Hubie Brown Analyzes Russell Westbrook and the L.A. Lakers
The L.A. Lakers, sans LeBron James and Anthony Davis (both of whom elected to sit out), struggled mightily in the first half tonight against a young Charlotte Hornets team that won eight of its previous 11 games, including a record-setting 158-126 rout of the Indiana Pacers. The Lakers trailed by as many as 20 points, and it should surprise no one that ESPN's halftime show--"led" by Screamin' A. Smith--placed a lot of the blame on Russell Westbrook. Make no mistake that Westbrook struggled in the first half: he posted a -27 plus/minus number in the first half, tying the worst half of his illustrious career, and he scored just five points on 1-3 field goal shooting.
Hubie Brown, perhaps the best NBA color commentator of all-time, is 88 years old and he works a limited schedule of ESPN games now, but he is still at or near the top of his game, and he is still providing nuggets of wisdom. While others mindlessly bash Westbrook and blame Westbrook for all of the Lakers' problems, Brown reminded viewers that Westbrook has been a 10+ rpg player when only 10-12 players do that per season, he has been a 10+ apg player when only two to three players do that per season, and he has been an elite scorer as well. Brown said that it is tough watching such a great player struggle--but Brown said that when he watches the Lakers he wonders where is the continuity, where are the shooters/scorers with James and Davis out of the lineup, and what more can Westbrook do other than attack the paint and create open shots: "If you're Russell Westbrook, you're exasperated. You are driving to the hoop, you are creating, and guys are just missing shots in their areas."
In other words, even when Westbrook was clearly not having a good game, Brown resisted the temptation to just pile on and bash Westbrook. Instead, Brown noted that Westbrook has played at a high level for a long time, and that the Lakers' problems run a lot deeper than Westbrook not playing at a high level for one half.
One important thing to remember about Westbrook is that he never quits. He does not cheat the game, the fans, or himself.
During the telecast, Brown also mentioned that what made Michael Jordan
(Charlotte's majority owner) great was not only his skills as a shooter
and passer, but (1) his relentless effort every game on defense and (2)
his "attendance" (other than his second season when he broke his foot,
and his second to last season when he was 39 years old, Jordan rarely
missed a game). "Attendance" has become a major issue in the NBA for
quite some due due to "load management."
Despite his hard-charging playing style, and despite having multiple knee surgeries, Westbrook rarely misses games; he has played in all 50 games this season. It used to be a badge of honor to play all 82 games, but that spirit has almost disappeared from the NBA with the exception of Westbrook and a few select others.
I know from personal observation that many beat writers like to write their game stories at halftime, particularly during blowouts. I wonder how much those stories had to be rewritten after what happened in the second half?
Westbrook scored 14 points on 5-10 field goal shooting in the third quarter, and the Lakers rallied to tie the score at 84. There
is a reason that smart coaches may bench reserve players who are not
playing well but tend to give star players more leeway--a star player,
even when he hits a rough patch for a quarter or a half, has the
necessary talent and mental toughness to erupt at any time.
The Lakers fell behind in the fourth quarter, but Westbrook scored 11 straight points for the Lakers as they cut the margin to 115-112 after he made back to back three pointers. The Lakers trailed by two (116-114) when Westbrook inbounded the ball with less than 10 seconds remaining. He received the return pass, probed with his dribble, and then went for the win with a three point shot that did not connect.
It is easy for armchair warriors to say that Westbrook should attack the
paint on every play. When it is the final possession, the defender is
giving him space, and his teammates have not been shooting well, an
uncontested three point shot for the win may be at least as good of an option as a
contested paint shot for the tie.
Brown rightly pointed out that Westbrook had been making the three pointer tonight, and
that after the defender backed off Westbrook had an opening to go for
the win. "You saw what happened. The man defending him took a step back,
and he felt that he was open. You can second guess...but that's why
when you are a great player when you make it it's great but when you
miss it it's tough, but he is a warrior."
Westbrook scored the most points in a half (30) by a Laker since Kobe Bryant's final game--but Westbrook missed a three pointer on the final possession with the Lakers down by two, and that miss will no doubt be the main thing that many commentators focus on when discussing this game. Westbrook finished with a game-high 35 points on 12-23 field goal shooting, including 3-7 from three point range. He had five assists, four rebounds, and just one turnover. This was his first game as a Laker playing without both James and Davis. Westbrook's second half dominance should quiet the notion that he is a declining player; he is an All-Star caliber player who is trying to figure out how to fit in on a team that has yet to establish its identity, other than that everything revolves around James (when James decides to play) as James chases Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's regular season career scoring record. Westbrook does not complain about his role, nor does he complain about not having enough help. He is a hooper, and he hoops.
Brown declared of Westbrook, "I'm happy for him. He never quit on himself. He keeps playing hard...He knows that he is going to get hit (driving to the hoop) but he punishes himself because he wants to win the game...He took over this game in the third quarter, and you love to see it because that is who he is. You can knock him, you can say you don't like him, but he plays hard and he earns his money every night."
Labels: Charlotte Hornets, Hubie Brown, L.A. Lakers, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 11:22 PM
Examining the NBA's All-Star Selection Process
I am not shy about criticizing media members who betray their ignorance every time they write a word and/or open their mouths, but when you look at the NBA's All-Star voting process it is evident that media members take this responsibility more seriously and handle this responsibility with more collective intelligence than either the fans or the players.
The NBA All-Star voting process has been changed several times. From 1951-60, media members selected five starters and three reserves for each conference, while the coaches selected two reserves for each conference. In 1961, the All-Star rosters were expanded to 12 players in each conference, with the media members selecting five starters and three reserves for each conference and the coaches selecting four reserves for each conference.
Beginning in 1975, fans who attended games filled out ballots to select the starters by position for both conferences, and then the coaches selected the reserve players, with the proviso that a coach cannot vote for one of his players. In 2013, the league abandoned the traditional positional designations (two guards, two forwards, one center) in favor of designating three frontcourt players and two backcourt players.
Prior to the 2018 NBA All-Star Game, the league changed the voting process again: since that time, All-Star starters are selected via a weighted voting process in which fan voting counts for 50%, player voting counts for 25%, and media voting counts for 25%. Fans can vote early and often online without ever attending a game in person (and, quite possibly, without even seeing an NBA game). NBA coaches still select the reserves (and still are not permitted to choose their own players), but instead of the Eastern Conference playing against the Western Conference the two starters who received the most votes are designated as team captains, and they choose among the remaining 22 All-Stars to build the rosters.
In 2012, I asked Should Fans Select the All-Star Starters? and I concluded, "The All-Star selection process is not perfect--no system designed by
humans is perfect--but it works pretty well: fans are provided the
opportunity to vote for the All-Star starters not with the expectation
that they will provide definitive rankings of the top five players in
each conference but rather with the expectation that they will select
the five top players in each conference that they most want to see
perform in the All-Star Game; it is then up to the coaches to fill out
the rosters with the remaining top seven players in each conference." A review of the historical record shows that even on those occasions when the fans selected a player who was not a top five player in his conference that player was almost always a top 12 player; in other words, fan voting usually did not result in denying an All-Star selection to a worthy player.
One might think that including players in the voting process would make it more likely that only the best players are selected, but the sad reality is that many--if not most--players do not take the voting process seriously. How else can one explain the bizarre fact that this year 297 players received at least one player vote to be an All-Star starter? That is not an aberration, either, as the number of players receiving at least one player vote to be an All-Star starter has ranged from 249 to 310 since players were given the right to vote.
There will be 12 All-Stars selected from each conference, and perhaps an additional three to four players in each conference who are having All-Star caliber seasons, but there are not 25 players in each conference who deserve to be an All-Star, let alone 297 players in the league who deserve consideration as an All-Star starter.
The NBA received All-Star ballots from 323 players, and only four players appeared on at least half of the ballots: Kevin Durant, Giannis Antetokounmpo, LeBron James, and Nikola Jokic. More than half of the player ballots did not list Joel Embiid, who is not only a worthy All-Star starter but a serious MVP candidate.
Kyrie Irving, who has played in seven games, received more player votes (25) than Jimmy Butler (23), who has helped lead the Miami Heat to the best record in the East.
Ben Simmons, who has elected to not appear in a game this season despite being under contract with the 76ers, received two player votes.
At least Simmons is an All-Star caliber player when he plays. How can you explain that Moses Wright received two player votes to be an All-Star starter? With all due respect to Moses Wright and his journey to play in the NBA, there is no way that he should be receiving votes as an All-Star starter, particularly from players who justifiably complain about media members but then forfeit their credibility by not treating All-Star voting as an important responsibility.
If the players are not going to take All-Star voting seriously then their voting privileges should be taken away before this situation gets more out of control, and we end up not just with bench players receiving votes but instead an unqualified player actually being selected as an All-Star starter.
In contrast, the media voters concentrated their votes among a select group of players, and each player who received at least one media vote is having an All-Star caliber season.
You may wonder why I am harsher on players who make random votes than I am on fans who make random votes. For example, Klay Thompson--who just returned to action after missing more than two years due to multiple injuries--finished fourth in fan voting and 13th in player voting among Western Conference guards. The distinction that I make is that it is that it is to be expected--but not justified or excused--that some fans vote for their favorite players even if those players are not playing at an All-Star level, but the players should be held to a higher standard, particularly if they are ever going to complain about media coverage, and about media voting for the All-NBA Team and the MVP. The two players who voted for Moses Wright should be forbidden from ever complaining about media coverage of the NBA, as should the players who voted for players who have not even appeared in a game this season and the players who voted for players who are not performing even close to All-Star level.
All-Star voting is not a joke. The number of All-Star selections that a player earns is a part of that
player's potential Hall of Fame resume, and a part of the historical
record regarding who were the best players in a particular era. It is a
shame that so many voters do not take this important process as
seriously as it should be taken.
The players are also responsible for the most significant issue regarding the NBA All-Star Game: far too many All-Stars treat the game as performance art and not competition. Yes, the NBA All-Star Game is an exhibition game, but players used to take it seriously and compete, and that has not been the case for several years.
Labels: NBA All-Star Game
posted by David Friedman @ 10:43 PM
Are "Clutch" Statistics Meaningful When Evaluating Players?
I already wrote about Russell Westbrook being benched. The Lakers lost that game to the Pacers, not making up any ground with Westbrook out of the game. There have been no lingering issues from Westbrook being benched: he has not griped, complained, or sulked, nor has he been benched again, and he has played well as the Lakers won two of their next three games (19.0 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 6.7 apg, .522 FG%). There are two underrated aspects of Westbrook's career:
1) His positive attitude--he never throws his coach or his teammates under the bus, and he does his best to fill whatever role is provided for him.
2) Every star player who has played alongside him has had a career season, from Kevin Durant to Paul George to James Harden to Bradley Beal to LeBron James, who at 37 years old is scoring at a clip that he has not matched in over a decade (including his years partnering with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh).
Westbrook's coaches and teammates have mentioned these traits, but most media members ignore any information that does not fit into their preconceived narratives. Remember that when Westbrook first entered the NBA we were told that he was not a real point guard and that he would never be a good playmaker. The facts that Westbrook has won three assist titles, that he ranks ninth all-time with an 8.5 apg career average, and that he ranks 12th all-time with 8248 assists have not put the slightest dent in that preconceived narrative; we are still regularly told that Westbrook is a poor decision maker who does not make his teammates better, even though the evidence demonstrates that he is a great playmaker who helps star players have career seasons (he also led the 2017 Thunder to the sixth seed in the tough Western Conference even though that squad ranked last in three point field goal percentage).
Another preconceived narrative about Westbrook is that he is not effective in "clutch" situations, which is one of the justifications provided for benching him against Indiana.
In The Strengths and Limitations of "Advanced Basketball Statistics," I explained why so-called "clutch" statistics are, by and large, irrelevant if not ridiculous:
Roland Beech has done some nice research about game-winning shots
but, unfortunately, a lot of people borrow his data without bothering
to consider his conclusion: "Ultimately though while this kind of thing
is fun, it's not to my mind particularly meaningful, other than
indicating that the league as a whole could probably get more efficient
in 'end game' possessions...one easy place to start might be to try and
be less predictable! It's nice to have a go-to guy, but when the other
team knows without much doubt that a certain guy is getting the ball, it
is going to be a lot easier to defend!" Beech is right on target that
this data is both "fun" and "not...particularly meaningful" though I
think that he is a bit harsh regarding the alleged lack of efficiency on
"end game" possessions; he fails to consider two very important points:
(1) since this is a small sample size the shooting percentages are
disproportionately skewed downward by desperation heaves, broken plays,
etc.; (2) it is very difficult to score against a set NBA defense and it
is even more difficult to do so when your time is extremely limited,
particularly if you need a three pointer just to tie. When the time is
limited why would a coach design a play for someone other than his best
player? Anyway, most people have no idea how plays work in the first
place; no NBA coach is just giving the ball to one guy and saying,
"Shoot it" (unless there is only enough time to catch and shoot): you
give the ball to your best player because he is most capable of creating
his own shot, creating a shot for someone else if he gets trapped and
making free throws if he is fouled. You don't want to give the ball to
someone who cannot dribble or who cannot get a shot off or who is a bad
free throw shooter. When role players hit big shots it is usually after
the team's best player created an opening--but if you give the ball to
the role player first then you are asking him to do something he is not
comfortable doing. If "stat gurus" think that "clutch shooting"
percentages are low now just imagine what those percentages would look
like if coaches started drawing up plays for non-ballhandlers to catch
the ball at the top of the key with five seconds remaining.
I have consistently maintained that Being a Clutch Player is More Significant than Just Making Clutch Shots;
I have never pretended to know or even care which NBA player is the
best at making last second shots--but I am perplexed that so many "stat
gurus" (other than Beech) think that this is an important topic to
investigate ("stat gurus" famously do not believe in the so-called "hot
hand" so there is no reason for them to believe that a player will
perform much differently in some arbitrarily defined "clutch" moment
than at any other time); I am also amazed at the lack of intellectual
rigor displayed by the conclusions that have been loudly and repeatedly
stated in some quarters about this issue. Setting aside for a moment the
fact that "clutch shots" have not been universally defined in terms of
time remaining/score differential, regardless of how such shots are
categorized they comprise just a tiny, unrepresentative portion of a
player's total shot attempts--and within that small subset of "clutch
shots" there are in fact many different kinds of shots that cannot
reasonably be lumped together. For instance, consider two "clutch shots"
that Kobe Bryant recently attempted; near the end of the fourth quarter
versus Detroit, Bryant received the ball outside the three point line
in the top of the key area, took two strong dribbles and drained a
midrange pullup jumper to send the game into overtime; near the end of
overtime, with the Lakers trailing by three and the Pistons possibly
ready to foul rather than permit a three point attempt, Bryant caught
the ball well behind the three point line and quickly fired a shot that
missed. If you are a "stat guru" measuring "clutch shots" then you lump
in Bryant's desperation three pointer with his two dribble pullup,
combine it with some half court shots and other miscellaneous attempts
taken against a variety of defenses with differing amounts of time on
the clock and then you produce one field goal percentage that supposedly
provides a definitive measurement of Bryant's "clutchness." Does anyone
measure the "clutchness" of NFL quarterbacks by looking at their
completion percentages on "Hail Mary" passes? This stuff is so foolish
that I cannot believe that it is a topic for supposedly serious
discussion; the problems with sample size are so obvious that it should
be readily apparent that "clutch shot" data is, at best, a fun,
frivolous stat to consider lightly, and not something that is worthy of
in depth debate. If someone nails a lucky half court shot does that
prove that he is "clutch"? The reality is that most shots taken in the
final few seconds against a set defense are inherently low percentage
shots--but it should not be surprising to anyone that in the same game
Bryant calmly nailed a two dribble pullup (a shot that is a normal part
of his repertoire) and then missed a twisting, rushed, long three point
attempt; anyone who combines those two attempts into one "clutch
shooting percentage" and takes that number seriously is an idiot.
After Westbrook was benched, many media members scurried to dig up various statistics (from small sample sizes, naturally) to "prove" that Westbrook is an ineffective player in "clutch" situations or even in fourth quarters in general. Fourth quarter statistics from less than a half season of games are not very relevant or meaningful, but since so many people are determined to use those numbers to attack Westbrook it is worth noting that last season Westbrook ranked first in the league in clutch FG% (59.1) while scoring 105 points (fifth in the league), shooting .409 from three point range, and compiling a league best .659 eFG% (per StatMuse).
If a whole season of efficient "clutch" play does not impress you, then you should also consider that Westbrook made 15 go-ahead field goals in the final minute of play from 2017-2019, ranking first in the NBA.
I would not evaluate Westbrook or any other player based on arbitrary "clutch" statistics, but if this is going to be an ongoing discussion topic then the least that media members can do is acknowledge that there are "clutch" data points that contradict their preconceived narrative that Westbrook is not effective in such situations.
Labels: "clutch" statistics, L.A. Lakers, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 1:48 AM
Should the Brooklyn Nets be Considered a Legitimate Championship Contender?
The Brooklyn Nets assembled their Big Three--Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and James Harden--with one goal: championship or bust. This is not about winning MVPs, winning scoring titles, or making All-Star teams--if the Nets do not win at least one title, this Big Three will be viewed as a Big Bust.
Durant is a proven championship-level player who has won two championships and two NBA Finals MVPs--but he will be out of action for at least four to six weeks after injuring the MCL in his left knee. He missed the entire 2019-20 season after rupturing his right Achilles during the 2019 NBA Finals, he only played 35 regular season games last season, and he played just 36 games before hurting his knee this season. It is not certain when Durant will come back, how well he will play when he comes back, or how healthy he will be down the stretch.
Irving has proven that he can be the second best player on a championship team, but he also has proven to be injury prone and--for lack of a better word--flaky. Irving's decision to not be vaccinated for COVID-19 means that--unless the laws regarding vaccination change--he will only be able to play in the Nets' road games for the foreseeable future.
Harden is a proven regular season stat-padder, and a proven playoff choker: he reached the NBA Finals once as Oklahoma City's third option behind Durant and Russell Westbrook, and in the 2012 NBA Finals Harden averaged 12.4 ppg on .375 field goal shooting with 18 assists and 12 turnovers in five games. In the NBA over the past decade or so, few things are more predictable than Harden falling apart during the playoffs; in his last four game sevens his field goal percentages have been consistently subpar: 5-17, 4-15, 12-29, and 7-20. His only solid game seven shooting performance happened in the 2011 Western Conference semifinals when he shot 6-10 as the third option behind Durant and Westbrook.
A fully healthy Durant who gets at least minimal help from Irving, Harden, and the rest of the supporting cast can probably lead the Nets past most teams in the East during the playoffs, but it is difficult to picture the Nets beating the defending champion Milwaukee Bucks in a seven game series with Irving as a part-time player and Harden thus being relied upon as the second option when he is shaky even as the third option on a championship contender. The Bucks feature a young, durable, two-way superstar in Giannis Antetokounmpo, and he is flanked by reliable two-way players Khris Middleton and Jrue Holiday. When the Bucks are healthy, they have a roster that is blessed with size and depth.
The Bucks match up very well with any team, including the Nets. Despite
the uncertainty swirling around the Nets, the Nets are still listed as
the odds-on favorites to win the 2022 NBA title. Before you make that
wager, local Nets fans may want to review some key NY sports betting info to find a site that offers the best odds. It's still early in the
season and the odds can change, but it's a good time to start tracking
those numbers now.
Due to his knee injury, Durant has missed the Nets' last four games. Harden shot 5-12 and 7-21 from the field as the Nets split the first two games (losing to Cleveland before beating Washington), and he posted a -26 plus/minus number overall in those games. Harden erupted for a 37 point triple double on Friday night as the Nets beat the Spurs; he shot 13-24 from the field while posting a +18 plus/minus number versus the Spurs. On Sunday night, Harden shot 4-13 from the field, and he had a game-high six turnovers as the Nets lost 136-125 to the mediocre Minnesota Timberwolves. Thus, in the last four games without Durant drawing the bulk of the defensive coverage, Harden has shot 29-70 from the field (.414) with one good game and three subpar games.
The Nets initially balked at utilizing Irving as a part-time player who is only available for road games, but after watching Harden shoot bricks and lead the league in turnovers per game during the first half of the season the team reconsidered that stance. Irving has now played in seven games this season, including the last four that Durant missed. The Nets are 4-3 with Irving, and he has posted a positive plus/minus number in five of those seven games (he had a plus/minus number of 0 in a six point loss to Portland, but that was actually the best plus/minus number among the Nets' starters--including pre-injury Durant, who was -15 versus Portland). Irving is averaging 23.4 ppg on .504 field goal shooting in those seven games.
It will be fascinating to watch the Nets navigate the next four to six weeks without Durant, with Irving only playing in road games, and with Harden trying to figure out how to consistently play basketball at an All-Star level now that "flop and flail" is out of favor. The Nets are clinging to the second spot in the East, but they are just two games ahead of sixth seed Philadelphia. Seven of their next 10 games are on the road, including visits to strong West teams Phoenix, Utah, and Denver. It does not seem likely that the Nets will maintain their current position in the standings after returning home from that stretch of games. The bizarre thing is that if the Nets slip to the fifth seed then Irving would be available for up to four playoff games per round, meaning that if the Nets won the 4-5 matchup in the first round then Irving would potentially be available for a road game seven versus the number one seed in the second round--but if the Nets stay in the top half of the draw then they could potentially be without Irving's services in any game seven played in Brooklyn.
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, James Harden, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving
posted by David Friedman @ 5:05 PM
