20 Second Timeout

NBA TV Film Room: Julius "Dr. J" Erving and Dominique "Human Highlight Film" Wilkins

NBA TV's "Film Room" tonight featured Kenny Smith interviewing Julius "Dr. J" Erving and Dominique "Human Highlight Film" Wilkins, two members of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team. Wilkins said that everyone in his generation was inspired by Erving, and Wilkins declared that he still considers Erving to be the greatest in-game dunker of all-time. Erving told Wilkins that he appreciates the compliment, and that he was inspired by "Jumping" Johnny Green, Connie Hawkins, and Wilt Chamberlain. Green's name may not be familiar to younger fans, but he was the fifth overall pick in the 1959 NBA Draft and he earned four All-Star selections during his 14 season career. Green lived near Erving when Erving was a child, and Erving recalls walking past Green's house on the way to school. Having a neighborhood hero who starred in the NBA influenced Erving.

Smith asked Erving and Wilkins about their different dunking styles: Erving is known for jumping off of one leg and gliding through the air, while Wilkins is known for jumping off of two legs and powering his way to the hoop. Erving explained that he not only was predominantly a one leg jumper but that he jumped with his left leg on "98%" of his dunks. The reason for this is a serious childhood injury to Erving's right leg; after that time, his left leg was always stronger, and Erving joked that his left leg was "bionic" like the Six Million Dollar Man's right arm. Wilkins recalled that in high school he usually jumped off of one leg but that he became a two leg jumper by accident in college after one play during which he jumped with two legs and noticed that doing so gave him greater stability when he was bumped in mid-air. After that, he focused on jumping off of two legs.

Smith asked Erving and Wilkins to name the best in-game dunkers past or present, excluding themselves. Erving mentioned Shawn Kemp, Karl Malone, Vince Carter, and Clyde Drexler, while Wilkins added these names to the list: David Thompson, Blake Griffin, John Collins, Kenny Walker, and Shaquille O'Neal. Smith noted that the ABA's 1976 Slam Dunk Contest took place mainly to showcase Erving versus Thompson. Erving agreed with that, and Wilkins added that dunkers are natural competitors who always want to see who is the best. 

Smith mentioned a hypothetical "Last Supper" of the six greatest dunkers of all-time. He said that Erving and Wilkins have to be on the list, and then Smith left it up to them to add four more dunkers. Erving suggested Vince Carter. Wilkins said that Michael Jordan has to be on the list, and then he said that he will finish the list off by including Zach LaVine and Aaron Gordon because in recent years those two players "brought the Dunk Contest back." Wilkins said that Gordon must have received more perfect 50s than anyone who has never won the Dunk Contest.

Smith said that he will have to be the "hater" in this conversation, because he does not place LaVine and Gordon at the same level as the other "Last Supper" dunkers because LaVine and Gordon do not do Dunk Contest quality dunks in games. Along those lines, later in the interview both Erving and Wilkins mentioned that they never did special preparation for Slam Dunk contests because during the Slam Dunk Contests they just did dunks that they regularly did during games. I have always found it more appealing to watch a dunker do a dunk that he could do in a game as opposed to watching a dunker jump over a car or blow out a candle or do other theatrics that have no relevance to playing basketball. The dunk is a high percentage shot, a way to intimidate opponents while inspiring teammates, and a form of artistic expression; for the past several years, the artistic expression component has been elevated way above the first two components, to the detriment of both the game overall and the Dunk Contest in particular.

Smith ended the interview with one final question for both players: How many points do they think they would average in today's game? Erving laughed and said that he had just been talking about this with Clyde Drexler. Erving said that today's game is much different because defensive players are not permitted to hand check on the perimeter, and he also pointed out that in today's game star players like Luka Doncic and Giannis Antetokounmpo bring the ball up the court all the time "and they are the first option." Erving said that he if played in today's game under those circumstances then he could average 40 ppg, but he also mentioned that this style of play may not be conducive to winning. I think that he is right on both counts. Erving was always a team-first, unselfish player, so even though he could average 40 ppg in today's game I suspect that he would have elected not to do that. Wilkins also said that he thinks he could average 40 ppg in today's game. Before younger fans object to what Erving and Wilkins said, keep in mind that players today who are less athletic and less efficient than Erving and Wilkins routinely average 27-30 ppg or more. 

After Film Room, NBA TV aired an episode of 75 Stories featuring profiles of Erving, Wilkins, George Gervin, and Dave Bing. Erving's New York Nets coach, Kevin Loughery, noted that in the 1976 ABA Finals Erving outplayed the Denver Nuggets frontcourt that featured three Hall of Famers in their primes: David Thompson, Dan Issel, and Bobby Jones. Loughery said that Erving does not get enough credit for his performance in that series, that Erving was the best fast break finisher of all-time, and that Erving had a better jump shot than most people think. Billy Cunningham, who coached Erving with the Philadelphia 76ers from 1977-85, said that he never had an argument or cross word with Erving, and that everything Erving did was for the benefit of the team. Cunningham recalled that Erving stayed very long after games to talk to any media member who had a question, so much so that the team eventually just rented a car for Erving so that the rest of the team could take the bus back to the hotel. Cunningham also said that Erving let rookies stay at his house until they knew whether or not they were going to make the team. Erving's dignity, grace, and sensitivity contrast markedly with the attitudes and behavior of many of today's star players.

Labels: Clyde Drexler, Connie Hawkins, Dominique Wilkins, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, Vince Carter, Wilt Chamberlain

posted by David Friedman @ 11:51 PM

1 comments

Media Members Use Any Excuse to Bash Russell Westbrook

Many media members have an unhealthy obsession regarding Russell Westbrook. Today, Sirius XM NBA Radio hosts Amin Elhassan and Zach Harper veered bizarrely from a discussion about Luka Doncic's rebounding this season and the impact that they believe this has had on Dallas' defense to reviving the unfounded notion that Westbrook's rebounds should be devalued because of some supposed conspiracy among Westbrook's teammates to let him have rebounds. Doncic is averaging 9.0 rpg this season, which is very good for a guard and slightly above his career average of 8.5 rpg, but short of his career-high 9.4 rpg in 2019-20, when Doncic played fewer mpg than he is this season. Elhassan correctly stated that rebounding is an important part of completing a successful defensive possession. He implied but did not prove that Doncic's rebounding--which is not that much better than his career average--has improved due to Jason Kidd's coaching and that Doncic's rebounding is a major factor for what Elhassan considers to be Dallas' improved defense this season. Elhassan noted that Doncic's defensive rebounding percentage ranks in the top 20 in the NBA this season, trailing only players who play power forward or center. 

Inexplicably, Elhassan then shifted the conversation from Doncic to Steven Adams, and Elhassan noted with a childish chuckle that Adams' defensive rebounding percentage had increased after Westbrook left Oklahoma City. Harper made a snide remark about Adams boxing out so that Westbrook could steal rebounds, and Elhassan and Harper amused themselves with a few more jokes at Westbrook's expense. 

Why would anyone who is analyzing Luka Doncic and Dallas suddenly think of Westbrook unless that person has some kind of weird obsession?

Before we explore this weird obsession, it is important to note that defensive rebound percentage is a made up statistic. Per BasketballReference.com, the formula is 100* (DRB * (TM MP/5))/(MP * (TM DRB) + Opp ORB)), and the concept is that this is "an estimate of available defensive rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor." Like most "advanced basketball statistics," this is a made up number based on questionable assumptions, and lacking both a margin for error and testability. The assumptions underpinning defensive rebound percentage and other "advanced basketball statistics" may be completely sound, partially sound, or pure nonsense--but without an ability to test these assumptions against reality to derive a margin for error and to calculate the extent to which these assumptions produced a number that correlates with (let alone predicts) winning we are just talking about subjective notions, not actual statistical analysis. Does defensive rebounding percentage on a team level predict wins? If so, does it do so more reliably than other rebounding metrics? Does defensive rebounding percentage on an individual level provide a more reliable way to rank rebounders than other rebounding metrics? Who knows? The reason that we don't know is that we are not talking about real statistics, let alone real statistical analysis (which, by definition, would require the usage of real statistics). One problem with "advanced basketball statistics" is that the numbers themselves are just floating in air without being grounded in reality; another problem with "advanced basketball statistics" is that these made up numbers are treated like basketball gospel by people who lack not only mathematical competency but also the ability to make logical deductions and inferences.

Since defensive rebounding percentage is a made up number, it is not clear what significance--if any--we should ascribe to the fact that Steven Adams' defensive rebounding percentage increased when he did not play with Westbrook. One logical assumption would be that the departure of an elite rebounder resulted in Adams exerting greater effort to rebound. Another logical assumption would be that Adams' other teammates were poor defensive rebounders, so without Westbrook on the court there were more defensive rebounds available. The bottom line is that we don't know if defensive rebound percentage is meaningful in a general sense, so it is impossible to use it to deduce meaningful specific conclusions about Adams and Westbrook. 

The larger point is that it is foolish to use a made up statistic to try to prove a very specific allegation, namely that Adams deliberately sacrificed his rebounding totals to help Westbrook pad his rebounding totals (and, it should be added, even if Adams did this it probably helped the team because Westbrook getting a rebound and sprinting down court to create a fast break advantage is more efficient than Adams grabbing the ball and then passing to Westbrook). Extensive film study would be one way to try to prove or disprove this specific allegation. Another approach would be to assess the extent to which rebounds are fungible; the theory here would be that if rebounds are fungible and Westbrook was just being given rebounds by his teammates then after Westbrook leaves a team that team's rebounding should not decline, because the rebounds Westbrook got could have just as easily been grabbed by his teammates. I examined this theory in Are Rebounds Fungible? and I demonstrated that rebounds are not fungible, at least in terms of the impact after Westbrook leaves a team; the evidence shows that after Westbrook leaves a team that team becomes worse at rebounding, and after Westbrook joins a team that team becomes better at rebounding. I tested the "rebounds are fungible" theory by examining real data (not made up numbers) and the evidence does not support the theory, so the validity of the theory that Westbrook is given rebounds by his teammates has not been proven. 

I don't know if Elhassan and Harper are smart enough and/or industrious enough to do this kind of basketball analysis, but the larger question is why did they feel compelled to turn a serious and almost interesting discussion of Doncic's defensive rebounding into a series of snide remarks at the expense of a future Hall of Famer? What other elite player gets this kind of treatment? The only two who come to mind are Kobe Bryant, whose shot selection has been criticized in a similarly flawed manner by Mike Wilbon and others, and Scottie Pippen, who is often mocked even though his inspiring life story should be admired and emulated. One common thread among commentators who spout nonsense is that they usually never played in the NBA. Contrast Jalen Rose with "Screamin' A" Smith on ESPN, or Eddie Johnson with Elhassan, Harper, and Justin Termine on Sirius XM NBA Radio. I don't agree with everything that former NBA players say--and they don't always agree with each other--but rarely do former players say things that are completely without foundation. Frank Isola, who did a thoughtful interview with Pippen about Pippen's autobiography, is one of the few Sirius XM NBA Radio hosts who did not play in the NBA who consistently provides commentary that makes sense.

Elhassan worked in an NBA front office a long time ago, and when he confines himself to talking about his observations of players who he has seen play he displays a basic level of competence--nothing profound, but nothing foolish. However, when Elhassan strays from that comfort zone he descends into sounding like a fan whose biases far outstrip his analytical abilities, as I mentioned in my analysis of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team when I refuted his bizarre obsession with demeaning Bob Cousy:

While we are talking about small point guards, it must be said that the people who suggest that Cousy could not play in today's game are--and there is no polite way to put this--speaking foolishly (I am trying to avoid labeling people, and instead just labeling their behavior). I think that there is more than a little reverse racism that rears its ugly head when assessing Cousy, and I also think that far too many people who speak about him have little to no knowledge of NBA history. Amin Elhassan--who does a solid job of analyzing current NBA players--has made it a running gag during his Sirius XM NBA Radio appearances to mock Cousy's career field goal percentage (.375) and suggest that Cousy is vastly overrated. Cousy's career free throw percentage is .803, so we can dismiss the notion that he was a bad shooter. By the way, the league's free throw shooting percentage during Cousy's career was .734, and in the middle to latter portion of his career it was right around .750, which is comparable to the league's free throw shooting percentage now. Put young Cousy in a shooting contest with today's NBA players and I think that the results would surprise many people. Back to Cousy's field goal percentage: Did Cousy have horrible shot selection and/or was he incapable of scoring when closely guarded? 

The NBA's average field goal percentage during Cousy's career was .391, so a .375 field goal percentage was not terrible at that time. Why were field goal percentages so low during that era? Keep in mind that during basketball's early days players were called "cagers" because the courts were surrounded by wire cages to keep the players inside and the fans outside. Yes, the cages were gone by the time Cousy played in the NBA, but that rough and wild mentality still pervaded the league. The game was much more physical than today's game. Yes, the players were smaller, but not by as much as you may think, and if a 6-4, 220 dude elbows you in the face it is going to hurt a lot and it may dissuade you from driving to the hoop (and may affect your field goal percentage not only after you have been hit but also prior to that because you are keeping your head on a swivel to avoid being hit). The early NBA arenas had worse lighting, worse playing surfaces, worse temperature control, and just worse conditions in general than NBA arenas today. Also, it is my understanding--but I cannot find the archival articles to confirm this--that during some of the NBA's earliest seasons a missed field goal attempt when a player was fouled was counted in the statistics, which would obviously have a negative effect on a player's field goal percentage, and that effect would be more pronounced for a player like Cousy who drew a lot of fouls (now, when a player is fouled while shooting the attempt only counts if the player makes the field goal attempt). Also, NBA half court sets and strategies had to evolve after the 24 second shot clock was introduced. 

During Cousy's era, players traveled by train, not private airplanes, and the scheduling was brutal. Cousy's physical attributes--6-1, 180, wiry strong, exceptional peripheral vision/ballhandling--are no worse than John Stockton's or Chris Paul's. Put Cousy in today's game, and he would have a field day playing under modern conditions with defensive players not being allowed to touch him. Put Stockton or Paul in the 1950s, and their numbers would not have been any better than Cousy's. 

Another difference between the 1950s and subsequent eras is that as time passed a greater focus developed on individual statistics and efficiency. Modern players hesitate to shoot long shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter because such shots hurt their field goal percentages. Shane Battier talked about this in the highly publicized interview that he did about so-called "advanced basketball statistics" many years ago. He was dubbed the ultimate team player because he did not care about his individual numbers, but even he admitted that he declined to take shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter that could only help the team but might hurt his individual field goal percentage. 

Red Auerbach is rightly considered one of the greatest coaches of all-time, if not the greatest, and he led the Celtics to nine NBA titles. If he thought that Cousy's shot selection was hurting the team you can be sure that Auerbach would have done something about it.

Comparisons between eras are fraught with peril and should be done with great care and thoroughness. The ignorant way that Elhassan (and his co-host Zach Harper, whose qualifications to be on the show remain a mystery to me) mocks Cousy is disgraceful. Based on listening to other segments of the show, I realize that Elhassan understands how to analyze basketball players that he has seen, so I wish that he would restrict his commentary/analysis to what he understands, and leave the historical comparisons to those who are better informed.

Instead of picking on Cousy's field goal percentage and Westbrook's rebounds, why don't Elhassan and Harper examine statistics that have been proven to be inflated? For example, Chris Paul's assist numbers belong in the fiction section more so than the record book; I charted Paul's assists in various games several years ago, and I consistently found that his assist totals are not only often wrong, but that when they are wrong they are always inflated and never deflated. The eye test in the intervening years provided no reason to believe that this assist inflation has decreased. In general, assists are easier to obtain than they used to be (as the overall percentage of assisted field goals indicates, a number that is quite telling when one considers how isolation heavy the NBA is now compared to previous eras), but assists are particularly easy for Paul to obtain. That is not to say or suggest that Paul is not a great passer. It is true that Paul is an elite passer--and it is also true that he is regularly credited with assists on plays that do not fit a strict (or even loose) application of the scorekeeping rule that an assist shall only be awarded for a pass that led directly to a made basket. I was particularly amused during my assist-charting project when Paul received an assist after passing to Bonzi Wells, who then passed to David West, who then took two dribbles before shooting a floater over Tim Duncan.

Or, if Elhassan and Harper are fascinated by individual numbers that are fungible, consider James Harden's assists and rebounds this season. Harden's statistics in both categories look gaudy, but when he did not play the Nets' team totals in both categories remained steady. If there is any player who is "stealing" rebounds--and assists--that player is Harden.

In order to provide accurate and meaningful basketball analysis, it is important to either have high level playing experience and/or to have engaged in deep, high level study of the game. If you just start talking when the microphone is "hot" without putting in the work either on the court or in the "lab" then you can fill up a lot of air time with a lot of sound, but volume should never be confused with depth. 

Labels: Amin Elhassan, Luka Doncic, rebounding, Russell Westbrook, Steven Adams, Zach Harper

posted by David Friedman @ 11:05 PM

0 comments

This Date in Lakers History, 2006 and 2022

The phrase "making your teammates better" is both overused and meaningless. One player cannot "make" another player better--but a great player can make his team better, and there is a great "not advanced" statistic for that: wins and losses. 

For example, consider this date in L.A. Lakers history. 

On February 14, 2006, the Lakers had a 26-25 record. The undisputed best player for the 2006 Lakers was Kobe Bryant, who is not cited as often for making his teams better as he should be when one considers who his teammates have been, how well they performed alongside him, and how much his teams won. The 2005-06 L.A. Lakers finished sixth in the Western Conference with a 45-37 record. They then pushed the third seeded Phoenix Suns to seven games in the first round of the playoffs.

The top five scorers for the 2005-06 Lakers were Kobe Bryant (35.4 ppg), Lamar Odom (14.8 ppg), Smush Parker (11.5 ppg), Chris Mihm (10.2 ppg), and Brian Cook (7.9 ppg). Lakers not named Kobe Bryant combined for one career All-Star selection before, during, and after that season (Andrew Bynum, who played 338 minutes in 2005-06, made the All-Star team in 2012). 

On February 14, 2022, the Lakers have a 26-31 record. The undisputed best player for the 2022 Lakers is LeBron James, who is often credited with "making his teammates better" despite the fact that every All-Star who has played alongside James has suffered declining statistics: that list includes Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Anthony Davis, and the much-maligned Russell Westbrook, who played at an MVP level in the second half of last season before being thrown on the proverbial trash heap in L.A. so far this season. The top five scorers for the 2021-22 Lakers are LeBron James (29.0 ppg), Anthony Davis (23.3 ppg), Russell Westbrook (18.3 ppg), Carmelo Anthony (13.4 ppg), and Malik Monk (13.0 ppg). Lakers not names James combined for 36 All-Star selections plus three selections to the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team. 

Comparing the two teams without counting Bryant and James, the 2022 Lakers have three 75th Anniversary Team members, while the 2006 Lakers had one player who made one All-Star Team six years later. Yet, the 2022 Lakers are ninth in the Western Conference, and if the season ended today they would have to earn a playoff spot via the Play-In Tournament; the 2006 Lakers were one defensive rebound away from beating the powerful Suns in game six in the first round of the playoffs.

James is an extraordinarily talented player who has accomplished a lot during his incredible career, but everything on his teams happens on his terms, and the main focus is not always team success. Davis is in his prime. Westbrook was playing at an MVP level just a few months ago. Anthony provides scoring punch off of the bench. Monk would have been the third best player on the 2006 Lakers behind Bryant and Odom. If you took Bryant and James out of the equation, and arranged a time machine game between the 2022 Lakers and the 2006 Lakers, the 2022 Lakers would win by 20 points--but the difference is that when you put both players in the equation James has been unwilling/unable to elevate the 2022 Lakers, while Bryant figured out how to push, pull, and drag a 2006 Lakers team with very limited talent not just into the playoffs but almost to the second round--and after the Lakers added one one-time All-Star to that limited roster in 2007, Bryant carried the Lakers to three straight NBA Finals, winning back to back titles in the 2009 and 2010 seasons.

There is a good reason that every time I hear the ridiculous comparisons of LeBron James to Michael Jordan my response is, "LeBron James has not even passed Kobe Bryant yet, so why is anyone comparing James to Jordan?" James has won fewer championships than Bryant with a worse Finals winning percentage, and James has demonstrated that he needs multiple All-Stars alongside him to win titles. It is not 100% clear that James surpassed Tim Duncan on the list of great players in the post-Jordan era; Duncan and James faced each other in three NBA Finals, with Duncan's teams winning two out of three--and Duncan was one Ray Allen three pointer away from going 3-0 versus James in the NBA Finals. Shaquille O'Neal did not stay at his absolute peak as long as Bryant, Duncan, and James did, but are we absolutely sure that peak James is better than peak O'Neal? I'm taking peak Jordan over any of those players, and James has to establish clear superiority in the post-Jordan era before being compared to Jordan.

James is a great player, but the media-driven narratives asserting that he is the greatest player of all-time and that he is the best at "making his teammates better" are demonstrably false.

Labels: Anthony Davis, Brian Cook, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Mihm, Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers, Lamar Odom, LeBron James, Malik Monk, Russell Westbrook, Smush Parker

posted by David Friedman @ 9:40 PM

15 comments