LeBron James Sets Scoring Record Invented by ESPN as Lakers Lose Again
Per ESPN, LeBron James just broke an unofficial record that no one had ever talked about prior to tonight: James has now scored more points in the regular season and playoffs combined than anyone in pro basketball history. I cannot recall hearing anyone ever speak about this "record" before tonight, but congratulations to James for breaking a record that is not in any record book. As a side note--and it is a side note for James--James' L.A. Lakers lost 117-115 to the Golden State Warriors. James' plus/minus number of -11 was the worst for any Laker as James fired up a game-high 27 field goal attempts while making just nine. James scored 26 points, he had a game-high 15 rebounds, and he tied Stephen Curry for game-high honors with eight assists. What does all of this mean? James is an incredibly talented basketball player who is posting gaudy box score statistics as a 37 year old--and James is laser focused on becoming the all-time regular season career scoring leader (which is an actual record, not a record made up tonight by ESPN).
James is attacking the hoop less than ever, averaging a career-low 5.6 free throw attempts per game, and he is shooting more three pointers than ever, averaging a career-high 7.8 three point attempts per game, 1.5 more than he has ever averaged before. Overall, James is averaging 21.0 field goal attempts per game, his highest number since 2007-08 when he won the scoring title. The fairy tale that James is doing everything that he can to help the Lakers win and that he does not care at all about the career regular season scoring record is hilarious but implausible.
I am not opposed to James chasing the scoring record; it is natural and understandable that he wants to break the sport's most prestigious record, a mark currently held by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and previously held by Wilt Chamberlain. I just reject the media narratives that James is a pass-first player and that James is always focused on team success more so than aggrandizing himself. Contrary to those narratives, James has always been a great scorer, and his scoring is an asset for his team when he attacks the hoop; also, James has always known how to manipulate his numbers (and influence media members who value having access to him) to support the narrative that he is doing all that he can do to help his team win. Who can blame a loss on a player who put up 26-15-8? James' talent is undeniable, but if you watched the Warriors-Lakers game with understanding then you know the difference between playing to win, and playing to accumulate statistics; that is not even to say that James played poorly--but it is to say that James could have increased the Lakers' win probability by attacking the hoop more often, and by encouraging Davis (who admires James) to attack the hoop more often as well.
A lot of nonsense is said and written about the Lakers' offense, but even with James misfiring from all angles the Lakers scored 115 points while shooting .466 from the field and .407 from three point range. The Lakers had just eight turnovers, four of which James committed. No, offense is not and has not been the problem. The problems are defense and rebounding. When you score 115 points on the road you should win, but the Lakers lost because of their leaky defense and their subpar rebounding; the smaller Warriors outrebounded the Lakers, 50-47.
According to the box score, Anthony Davis played 35 minutes, but he was invisible for long stretches, finishing with 16 points, seven rebounds, and four assists while shooting 5-13 from the field. Two years ago, he fulfilled his dream of winning a title while playing alongside LeBron James, and no one can be sure when Davis will play hard again.
It will be difficult to pin this loss on Russell Westbrook, but I am sure that media members will find a way to discredit Westbrook's 19 points on 7-13 field goal shooting, seven rebounds, five assists, and one turnover with a +2 plus/minus number (best among Laker starters).
Stephen Curry, widely recognized as the most powerful gravitational force in our solar system other than the sun, scored 24 points while shooting 7-17 from the field (including 1-8 from three point range). The star of the game was Klay Thompson, who scored a game-high 33 points on 12-22 field goal shooting, including 5-9 from behind the arc. Thompson poured in 16 points in the fourth quarter.
The Warriors are a deep and talented team that will be even deeper and more talented after the injured Draymond Green returns from injury. The Lakers are a top-heavy team whose best player has written off this season from a team standpoint; James recently said publicly that the Lakers are not on the same level as the defending champion Milwaukee Bucks and that the Lakers as presently constructed cannot reach that level. What James did not say--but his actions speak loudly--is that he is going to chase the career scoring record with all of his might while figuring out how to make sure that he is not blamed for the Lakers falling short of preseason expectations.
How good would the Lakers be if James consistently played defense, if he consistently attacked the hoop on offense, and if he figured out how to bring out the best in his teammates as opposed to viewing them as the cheering section for his record-chasing? How good would the Lakers be if Davis consistently played defense, if he did not act like he is fatally allergic to posting up, and if he showed even the slightest interest in dominating smaller, less talented players?
It is sad that it appears we will never find out the answers to those questions, because James and Davis are determined to not play hard enough and smart enough to provide those answers.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Golden State Warriors, Klay Thompson, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry
posted by David Friedman @ 11:55 PM
Nets Trade Disgruntled James Harden for Disgruntled 76er Ben Simmons
Violating the terms of a signed contract is a powerful bargaining tool, at least if you are a highly paid NBA star. Ben Simmons, under contract with the Philadelphia 76ers, decided prior to this season that he did not want to play for the team any more, so he has missed every game this season. James Harden, under contract with the Brooklyn Nets, decided that he did not want to play for the team any more, so he played indifferently, claimed to be injured, and made it clear that he will never play hard for the team again. Simmons and Harden leveraged their refusal to honor their signed contracts into obtaining what they wanted, and they have now been traded for each other: Simmons is going to Brooklyn along with Seth Curry, Andre Drummond, and two first round draft picks in exchange for Harden and Paul Millsap.
Right after the trade was announced, ESPN's Richard Jefferson correctly noted that everyone wants to win but there is a big difference between wanting to win and doing what is necessary to win: "At what point in time has James Harden ever done what it takes to win?" The answer to Jefferson's question is obvious: James Harden is soft and he is a fraud. He quits when the going gets even mildly difficult. Harden pouted his way out of Houston, played (relatively) hard for a little while in Brooklyn, and now he has pouted his way out of Brooklyn to work for 76ers "stat guru"/president of basketball operations Daryl Morey, the only person in the world who believes that Harden is a better scorer than Michael Jordan
Regardless of all of the breathless reporting about Simmons' mental state and Harden's hamstring, I am going to go out on what I believe to be a very sturdy limb: as soon as Harden and Simmons pass the mandatory physical exams required as part of any NBA trade, both will play for their new teams without any sign of physical or mental issues. I am not minimizing the importance of mental health in general or Simmons' mental health in particular, nor am I categorically stating that Harden is not injured enough to be missing games; I am just stating my opinion that, regardless of what others may be reporting, I expect that both players will be available to play very soon.
Assuming that both Harden and Simmons are healthy and available, how should this trade be evaluated? Here is a brief skill set evaluation of both players:
James Harden Scouting Report
Harden rebounds very well for a guard. He defends the post well for a guard. He is an excellent free throw shooter. He can make the two passes that every competent ballhandler in the NBA is expected to make in today's game: the drive and kick pass to the three point shooter in the corner, and the lob pass to a rolling big man off of a basic screen/roll action.
Harden is a traffic cone when he defends on the perimeter, and he generally trots back on defense as opposed to sprinting back on defense. His ability to draw fouls is highly dependent on how the game is officiated; he is the king of "flop and flail" but this season he has been affected more than any other star player by the NBA's belated decision to officiate games correctly and stop giving unfair advantages to perimeter scorers. Harden has a lengthy resume of playoff choking, and in general when he faces any sort of meaningful challenge he pouts and quits.
Ben Simmons Scouting Report
Simmons is an elite defender, rebounder, and passer. He owns a 15.9 ppg career scoring average with a .560 career field goal percentage. His size, length, and athleticism enable him to play multiple positions and have a significant impact at both ends of the court.
Simmons is a notoriously poor and reluctant outside shooter/free throw shooter. He often plays with a low motor and low energy level.
James Harden versus Ben Simmons
James Harden is a better scorer than Ben Simmons. Simmons is better than Harden in every other important skill set area: defense, rebounding, passing, ballhandling (per minute, during their careers Simmons has averaged more assists, more steals, and fewer turnovers than Harden; those numbers are not the only ways to evaluate ballhandling, but they are indicative that Simmons plays the "possession game" at both ends of the court better than Harden does). The 32 year old Harden has never kept himself in peak condition, and it is evident that this is catching up with him now. The 25 year old Simmons missed his first season due to a foot injury, but since that time he has been durable--at least until he refused to play this season.
Simmons is bigger, more athletic, and younger than Harden. He is better than Harden at everything except scoring. Assuming that Simmons is the same player when he returns to action that he was for his first four seasons, he is a better player now than Harden, and without question he is a better fit for the Nets, who need size, defense, and playmaking.
The other players and assets involved in the trade must also be mentioned.
Brooklyn is the clear winner of the "below the marquee" portion of this trade. Seth Curry is an elite three point shooter who is averaging a career-high 15.0 ppg this season. He will be a valuable rotation player for the Nets. Andre Drummond is a four-time rebounding champion who is averaging 8.8 rpg this season in just 18.4 mpg. He can provide a physical presence for a Nets team that lacks size and physicality. The two first round picks obviously will not help the Nets this season, but those are assets that can be used to acquire young talent either directly via the draft, or in future trades.
In contrast, Paul Millsap has averaged 3.4 ppg on .376 field goal shooting in 24 games this season. He is a four-time All-Star but he turned 37 today and it is difficult to picture him having much of an impact for Philadelphia.
This deal favors Brooklyn, but the key for the Nets' championship hopes is the healthy return of Kevin Durant. If Durant comes back soon and resumes playing at an MVP level then the Nets will be very dangerous, regardless of their playoff seeding. Without MVP level Durant, the Nets will not win a championship, or even a playoff series.
It is not hard to figure out what Morey is thinking. He believes that NBA championships are won by superstar players, and that it is worth it to get rid of even several quality players and first round draft picks to obtain a superstar player. The problem is not Morey's operating theory in this situation so much as how he is applying that theory in the real world. The bottom line is that James Harden is not a superstar who can lead a team to a championship--never was, never will be. Further, Harden does not mesh well with other star players because he (1) has a poor work ethic that permeates the team, (2) he monopolizes the ball, and (3) you cannot rely on him when the going gets tough.
One might argue that the 76ers won because they "gave up nothing" (i.e., a player who refuses to play for their team) to obtain an All-Star player. The main flaw with that assessment is that the 76ers did not "give up nothing": they gave up a 25 year old All-Star, an outstanding shooter who can start or provide instant offense as a reserve, an elite rebounder, and two first round draft picks in a league that considers first round draft picks to be very valuable assets. Simmons' decision to no longer play for Philadelphia tells us something about him, but it also tells us something about the ham-handed way that Morey's franchise dealt with their young star. If Simmons becomes a flop in Brooklyn, then perhaps we can conclude that the 76ers were smart to get rid of a non-performing asset--but if Simmons has a productive 10 year career with the Nets then this deal is a disaster for the 76ers unless the Embiid-Harden duo wins at least one championship. The 76ers have a small championship window, but they will be on the hook to pay Harden over $200 million (assuming that he signs a max level extension), which could turn out to be the worst contract in NBA history.
Embiid is a very gifted player but he is rarely in top condition and his playoff resume is littered with injuries and inconsistent play: he has appeared in seven playoff series but he shot .500 or better from the field in only two of those series, which speaks volumes about his shot selection and/or conditioning, because he is capable of being an efficient scorer. He has the necessary talent to be the best player on a championship team, but I would be surprised if he wins a title as the best player.
Harden has already proven that he cannot be the best player on a championship team. When he played for the Oklahoma City Thunder early in his career, he chafed at being the third option. One would assume that he understands the pecking order in Philadelphia, but time will tell. As Harden's skills decline and as the league moves away from rewarding "flop and flail," it is not clear if Harden can be the second best player on a championship team. The fit with Embiid and Harden looks clunky: they are two players who love playing isolation ball and who do not provide much value offensively when they are not playing isolation ball.
It will be amusing watching Harden's inevitable playoff collapse ensure that the 76ers are not rewarded for trying to "tank to the top."
Labels: Ben Simmons, Brooklyn Nets, Daryl Morey, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Kevin Durant, Philadelphia 76ers
posted by David Friedman @ 8:11 PM
News Flash: Lakers Can Lose to Lousy Teams Without Russell Westbrook in the Lineup!
The NBA's 2022 ironman, Russell Westbrook--who led the league in minutes played while not missing a single game heading into Wednesday night's action--did not play in the L.A. Lakers' game versus the Portland Trail Blazers. The Lakers announced that Westbrook is dealing with a back problem, which may at least partially explain Westbrook's recent struggles; he never complains about injuries, nor does he make excuses, so we will probably never know for sure.
Based on the commentary that intelligent basketball fans have suffered through during this season, one might expect that the Lakers--without Westbrook and facing a lousy Portland team sans the injured Damian Lillard and the recently-traded C.J. McCollum--would win by 20 or 30 points. In the immortal words of Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend!" LeBron James is now 30 points closer to setting the all-time career scoring record but he also had a team-worst -5 plus/minus number as the Lakers lost 107-105. After the Lakers' previous loss, James flatly declared that the Lakers are not at the same level as the reigning champion Milwaukee Bucks and are not capable of reaching that level as currently constructed. That is an interesting indictment of the roster built by the Lakers' de facto general manager: LeBron James.
Rumors are swirling that the Lakers feel like they have to trade Westbrook to salvage their season, to which I respond: Please, please, please trade Westbrook! The Lakers have misused Westbrook all season. He has led the league in assists three times and he averaged a triple double in four of the past five seasons, but the Lakers insist on having James monopolize the ball while Westbrook stays out of the way of James' pursuit of the all-time scoring record. We hear so much about James' ability to play all five positions, and his willingness to do whatever it takes for his teammates to shine and his team to win. Here's a novel thought: maybe the 6-9, 250 pound James should play power forward, the 7-0 Anthony Davis should play center, and Westbrook--the all-time triple double leader--should be the primary ballhandler. Are we supposed to believe that Westbrook--who just last season carried the Washington Wheeze-hards (I mean, Wizards) to the playoffs with Bradley Beal and not much else--cannot successfully choreograph an offense with two top 75 big men controlling the paint and running the floor? Westbrook is not the problem. One problem is that Davis has spent the whole season either tripping over himself and getting hurt, or else wandering around in a stupor, while James is conserving his energy on defense so that he can get his 25+ points every night. Another problem is that even though James' formidable skills have not declined much, his body clearly has; James has missed more games in his less than four seasons as a Laker than he missed in his first 15 seasons, and he clearly understands that he is in a race against time to pass Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the all-time scoring list before his body gives out. James' NBA level talent may last into his 40s, but his body's ability to stay healthy--and to recover from game to game--is in obvious and rapid decline.
I have the perfect trade for the Lakers: send Westbrook to Brooklyn for James Harden. James, Davis, and Harden are the "I don't want to be here" All-Stars, so throw them on the same team together and make them figure it out. James has spent his career seeking greener pastures and stacked teams, Davis forced his way out of New Orleans, and Harden has not been in shape since he unofficially went on strike when he forced his way out of Houston. If James does not appreciate playing alongside Westbrook--who plays hard, never makes excuses, and never throws his teammates under the bus--then let him have the James Harden Experience of bricked three pointers, defensive indifference, endless excuses, and relentless shade thrown toward teammates.
Westbrook would actually fit in well with Brooklyn, a team that needs a player who can push the pace and distribute the ball. Westbrook has a history of helping All-Star teammates play better than ever, and he has proven that he does not mind accepting a secondary scoring role.
The big rumor making the rounds is that the 76ers--whose president of basketball operations Daryl Morey loves Harden so much that he said with a straight face that Harden is a better offensive player than Michael Jordan--will trade conscientious objector Ben Simmons for James "My aching hamstring" Harden. By the way, all of the "insider reports" are hilarious. If you have absolutely no NBA connections whatsoever, how hard is it to figure out that (1) the 76ers would be better off trading Simmons than getting nothing of value for him as he sits out the season, (2) the Nets would like to get rid of malcontent Harden, and (3) Morey would move heaven and earth to acquire the player he considers to be the 21st century Michael Jordan? Yet, even though all of this is obvious, there are people who get paid a ton of money to provide "insider reports" that tell us things that are patently obvious. I don't know if the Harden-Simmons deal is going to happen or not, which means that I have at least one thing in common with the "insiders" (I hope that is the only thing that I have in common with them)--but I do know that both teams would like to make that deal on terms that they consider favorable.
Harden loved playing in Houston with a slightly past his prime Dwight Howard taking up space in the paint, so he will be thrilled sharing paint space and shot attempts with Joel Embiid. Embiid is the far superior player, but if he teams up with Harden he better get used to Harden jacking up shots from all angles.
No one knows where Simmons is mentally or physically. If he is even close to being mentally and physically ready to play, he could help the Nets as a playmaker, rebounder, and defender. The Nets have enough players who want and need to shoot the ball that they will not be overly perturbed by Simmons' reluctance to shoot.
A Westbrook for Harden trade is my unrealistic dream, but I will settle
for watching Harden's bricks make sure that the 76ers never win a title
as a reward for all of their tanking.
In all seriousness, I hope that the Lakers trade Westbrook. James and Davis are not committed to winning a title this season, but they are committed to letting Westbrook take the rap for the Lakers' underachieving season. The Lakers are fully capable of imploding without Westbrook, and that implosion will be difficult to blame on Westbrook if he finishes the season with a different team (particularly if that team uses Westbrook correctly and goes on a run down the stretch).
Labels: Anthony Davis, Ben Simmons, Brooklyn Nets, James Harden, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Philadelphia 76ers, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 1:29 AM
NBA Selects 15 Greatest Coaches as Part of 75th Anniversary Celebration
The NBA's 75th Anniversary Team included all 50 players selected in 1996 to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List, so it is surprising that the just-released list of 15 Greatest NBA coaches does not include all 10 of the coaches selected in 1996 to the NBA's 10 Greatest Coaches List. Here are the 10 coaches from the 1996 list (in alphabetical order):
Red Auerbach
Chuck Daly
Bill Fitch
Red Holzman
Phil Jackson
John Kundla
Don Nelson
Jack Ramsay
Pat Riley
Lenny Wilkens
A 43 member panel of current and former NBA coaches selected the just-released list of 15 Greatest Coaches. Here is that list (in alphabetical order):
Red Auerbach
Larry Brown
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
Phil Jackson
K.C. Jones
Steve Kerr
Don Nelson
Gregg Popovich
Jack Ramsay
Pat Riley
Doc Rivers
Jerry Sloan
Erik Spoelstra
Lenny Wilkens
Thus, Larry Brown, K.C. Jones, Steve Kerr, Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, Jerry Sloan, and Erik Spoelstra are new members of the list, while Bill Fitch and John Kundla missed the cut this time after appearing on the 1996 list.
If the NBA is taking the position that players should not be removed from All-Time Greatest Lists, then why remove coaches? Not only is this inconsistent in a general sense, but the exclusion of Kundla and Fitch is bizarre. Kundla led the Lakers to five championships, tied with Popovich and Riley for third in the all-time rankings behind only Jackson's 11 and Auerbach's nine. Taking out Kundla is a slap in the face not only to his great teams and great players, but to that entire era. Regarding Fitch, he ranks 11th all-time in regular season wins, he led the Celtics to the 1981 title, he coached the Rockets to the 1986 Finals, and he improved each team that he coached, from the expansion Cavaliers to the Celtics to the Rockets to the Nets to the Clippers. Fitch was legitimately ranked as a top 10 coach in 1996, and it is difficult to understand how he is not a top 15 coach now.
Larry Brown is considered one of the greatest basketball tacticians and teachers ever. He had not won an NBA title or reached the NBA Finals in 1996, but since that time he led his teams to three NBA Finals and he guided the Pistons to the 2004 championship. He clearly belongs on the list, and I have no problem with him being given one of the five new slots.
K.C. Jones may be one of the most underrated coaches of all-time. He won two titles (1984, 1986), and he ranks sixth all-time in regular season winning percentage. It makes sense to give him one of the five new slots.
Steve Kerr ranks sixth all-time with three titles (2015, 2017-18). He owns the best playoff winning percentage of all-time (.733), and he ranks third in regular season winning percentage (.694). He belongs on the list.
Gregg Popovich ranks third on the career regular season wins list, but he is just six wins away from passing Nelson and taking the number one spot. Popovich's regular season winning percentage has dropped to .659 (12th all-time) and will continue to drop because his current team is lousy, but--as mentioned above--he is tied for third all-time with five championships won (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014). He belongs on the list.
Doc Rivers ranks 10th in career wins but 37th in career winning percentage. Like Fitch, Rivers proved that he could take over bad teams and help them improve, a skill set that is valuable but also damages one's career winning percentage. Rivers led the Celtics to the 2008 title and the 2010 Finals. Rivers is an exceptional coach, and I have stood up for him many times when he received unjust criticism, including a lot of nonsense that Bill Simmons wrote about Rivers (part of a broader trend of arrogant media members assuming that they know a lot more about NBA coaching than they do). Rivers' 1993 book Those Who Love The Game is packed with insights and is a great read for anyone who wants to understand more about the NBA from the perspective of a savvy player (Rivers was still an active player when he co-wrote the book). However, Rivers also holds the coaching record for blowing 3-1 playoff series leads (three). Again, he is a very good coach and he has received unjust criticism in the past, but I would not rank him as one of the NBA's 15 greatest coaches. For sure, he is not a better coach than Kundla or Fitch.
Jerry Sloan and Nelson are the only coaches on either list who did not win a championship as a coach. Sloan led the Utah Jazz to two NBA Finals appearances (1997, 1998). Sloan ranks fourth in career regular season wins and 23rd in career regular season winning percentage. Sloan was a very good coach, but how can he be ranked ahead of five-time champion Kundla or one-time champion Fitch?
Erik Spoelstra ranks 24th in career regular season wins and 31st in career regular season winning percentage. He has led the Heat to two championships (2012-13) and five NBA Finals appearances (2011-14, 2020). Spoelstra has already established himself without question as a Hall of Fame coach, but is he really one of the 15 greatest NBA coaches of all-time?
There are several coaches who did not make either list who I would take over Rivers, Sloan, and Spoelstra. Alex Hannum won two NBA titles (1958, 1967) plus one ABA title (1969). He coached the only two teams to beat Bill Russell's Celtics in a playoff series. Bill Sharman's Lakers broke the regular season wins record set by Hannum's 76ers, and then they won the 1972 title. Tommy Heinsohn won two championships (1974, 1976) in a nine year coaching career, including a seven game triumph in 1974 against peak Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when Abdul-Jabbar was playing alongside Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson and Bobby Dandridge with the Milwaukee Bucks. Billy Cunningham led the 76ers to the 1983 championship with the greatest playoff record in NBA history up to that time (12-1; the 2001 Lakers went 15-1 in an expanded playoff format, and the 2017 Warriors went 16-1 after the playoff format was expanded again). Cunningham's 76ers had the best regular season record in the NBA for a six year span, and he ranks second in career regular season winning percentage (.698, just behind Jackson's .704). Cunningham ranks ninth in career playoff winning percentage.
Think of it this way: Who do you have to mention if you tell the story of the NBA decade by decade through the lens of coaching? John Kundla was the dominant coach in NBA history prior to Red Auerbach. Then Auerbach's Celtics dominated the late 1950s/early 1960s. Those Bill Russell-led Celtics--coached first by Auerbach and then by player-coach Russell--only lost two playoff series, both times to teams coached by Alex Hannum. Bill Sharman led the Lakers to their first title since moving to L.A. from Minneapolis. Red Holzman and Tommy Heinsohn were the only NBA coaches to win two titles in the 1970s. Lenny Wilkens led the Sonics to two Finals and one championship en route to setting the career regular season wins record (since broken, but he still ranks second).
Pat Riley, K.C. Jones, Chuck Daly, Bill Fitch, and Billy Cunningham were the championship coaches in the 1980s, which might have been the greatest decade in NBA history, featuring the Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, and the amazing talents of the young Michael Jordan. Phil Jackson was obviously the coach of the 1990s and the 2000s, leading dynasties in Chicago and then L.A. Popovich won five titles in a 15 year period. Larry Brown sustained excellence for decades, and won a title versus a Phil Jackson-coached team. Steve Kerr helmed the NBA's most recent dynasty, winning three titles in a four year span.
That adds up to 16 coaches. I am not sure how the league settled on 15 coaches for the 75th Anniversary Team, but if the NBA can have 76 players on its 75th Anniversary Team then it can have 16 coaches. With all due respect to the coaches who I left off--each of whom I greatly respect--I feel good about that list of 16; some teams and some eras are more defined by coaches than others, and the coaches I listed are the seminal coaches in NBA history. Perhaps the most difficult cut for me is Spoelstra, but we have seen LeBron James win four titles with three different coaches, so I am more comfortable picturing the Heat winning with a different coach than I am picturing some of these other teams winning with a different coach; I am pretty sure that Riley could have left the front office and coached those teams to titles had that been necessary. I think that Spoelstra is a great, Hall of Fame coach, and he is possibly even a top 20 coach, but he falls just outside of my top 16.
Earlier I said that I am puzzled by the NBA removing coaches from the 1996 list, but if we are keeping the new list to 15 (or 16) and removing coaches then Nelson and Ramsay--not Kundla and Fitch--have to go. Nelson
was an innovator and he is the all-time regular season wins leader
(until Popovich passes him soon) but he ranks 54th in career regular season winning percentage and he never reached the NBA Finals
despite coaching a lot of very talented teams. Ramsay won one title in a 21 year coaching career, never reached another Finals, and had a losing playoff record; he was a great TV/radio commentator and a respected tactician, but in my estimation he is not one of the top 15 or 16 NBA coaches of all-time.
Labels: All-Time NBA Team, Gregg Popovich, John Kundla, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Steve Kerr
posted by David Friedman @ 1:15 AM
Julius Erving Reminisces About UMASS, the ABA, and the NBA With George Karl
This interview took place a year ago, but it is still timely (and timeless): the February 9, 2021 episode of George Karl's podcast "Truth and Basketball" titled Dr. J and the Legacy of the ABA (with Julius Erving) includes some real gems about Julius Erving's basketball career from his college days at UMASS (Erving faced off against Karl's North Carolina squad in the 1971 NIT) to his ABA years with the Virginia Squires and New York Nets to his 11 seasons with the Philadelphia 76ers. Erving talks about playing with and against George Gervin--a subject that I have covered before but is always fun to revisit--and he also shares his memories of ABA stars Bobby Jones, James Silas, James Jones, Mack Calvin, "Super" John Williamson, and more.
Karl decries how the NBA ignores ABA history and statistics, and he correctly states that the ABA is an integral part of NBA history.
At the end of the podcast, Karl declares that Erving was one of the most dominant players in pro basketball history, on equal footing with Larry Bird and LeBron James, and Karl notes that students of basketball history understand this but he laments that casual fans do not appreciate Erving's greatness.
I detailed Erving's dominance in my four part series focusing on his underrated playoff career:
Labels: ABA, George Karl, Julius Erving, NBA, New York Nets, Philadelphia 76ers, Virginia Squires
posted by David Friedman @ 8:12 PM
How Should All-Star Injury Replacement Players be Selected?
Draymond Green will not be able to play in the All-Star Game due to injury. By rule, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver selects replacement All-Stars. Silver replaced Green, a forward, with a guard. Here are the statistics of two Western Conference guards so far this season:
Player #1: 18.4 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 7.7 apg, 1.1 spg, .437 FG%, .300 3FG%, .668 FT%, 34.7 mpg, 54 games played; team record: 26-28.
Player #2: 19.6 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 9.2 apg, 2.1 spg, .454 FG%, .316 3FG%, .740 FT%, 34.4 mpg, 47 games played; team record: 20-34.
Which player looks more like an All-Star to you? Can you guess who each player is, and which player Silver selected?
Player #1 is Russell Westbrook, who has been the subject of relentless criticism this season. Player #2 is Dejounte Murray. Silver selected Murray, whose San Antonio Spurs currently rank 12th in the Western Conference, six games behind Westbrook's L.A. Lakers.
I have no problem with Dejounte Murray being selected as an All-Star; he is a triple double threat who is also a potent scorer. I would not argue with anyone who says that Murray is having a slightly better season than Westbrook. However, the narratives about both players are fascinating contrasts: Murray is depicted as a rising star, while Westbrook is portrayed as a liability. It is also interesting that the importance of team success is often mentioned as one of the criteria for being selected as an All-Star, but Murray received the honor despite playing for a team that has one of the worst records in the NBA. One might argue that Murray is the number one option on his squad, so he is shouldering more of a load than Westbrook, who is the Lakers' third option behind LeBron James and Anthony Davis--but, if anything, that should not work in Murray's favor: since Murray is the Spurs' best player, he bears more responsibility for their record than Westbrook does for the Lakers' record. Also, the Spurs are built around Murray, so he not only has more opportunities to shoot, but he is able to get shots in his comfort zone, while Westbrook is often relegated to waiting off of the ball unless/until James and Davis decide to not shoot. Westbrook's durability and availability are worth noting, as he is one of a handful of NBA players to start every game in this tumultuous season marred by injuries, COVID protocols, and load management.
According to my research, the only player other than Westbrook to not be selected as an All-Star despite averaging at least 18 ppg, at least 7 rpg, and at least 7 apg is Fat Lever, who accomplished that statistical trifecta for three straight seasons (1987-89) while making the All-Star team once (Lever also made the All-Star team in 1990, a season during which he averaged 18.3/9.3/6.5). The list of 18-7-7 luminaries who made the All-Star team prior to this season includes Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, John Havlicek, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Fat Lever, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Russell Westbrook, Nikola Jokic, Luka Doncic, and James Harden. Westbrook is in the midst of his eighth straight such season, and he has already broken the record of six consecutive such seasons set by Robertson from 1961-66. Most 18-7-7 players were considered MVP candidates (with Lever as the only exception until Westbrook this season), and I am not aware of any such players being described in the disparaging terms that are constantly thrown at Westbrook.
It is fascinating that Robertson's accomplishment of averaging a triple double for an entire season was considered to be perhaps an unbreakable record until Westbrook did it, but now that Westbrook has done it four times in the past five seasons we are supposed to pretend that this is nothing special.
I understand why Murray is viewed as an All-Star, but it should be noted that he is not a demonstrably better player than Westbrook this season, that Westbrook is performing at an elite all-around statistical level, and Westbrook has been a more durable player for a team that has a better record. Silver is under no obligation to explain his thought process, so we will never know what selection criteria he used, if this was a close call, or if Westbrook even received any serious consideration.
It is strange that Silver replaced a forward with a guard. Objectively speaking, if a forward is unable to play then the forward who received the most votes--either from the fan/media/player voting and/or from the coach voting--should get that open spot. I understand why the Commissioner selects the replacement players--he wants to have the discretion to choose players who he thinks will be the most entertaining in order to boost TV ratings--but since the fans, media, players, and coaches already voted it would be more logical and consistent to just follow that process all the way.
Labels: Dejounte Murray, NBA All-Star Game, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 2:54 AM
