Durant's Absence Exposes Harden's Lack of Presence
Guess which team is the (not so) proud owner of the NBA's longest current losing streak? Must be the Lakers, right? They are in the news all the time, and the news is never good. Try again. Must be the Thunder, right? I mean, they all but openly admit that they are tanking, so a team that is trying to lose must have the longest winning streak. Nope, not the Thunder. Has to be the Rockets, the worst team in the Western Conference, right? Nope. Side note: has anyone noticed that the three teams that got rid of Russell Westbrook--Thunder, Rockets, Wizards--all look like trash right now? We used to see a lot of graphics showing how bad teams become after LeBron James leaves, though the media backed off of that narrative after the Miami Heat made it to the 2020 NBA Finals. Where are the slick graphics showing the records of the Thunder, Rockets, and Wizards since Westbrook left? I heard a lot of noise about how much the Wizards "improved" during the off-season, but that chatter sure has quieted down recently; could it be that getting rid of an MVP-caliber player actually has a negative impact on winning? If that player is Russell Westbrook then the media will never tell that story, so you will have to draw your own conclusions.
Which team has the NBA's longest current losing streak?
Let me present to you, your future Eastern Conference champions (according to many "experts")--the Brooklyn Nets, featuring the man, the myth, the legend--the greatest scorer in NBA history (according to Daryl Morey): James Harden. In case you missed last night's action, the "greatest scorer in NBA history" scored four points on 2-11 field goal shooting while posting a -21 plus/minus number as the Nets lost 112-101 to the mighty 19-34 Sacramento Kings. That .182 field goal percentage is Harden's worst of the season, and it is the 20th time this season that Harden has shot worse than .400 from the field--and it is not as if when Harden shoots horribly he makes up for it by being a defensive stopper.
Kevin Durant has played 36 games this season, averaging 29.3 ppg with shooting splits of .520/.372/.894, and the Nets are 24-12 in those games. The rules changes this season that enabled perimeter defensive players to play defense had zero impact on Durant's productivity and efficiency, because he never relied on being bailed out with phantom calls.
The Nets are 5-10 without Durant, including 2-7 as he missed the last nine games. I never quite believed in the Nets as a championship contender even at full strength--I expected that even if they could ride their talent to the Eastern Conference Finals, they (specifically Harden) would fold against an elite team. Harden is miscast as a number one option on a team with championship aspirations; I am not convinced that he could be the number two option on such a team, but I am open to being shown otherwise.
The Nets are 2-5 in Harden's last seven games. He has scored 21.3 ppg on .387 field goal shooting in those contests. Harden has a positive plus/minus number in one of those seven games (he was -8 in one of the wins), and he has a double digit negative plus/minus number in five of those games: not only are the Nets bad when Harden is the number one option, they are not even competitive when he is on the court. Interestingly, in the two recent games that Harden missed, the Nets lost by six to a good Denver team and the Nets lost by four to a Golden State team that is neck and neck with Phoenix for the best record in the league.
Harden's numbers and reputation received incredible boosts in Houston from Mike D'Antoni's gimmicky offense--an offense that has inflated the numbers of every starting point guard who has played for D'Antoni, from the sublime (Steve Nash) to the ordinary (Chris Duhon)--and the NBA's inexplicable and unjustifiable decision for several years to refuse to let perimeter defenders play defense, particularly against certain players whose reputation the league clearly wanted to burnish (Harden is foremost in that group, but he is not the only beneficiary). D'Antoni figured out how to mask Harden's weaknesses and deficiencies, and Houston's corresponding weaknesses and deficiencies, to win a lot of regular season games, but in the playoffs all of that smoke and mirrors added up to three second round losses plus one fluky Western Conference Finals berth.
Even D'Antoni might not be able to cover for Harden now that the NBA has outlawed "flop and flail." Harden has yet to post a 40 point game this season. Forcing Harden to play by the rules has had a cascading negative impact on his productivity and efficiency. He cannot rely on just getting 15-20 free throw attempts to cover up for the nights when he shoots poorly. He cannot get open as easily because defenders are no longer afraid to guard him closely. He is more reluctant to drive to the hoop because he sees little point in crashing into defenders if he is not going to be rewarded with unearned free throws for doing so. His free throw attempts per game are not even down dramatically from his career average, because he does know--to some extent--how to legally draw fouls. The point is that Harden can no longer rely on cheap fouls, and he can no longer play on an island while defenders put their hands behind their backs (as Gregg Popovich often instructed his players to do, presumably not only to avoid fouls but to also protest against the nonsensical way that the games were being officiated). Harden's field goal percentage (.414) and three point field goal percentage (.332) this season are both career lows, because there is a huge difference between shooting contested shots and shooting uncontested shots versus terrified defenders who are in foul trouble.
Harden is averaging 10.2 apg this season--second in the league behind Chris Paul--but I submit that Harden's assists are a function of the offense, and not of his talent. Why do I say that, and how can I prove that? The Nets are averaging 25.4 apg this season, ranking eighth in the league. If Harden plays an indispensable role in that playmaking then one would expect the team's assist numbers to drop when he does not play. Harden has missed seven games this season, and the Nets are averaging 24.4 apg during those games, which suggests that his playmaking is easily replaced. The Nets' record in those games is 3-4, but that includes an 0-3 mark in games that Durant missed; the Nets are 3-1 when Harden sits but Durant plays. In other words, Harden's gaudy assist totals are fungible; when he does not play, other players get assists, and the team's totals do not change. In contrast, consider Russell Westbrook's rebounds. Westbrook is often criticized as a stat chaser, and it is implied--if not stated--that his rebounds are fungible because he is either "stealing" them from teammates, or his teammates are simply conceding rebounds to him. If that were true, then Westbrook's teams would rebound just as well without him as they do with him--but, that is demonstrably not the case: Westbrook's teams rebound worse without him than with him, which indicates that his rebounds are not fungible. That raises an interesting question, considering that Harden is averaging 8.0 rpg this season. Are Harden's rebounds fungible? The Nets are averaging 45.1 rpg this season. The Nets have averaged 47.7 rpg in the seven games that Harden missed.
A person who watches basketball with an intelligent and unbiased eye understands that Harden is a stat padder who is not making significant contributions to team success, particularly in terms of lifting a team to championship contention--but even someone who is unwilling or unable to watch basketball with discernment can, with just a little investigation, put together evidence to demonstrate exactly what impact Harden (or any other player) has.
It is very telling that the major media outlets that cover the NBA do not provide this kind of analysis.
Say what you want about Kyrie Irving, but there is no question that he can perform at a high level under real basketball rules. This season he is averaging 23.6 ppg while shooting .482 from the field in 10 games. The Nets are 4-6 in those games, including 2-1 with Durant and 2-5 when Durant did not play. Irving is playing very well, but he is not good enough to make up for Harden.
I miss watching Durant play, and I wish him a speedy and complete recovery from his knee injury, but his absence is exposing Harden--and it is also exposing Harden's many fans in the media, who are really going to be grasping at straws to make excuses for Harden if Durant does not come back soon to save the day.
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, James Harden, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving
posted by David Friedman @ 10:17 PM
A Tribute to Hall of Fame Coach Bill Fitch
Bill Fitch, who coached the Boston Celtics to the first championship of the Larry Bird-Kevin McHale-Robert Parish era, passed away yesterday at the age of 89. Fitch led the Houston Rockets to the 1986 NBA Finals--where they lost to the Celtics as the Celtics won their third and final title of the Bird-McHale-Parish era--but despite those two NBA Finals runs he may be best known as a coach who could quickly build a bad team into a playoff team. Fitch did that for the first time with the Cleveland Cavaliers, guiding the team from a 15-67 record in its first season of existence (1970-71) to a 49-33 record and an Eastern Conference Finals appearance just five years later. Fitch won the first of his two NBA Coach of the Year awards in 1976.
After Fitch left Cleveland in 1979, he took the reins of a Boston team that had gone 29-53 in the season before the arrival of Larry Bird. Bird is often given the bulk of the credit for Boston improving to 61-21, but Fitch's coaching played an important role as well, as demonstrated by his track record of quickly turning teams around even when he did not have an all-time great like Bird on the roster. Fitch won his second Coach of the Year award in 1980. In four seasons with the Celtics, Fitch's squads won one championship and reached the Eastern Conference Finals three times. Fitch resigned in 1983. K.C. Jones, an assistant on Fitch's staff, succeeded Fitch and won two championships as Boston's coach (1984, 1986). I interviewed Jones, who passed away on December 25, 2020, in 2004 and he expressed great respect for Fitch.
Fitch next coached the Houston Rockets from 1983-88, inheriting a non-playoff team that he led to the playoffs for four straight seasons. Then, Fitch went to New Jersey, and helped the Nets improve from 26-56 the season before he arrived to 40-42 and a playoff appearance three years later. In his final NBA head coaching job, Fitch performed a similar revival with the L.A. Clippers, leading them to the 1997 playoffs, but he was fired after the Clippers regressed in 1998. The Clippers went through five coaches in nine years before reaching the playoffs again.
Fitch was dubbed "Captain Video" early in his career because of how much videotape he watched in his constant search for the slightest edge. He once said that he did not mind being teased about that, because he considered it an advantage that he watched more footage than anyone else did.
Fitch was inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2019. In 1996, the NBA famously selected its 50 Greatest Players List but as part of that 50tth anniversary celebration the league also honored its 10 Greatest Coaches, and Fitch was on that prestigious list.
Labels: Bill Fitch, Boston Celtics, Cleveland Cavaliers, Houston Rockets, L.A. Clippers, New Jersey Nets
posted by David Friedman @ 11:39 PM
NBA Unveils New Kobe Bryant All-Star Game MVP Trophy
The NBA previously named the All-Star Game MVP trophy after
Kobe Bryant, who tied Bob Pettit's record by winning four All-Star Game MVPs. This year, the NBA unveiled a new, glittering version of the Kobe Bryant Trophy.
In an official press release, the NBA explained the meaning of each design and symbol on the beautifully crafted trophy:
"The new Kobe Bryant Trophy further celebrates its namesake, with intricate details holding dual meanings, both for NBA All-Star and Bryant’s legendary career, which include the following:
• Base Dimension: The eight-sided base represents the eight decades of NBA All-Star Games and is a nod to Bryant’s No. 8 jersey number. The 18 stars around the trophy represent his 18 All-Star selections. The base height of 2 inches is a nod to Bryant’s 2002 Kia NBA All-Star MVP.
• Level 1: The 24 stars represent each All-Star in the game and Bryant’s No. 24 jersey number. The 7-inch height is a nod to Bryant’s 2007 Kia NBA All-Star MVP.
• Level 2: The 10 stars represent the All-Star Game starters and Bryant’s USA Basketball No. 10 jersey. The 9-inch height is a nod to Bryant’s 2009 Kia NBA All-Star MVP.
• Level 3: The five stars represent the unity of an NBA team and Bryant’s five NBA championships. The 11-inch height is a nod to his 2011 Kia NBA All-Star MVP."
Bryant understood that the All-Star Game is a fun event for the fans, but even more importantly he understood that the most fun part is the competition. I hope that every winner of the Kobe Bryant Trophy lives up to Bryant's competitive spirit.
Labels: Kobe Bryant, NBA All-Star Game
posted by David Friedman @ 9:31 PM
Fun With Field Goal Percentages
Many NBA commentators obsess about field goal percentages, and throw around numbers devoid of historical context, and without consideration of how matchups, rules, and other factors may have impacted those field goal percentages. We are told that high field goal percentages are good, low field goal percentages are bad, and there is nothing else that we need to know. The reality is that a player who can create a shot for himself and create shots for his teammates is more valuable than a player who lacks such skills, even if the player with shot creation skills has a lower field goal percentage than the shooting specialist.
Commentators who focus on field goal percentages are very selective about which players they choose to discuss and how they choose to discuss those players, as I noted in Fun With NBA Finals Field Goal Percentages.
Here are the field goal percentages and three point field goal percentages for three NBA players since December 1, 2021:
Player 1: .386/.346 (26 games)
Player 2: .424/.307 (21 games)
Player 3: .442 /.301 (27 games)
Please identify the MVP candidate, the likely All-Star, and the player who does not have a chance of being named an All-Star this season.
We are told that shooting is the most important skill in today's game, and that three point shooting is the most important kind of shooting, in contrast to post play (which we are told is inefficient and obsolete). We are told that if you can't shoot then it is difficult to justify putting you on the court, let alone selecting you as an All-Star.
In case you have not figured it out (or looked it up), Player 1 is Stephen Curry, Player 2 is James Harden, and Player 3 is Russell Westbrook.
Curry is shooting worse than .400 from the field since December 1, a span that covers more than half of the season to date. At what point do commentators acknowledge that this is not a "slump," but rather this is who Curry is right now? Maybe Curry will figure out how to shoot well again, maybe he is a declining player, maybe he is struggling to score now that the NBA is allowing defensive players to play more physically (at least sometimes)--but whatever the cause of his current shooting, and regardless of what may happen in the future, right now Curry is a below average shooter, and shooting is Curry's main value.
It is interesting to note that the Warriors are winning despite Curry's poor shooting. Some may argue that the Warriors are winning because of Curry's "gravity" creating openings for others--but has such an excuse ever been made for a player who shot worse than .400 from the field for such an extended period of games? A more realistic explanation is that the Warriors are overcoming Curry's poor shooting because they have a lot of talented players, and they are a very good defensive team.
Curry finished first in All-Star balloting among Western Conference guards. He will be an All-Star starter, and his name is regularly mentioned in MVP discussions. Curry was often described as the leading MVP candidate this season, but his "slump" has lasted so long that even his biggest fans are slowly realizing how foolish it sounds to rank him as the leading MVP candidate when Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antekounmpo, and Joel Embiid are not only shooting better than Curry but they are bigger players who are dominating games in multiple ways.
Harden finished fourth in All-Star balloting among Eastern Conference guards, so he will not be a starter, but it will be a surprise if he is not selected as a reserve.
Westbrook received little support in the All-Star balloting, and it will be very surprising if he is selected as an All-Star this season. Westbrook has never been a great shooter, and his field goal shooting/three point shooting this season is in line with his career averages, as are his per minute rebounding and turnover numbers. His assists per minute are down a little bit, but that is what happens to any playmaker who shares the court with LeBron James. Just to be clear, the point is not that Westbrook was or is overrated. The point is that Westbrook is the same player now that he has always been both in terms of shooting efficiency and his floor game; as Hubie Brown noted, Westbrook never cheats the game. Westbrook's problems are (1) his role has been reduced, (2) his team is not performing well for reasons that are largely beyond his control, and (3) many media members have decided to make him the scapegoat for the Lakers' failure to meet high preseason expectations.
The point is not that Westbrook should be an All-Star this season, or that Curry and Harden should not be All-Stars. The point is that media-driven narratives are often based on agendas, not objective reality. We are bombarded with the narrative that Westbrook is having a terrible season and that he is the main reason that the Lakers are performing below expectations, but little is said about Harden's struggles, and almost nothing is said about Curry's poor shooting--and the little that is said about Curry either minimizes his inefficient shooting and/or asserts (with no evidence) that Curry is having a positive impact on winning despite not shooting well.
A conversation rooted in the reality that Westbrook is, in many ways, the same player that he has been when he was properly recognized as an All-Star and an MVP candidate would flow much differently than a conversation rooted in the unfounded allegation that Westbrook has suddenly declined and is no longer an effective player.
Similarly, a conversation rooted in the reality that Curry has been shooting poorly for most of this season would flow much differently than a conversation rooted in the unfounded notion that Curry is merely in a "slump" and that his "gravity" is more meaningful than his shooting percentages. Likewise, a conversation rooted in the reality that Harden struggles to score when defensive players are permitted to guard him without being called for cheap (i.e., non-existent) fouls would flow much differently than conversation that pretends that Harden is a an elite scorer under any rules set.
Curry shot 5-18 from the field (including 3-10 from three point range) as his Golden State Warriors barely won at home (110-106) versus a Brooklyn Nets team that is without the services of Kevin Durant and James Harden. A crucial late game play involved a phantom foul call in Curry's favor when he leaped into the defender, exactly the kind of shenanigans that the NBA vowed to eliminate this season--and that the NBA has, to a large extent, minimized thus far. ABC's Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson both immediately pointed out that this was a bad call, that the NBA is supposedly eliminating such calls from the game, and that the timing of this call had a big impact on the result of the game.
I generally don't believe conspiracy theories, and I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory here, but I am concerned that the NBA has noted with chagrin the struggles of Curry, Harden, and other players who have often relied on such shenanigans, and that the NBA may in general be loosening the way such fouls are being called. Again, I am not saying that the NBA is deliberately and overtly favoring specific players or specific teams with specific calls to change the outcome of a given game. My point is that Harden had great difficulty drawing fouls during the first portion of the season, but recently his free throw attempts have increased (though his field goal percentage has been bad throughout the season). Maybe Harden is adjusting to how the game is being officiated, but from what I have seen the NBA is "adjusting" to how poorly some of its marquee players are shooting. This would not be the first time that the NBA announced an officiating "point of emphasis" at the start of the season, and then gradually began not emphasizing that point as the season progressed.
Curry has been an MVP-level player in previous seasons. Harden has been an All-Star level player in previous seasons, and a case could be made that he is still an All-Star level player. However, there is no question that both players have benefited from the way that the game has been officiated in recent seasons, and the way that the strategic emphasis has switched from good shot selection to maximizing the number of three pointers attempted. If Curry and Harden struggle to shoot .400 in an NBA that is slightly more physical in 2022 than it was in 2021, let's put to rest the notion that they would have been 30+ ppg scorers in the 1980s and 1990s; take away the outlandish number of three point attempts, and take away not only the gift free throws but also the advantage of the space that is created because defensive players are wary of being called for fouls, and you take away the advantages that transform Curry and Harden from 20-22 ppg scorers to 30+ ppg scorers. That is not an agenda-based narrative; that is an assertion based on facts and observations.
Labels: James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 12:46 AM
