, it is more impressive that a player LeBron's size can play point guard and the other perimeter positions than it is that he is playing center. LeBron is as big or bigger than many Hall of Fame centers!
Yes, I agree that many media members actively look for scapegoats for LeBron.
If the Lakers can get healthy and if Davis decides to play hard then the Lakers can be dangerous. I am not sure if those things will happen, but I don't dismiss the possibilities out of hand the way that some people are.
Marcel
So david Shannon Sharpe is getting on ur nerves too?
Russ is not nearly as good now as in his prime
Long as he dont commit turnovers
And plays smart is all im asking for
I dont expect much from russ at this stage of his career
As a laker fan
Ad this is supposed to be his team
And he getting killed by everyone as he should for not supposed
But defense is always most important
And gs been the best defense of team the last decade
Lebron been great monk as well
If ad comes back and plays good we can be great i think
Phoenix and gs isn't unbeatable
Nets arent either
Marcel:
I did not see or hear what Shannon Sharpe said about Westbrook so I have no comment about that.
I agree that Westbrook is not as good as he was in his prime, but just a few months ago he strung together a bunch of triple doubles and carried the Wizards into the playoffs (along with Beal, who had the best season of his career as a beneficiary of Westbrook's playmaking and leadership). I doubt that Westbrook just suddenly became old. His individual numbers, like the numbers of almost every All-Star who has played with LeBron, will never match his prime numbers as long as he shares the court with LeBron, but that does not mean that Westbrook is no longer a great player.
Davis is the key to the Lakers' success. If he can get healthy and stay healthy, and if he decides to play hard most of the time then the Lakers will be very dangerous.
Marcel
The fit never made sense
Westbrook cant shoot anymore and honestly was never that good of a shooter
In his peak he was relentless and problaby most athletic pg ever so he willed his way to score
He shot 80 percent from ft line at one time and had a solid midrange shot
Those days are gone now
He cant shoot and is not finishing around the rim good at all
He 33 and really is done far as a great player lakers should of known this and got more shooting around bron wit hield
There was no reason to make that trade
They just can now hope russ
Can make a shot here or there and dont turn the ball over
They got to hope ad comes back real soon
And lebron not trying on defense at all
Here is the reality of the situation and I hate to sound like I'm trying to defer blame from Westbrook's poor play. I must also point out that I am a fan of LeBron James and have him firmly in my top 5 all-time. His offensive performance this year, at his age, is probably the most impressive display of longevity I've ever seen.
With that said, LeBron deserves a lot of blame here, but no one is paying attention enough to see it. David has done a great job of showing the stats for how poorly the Lakers are performing on defense, but watching the games is more than enough. They absolutely stink. LeBron is a terrible rim-protector. Teams have lay-up lines against the Lakers. They refuse to play Dwight Howard regardless of how much better he is at protecting the basket. LeBron WANTS to play center to add to the narrative that he can play all 5 positions effectively and of course the media and basketball fans are eating it up. Do not get this confused. Anyone whom has unbiasedly watch LeBron's career knows that he is a master of manipulating narratives.
Furthermore, it is glaringly obvious that the Lakers are taking the ball out of Westbrook's hands. Of course they are using his turnovers and shooting percentage (regardless of the fact that it's higher than other All-Star guards) as an excuse to do so. Westbrook and Vogel's post-game comments have alluded to this several times.
I've seen the narrative that a traditional center clogs the paint for Westbrook, but he spent the vast majority of his career playing with bigs such as Steven Adams and even recently as last year, Daniel Gafford. Westbrook and Howard lineups have actually performed relatively well this year. The truth is that LeBron is historically the one whom prefers to play with bigs that stretch the floor. Of course, the narrative has spun to, "The Lakers NEED to play LeBron at center because Westbrook is a non-shooter".
Supposedly, Westbrook was brought in to take the load off of James and Davis whom have not played full seasons as Lakers. If you are a 37 year-old LeBron and have been injury riddled since you joined the Lakers, why would you take the ball out of a HOF point guards hands? Why risk injury adding to your work load on both ends of the floor? The answer is very clear - to control the narrative and rid himself of all blame. Winning is probably very important to him, but trust me, he wants that scoring record more than anything. He needs a scapegoat just in case his last couple years as a Laker goes down in flames. If one assumes these decisions are purely from the coaching staff then they are fooling themselves based on the level of control LeBron has fought for his entire career.
Westbrook needs to perform better. He knows it and it's clear that he is not happy with his own level of play. He is not the same level of player he used to be, but let the basketball world tell it, he doesn't even belong in the NBA right now. However, the Lakers are not putting him in a position to be successful, and I guarantee you they do not care as much as attending to LeBron's desires.
My take on this is quite controversial, but it is what it is. I've been watching basketball for a very long time and many things stick out to me that flies way over majority of people's heads. My only hope is the Lakers get healthy and LeBron acts as a real leader and allow his teammates to play to their strengths.
Marcel:
I agree that Westbrook's FG shooting and FT shooting have not been great. Some players have weird and inexplicable variations in their FT shooting. Tim Duncan would shoot .800 one year and then in the low 60s in other years. Westbrook was a consistent .800+ FT shooter for the first nine years of his career before dropping to .737 in 2017-18, and he has been below .660 three of the past four years. There is no good explanation for what happened, but he has still been a very effective player despite the strange drop in his FT percentage.
As I mentioned in my article, the Lakers have an efficient offense, so the notion that they need to add shooting makes no sense. The notion that Buddy Hield would help is, frankly, bizarre. He has never proven that he can contribute to a winning program; he looks a lot like one of Kenny Smith's proverbial "looters in a riot" (dudes that put up a lot of points for losing teams) and this season he is not even doing that much "looting": how is 15.3 ppg on .392 field goal shooting going to help the Lakers? Westbrook is shooting .437 from the field this season, and he is better than Hield in every skill set area. I know that Hield shoots a lot of threes and that he is a better three point shooter than Westbrook so his TS% is better than Westbrook's but replacing Westbrook's rebounding, passing, and energy with a guy whose only skill is three point shooting is not going to help the Lakers at all. Hield is an excellent free throw shooter but he attempts less than two free throws per game so his ability to make free throws is about as relevant in an NBA context as my ability to make free throws. If I need a stand in for Pop a Shot, I'll take Hield over Westbrook, but if I am trying to win NBA games I'll take Westbrook all day every day.
Kyle:
Yes, LeBron is a very shrewd person who understands narrative construction, understands public relations, and calculates his every move on and off the court in accordance with his understanding of those things.
He is playing at a remarkable level for any player and particularly for a player as old and experienced as he is, but you are right that he is setting up the narratives such that if the Lakers fail he will not be blamed.
It is also obvious that this "pass first" player is determined to break Kareem's all-time scoring record. I don't blame him at all for that, but it would be nice if he were honest about how important that is to him, and if he would be honest that he has always been a score first player who also passes well. Magic Johnson and Jason Kidd were pass first players, not LeBron.
David:
I like LeBron a lot, but asking him to be honest about anything pertaining to his public perception is the equivalent of asking a player like Bryant to be less serious about his work ethic. LeBron is an extremely disingenuous person and that trait is rooted from some deep psychological desires to be liked and accepted by everyone. It's who he is. That does not take away from his greatness nor does it make him a bad person. We all have our quirks in our personalities.
Marcel
I like heild cause he another shooter and they go well with lebron historically
Westbrook never made any sense
They didnt need another playmaker with bron
He always ran point forward
Westbrook been a spot up shooter and recently hasnt been a good defender
Idk what the lakers was thinking
Westbrook works 1 way
His style of play dont fit there
Demar derozan another that would of worked better
Withball that said if ad can come back and play at a high level they got a chance
I dont think
Phoenix
Gs
Memphis
Utah
Unbeatable but lakers gonna have to defend and not turn ball over
Hi David,
I do not think the Lakers are going to be a good fit for Westbrook while he is there. Not because I really doubt his talent, though he is aging and his game is deteriorating a bit, but because the leadership and team culture of the Lakers currently seems dysfunctional, on top of all the practical issues like team age and injuries.
LeBron is still an offensively dominant player but he has essentially become a negative on defense and his attitude and micromanaging of course has a very visible effect on morale and effort for the rest of the team. Anthony Davis is not reliable physically or as a leader. I do not think Westbrook can really assert himself or set standards, like he did last year with the Wizards, without running afoul of LeBron and the team culture that has established.
Obviously, there is so much talent and size here that they could still be dangerous when healthy as you have said, but I'm inclined to think this Lakers team peaked in the Bubble and that is generally downhill from here. I'm hoping to see Westbrook move to a better team fit like the Bucks after he reaches free agency next year.
Marcel:
I already analyzed why Hield would not be a good addition for the Lakers, so I am not going to revisit that subject.
As noted above, the main issues for the Lakers are poor defense, and the lack of a healthy/motivated Davis. If Davis becomes healthy/motivated, "suddenly" the Lakers will be very difficult to beat. If not, the Lakers will most likely continue to play at their current level.
Keith:
LeBron always seems to be surrounded by drama. He has been the de facto GM of every one of his teams except possibly the Heat (after he put together the Big Three, he probably had less influence in Miami than in any other situation he has been in during his career). It is worth recalling that after LeBron left Miami, Pat Riley mentioned "no more smiling faces with hidden agendas," and it was obvious that he was speaking about one particular smiling face named LeBron. Miami, the only team that LeBron did not run, is also the only team that managed to remain relevant after he left.
LeBron brings winning wherever he goes, but he also brings a lot of drama, and he does not create a sustainable positive culture. The culture is cater to LeBron/marvel at his prodigious talents, and that act will grow old at some point when LeBron's talents are less prodigious. That being said, he brought a title to the Lakers as an "older" player and, individually, he is still remarkably productive, so he likely will not receive much blame even if the Lakers go down in flames. The only way he will be blamed is if Davis returns, plays well, and the Lakers lose because LeBron quits (the way that he did at the end of his first stint in Cleveland and during his first Finals with Miami). It does not seem likely that LeBron will end his career on that kind of a sour note.
Westbrook is who any rational person thought he was: a 20-25 ppg scorer who is an elite rebounder and passer, and who is capable of playing above average defense--and someone who is not a great perimeter shooter or a great free throw shooter, or a judicious ballhandler (the turnovers are the "price" of his fast paced style and the number of possessions that end with him getting a rebound or an assist). He is not as good as he was four or five years ago, but he actually is still a top five point guard, even if few people will believe or acknowledge that.
It is interesting that so many people made a fuss about how great the Wizards looked at the start of the season. I predicted that the Wizards would not be that good because teams that lose an MVP caliber player generally struggle; of course, the counter-narrative is that Westbrook is not that good and thus easy to replace, so many media members were happy to talk up the Wizards when the Wizards were playing well. Now the Wizards are dropping like a rock in the standings, but no one is mentioning that the Wizards miss Westbrook's leadership, energy, playmaking, and rebounding.
It is also interesting that Stephen Curry can play poorly and inefficiently for several weeks and still be considered a top MVP candidate, but Westbrook's entire career/legacy are attacked every time he has what is perceived to be a bad game. Media members are relentless at propaganda, but not very effective at hiding their motives/preferred narratives, perhaps because they feel no need to conceal their biases.
David:
Westbrook and Bryant (I would probably include Iverson in there too) are the easiest targets whenever their team loses and the focus will always be on either their FGAs, FG%, +/- or TOs. James on the other hand has the luxury and media love that when his team wins it's all due to him, and when they lose it's because of his teammates.
There is no question about his greatness and place in the history of the game, but I find a lot of his actions/words are for building the narratives and not so much on winning. For instance, even though this year his numbers are great but if you watch him play there is a lack of effort defensively and he just dominates the ball dribbling too much and playing 1 on 1 against mismatches. If his teammates get scored on you can see the disgust on his face. He always talks about being a 'pass first' player and this and that (the media and fans believes him too), but you can tell he cares about his points and FG%. In fact, he is more of a stat-padder than Westbrook ever was. There was a game last week he was checking the stat sheet mid game...He loves to get his numbers in rubbish time i.e. he becomes more aggressive than he was during crunch time. The other thing that annoys me a lot is when he breaks a record BUT his team loses, he would post on instagram about his achievement straight after the game. SO MUCH ABOUT WINNING.
Anonymous:
Yes, Westbrook, Bryant, and Iverson are easy targets for criticism, and one of the main reasons is the emergence of proprietary "advanced basketball statistics" formulas. Each person who created a proprietary formula promoted the supposed accuracy and objectivity of his formula, even though many of these formulas are demonstrably not accurate and not objective. By accident or perhaps by design, many of these formulas do not rank Bryant, Iverson, and Westbrook particularly highly. Therefore, these "stat gurus" have a major financial incentive (selling books, selling articles, being hired by ESPN, being hired by NBA teams as advisors or even as executives) to promote narratives that demean Bryant, Iverson, and Westbrook.
There are no doubt also racial/cultural motives behind some of the criticism (more so regarding Iverson than the other two players), and another factor is that many media members lack the capacity and/or willingness to do objective skill set analysis. Many media members have also latched onto "advanced basketball statistics" as a way to advance their careers and raise their profiles even if they are not "stat gurus" (Henry Abbott did this for many years with his ESPN blog, promoting one particular "stat guru" and also highly touting the dude in Dallas who has feuded with Doncic--the same dude whose "advanced basketball statistics" have been so valuable for the Mavs that the team has not won a playoff series since the 2011 NBA Finals, yet Abbott and other media fans of "stat gurus" ignore the track record of failure).
It is not difficult to demonstrate the flawed logic and low level of technical writing/communication skills displayed by many of the most prominent NBA commentators/analysts. Some commentators have good communication skills but flawed logic (Bill Simmons is perhaps the most prominent example of that mixture; Mike Wilbon is another example--a top notch writer who is simply miscast as an NBA analyst), but many are seriously deficient in both areas (Stephen A. Smith).
It should be obvious that any "stat guru" who declares that he can accurately rank every NBA player to the tenth of a decimal point with an "objective" formula is touting nonsense. As I have discussed in previous articles, a major difference between baseball stats and basketball stats is that baseball is a station to station game of discrete actions, while basketball is a game involving 10 players moving at once. Many more things can be quantified accurately in baseball than can be quantified accurately in basketball.
David:
Very good points. Just wondering what is your take on my comments regarding James' stat padding and effort to control the narrative?
Anonymous:
I agree with you that James pads his stats, and that it is important to him to control the narrative. I have mentioned both points before.
Excellent analysis David and pretty much spot on. I'd like to add on a deeper layer to your "racial/cultural" point. This is a very uncomfortable topic for some, but I'll just go ahead and say it... non-threatening/docile/whatever-you-want-to-call-it players are typically favored in the media and by a lot of fans. Pay very close attention to typical media darlings and the players whom are usually absolved of criticism. This is not always intentional or malevolent, but very obvious when observed from a distance. The funniest part for me is Bryant, Westbrook, and Iverson are my 3 favorite players of the post-Jordan era. Naturally, I've never liked "advanced stats" because they are adversarial to players I tend to favor.
Kyle:
Thank you.
It is worth noting that both Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant had high praise for Westbrook from the beginning of his career. As the saying goes, "game recognizes game." Those who know the game know how valuable and unique Westbrook is. Unfortunately, those who do not know the game dominate the airwaves and the print media, so we are regularly bombarded with nonsense about Westbrook specifically and about the sport in general.
Post a Comment
<< Home