ESPN Praises Kyrie Irving While Ignoring Julius Erving and Rick Barry
The Brooklyn Nets defeated the New York Knicks 122-115 to improve to 3-6 since Kevin Durant suffered a knee injury that is expected to keep him out of the lineup for at least another week or two. One might think that a 3-6 record is nothing to write home about, but ESPN's postgame show--featuring "Screamin' A" Smith--portrayed a win against the mediocre Knicks as proof that Kyrie Irving is a superstar who can singlehandedly carry a team. Superstars are not defined by one game. The reality is that every time Irving has been the number one option for an extended period his team has not accomplished anything noteworthy. Irving was a great second option behind LeBron James for the 2016 NBA champion Cleveland Cavaliers, but there is a big difference between being the second option versus carrying all of the responsibility of being the first option (there have been some great teams that truly had a 1A and 1B, but that was not the case with James and Irving).
The 2022-23 Brooklyn Nets are a contender with Durant leading the way, and they are a Draft Lottery team with Durant out of the lineup. That is not an opinion; that is a fact based on the team's record in both circumstances not just this season but throughout the time that Durant and Irving have been with the Nets.
While hyping up Irving, ESPN ran a graphic that incorrectly gave Irving credit for holding the Nets' franchise record for most consecutive 30 point games. ESPN, other media outlets, and the NBA pretend that the ABA did not exist and that the four NBA teams with ABA roots were founded in 1976--but pretending something is true does not make it true. The Nets were founded in 1967-68 as an ABA team known as the New Jersey Americans. Many of the franchise's records--including the single game scoring record--are held by Julius Erving, who packed a lot into his three years with the team: three regular season MVPs (one shared with future Philadelphia 76ers teammate George McGinnis), two championships, two Playoff MVPs, and two scoring titles. Yet, the NBA and its media partners ignore ABA history and statistics, pretending that the Nets franchise--and the Nuggets, Pacers, and Spurs franchises--debuted in the 1976-77 season.
As a Net, Erving scored at least 30 points in six straight games (November 24-December 1, 1973), a feat that Irving has yet to surpass. Neither player holds this particular franchise record, though. Rick Barry, in the second of his two seasons with the Nets (1971-72), scored at least 30 points in seven straight games (February 3-February 18, 1972).
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, Julius Erving, Kyrie Irving, New York Nets, Rick Barry
posted by David Friedman @ 10:49 PM
Embiid Dominates as 76ers Overcome 15 Point Deficit to Beat Nuggets
The Philadelphia 76ers, owners of the second best record in the Eastern Conference, rallied from a 15 point deficit to earn a 126-119 win over the Denver Nuggets, who have the best record in the Western Conference. The matchup featured a showdown between reigning two-time regular season MVP Nikola Jokic and Joel Embiid, who has finished second in the MVP voting each of the past two years. Jokic may not have taken the one on one duel personally, but Embiid obviously did, authoring just the third 45-15-5 game of his career, finishing with 47 points, 18 rebounds, five assists, three steals, and two blocked shots. Five other Sixers scored between 13 and 17 points, with James Harden leading that group with 17 points plus a game-high 13 assists. The difference in the game--other than Embiid's individual dominance--was that the 76ers recovered from a disastrous defensive first quarter (38 points allowed) to give up 35, 26, and 20 points in the final three quarters.
Embiid is a big-time talent: he is an elite scorer, rebounder, and defender who also passes well. The questions about Embiid are not about talent but rather (1) "Will he be healthy during the playoffs?" and (2) "Will he be productive enough in the playoffs to lift the 76ers past the second round for the first time in his career?" Today's performance is impressive, but it is not surprising and it does not change Embiid's place in basketball history; what he does--or does not do--in April, May, and June (if he ever plays in June) will define his basketball legacy.
The 76ers are 20-4 in their past 24 games, and they are riding a seven game winning streak. Many people will once again speak of them as championship contenders, but until I see Embiid and Harden consistently play at a high level in the playoffs I will not take the 76ers seriously as a championship contender.
Harden fled Oklahoma City because he refused to accept being the third option behind Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. Now, a decade later, Harden is the second or third option--depending how you view him and Tyrese Maxey--behind Embiid, the clearly defined number one option. Harden proved correct my assertion that he is not suited to being the best player on a championship team. If he is willing to accept being the second or third option--and if Embiid can stay healthy--then the 76ers can be a contender. This season, Harden is averaging 21.5 ppg and 11.1 apg with shooting splits of .449/.385/.868, while Maxey is averaging 21.3 ppg and 3.9 apg with shooting splits of .460/.400/.814. Maxey is more efficient and more explosive than Harden, so the 76ers would be best served if Harden shot less frequently while Maxey shot more frequently. Coach Doc Rivers understands this, as can be seen by the fact that Maxey is averaging more field goal attempts per game than Harden this season after the reverse was true last season.
When the 76ers outscored the Nuggets 68-46 in the second half, Embiid had 28 points and Harden had three points (though he did accumulate seven assists). In the fourth quarter, Harden shot 0-4 from the field, including a pair of step back three pointers in the final 2:23 with the outcome hanging in the balance. If Harden is your main option--and especially if he is your main crunch time option--then you are in big trouble. Fortunately for the 76ers, Maxey hit four free throws, Embiid drained a three pointer, and P.J. Tucker tipped in one of Harden's misses.
Jokic did not play badly, finishing with 24 points, nine assists, and eight rebounds--but those numbers are below average for him and they do not match Embiid's exceptional production. Jamal Murray (22 points), Michael Porter Jr. (20 points), and Aaron Gordon (18 points) each had solid games, but collectively the Nuggets fell apart at both ends of the court after building a 73-58 first half lead.
I disagree with the ESPN/ABC hype that this was a "statement game"--the 76ers won one game at home versus a Western Conference team playing the last game of a three game Eastern swing--but it is clear that Embiid wanted to make a point after not being voted as an Eastern Conference All-Star starter. It will be interesting to see which stars and which teams make "statements" during the playoffs.
Hubie Brown provided the color commentary for ABC, which added to the big game feel and was a welcome throwback to when Brown did so many big games for CBS, TNT and ESPN/ABC.
Labels: Denver Nuggets, James Harden, Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, Philadelphia 76ers, Tyrese Maxey
posted by David Friedman @ 8:40 PM
Mike Brown's "Evolution"
A media member whose biggest career break has been knowing LeBron James since high school and thus being hired by various outlets to follow James around throughout his career just wrote a piece about Mike Brown's supposed "evolution" as a head coach. Media members (1) often tend to be wrong and (2) rarely admit that they have been wrong, so when something happens that confounds their predictions they feel compelled to contrive elaborate explanations.
For example, Bill Belichick did an excellent coaching job in Cleveland, but media members perceived him to be surly and so they portrayed him not only as surly (which may contain some degree of truth) but also as incompetent (which was completely false). At age 39 in his first NFL head coaching job, Belichick took over a team that had been 3-13, and by year four the Browns went 11-5 and won a playoff game. How impressive is it to do that in Cleveland? The next time the Browns went 11-5 was 2020, which was also the next time that they won a playoff game. The Browns collapsed to 5-11 in 1995, but that had a lot to do with the disruptions caused by Art Modell announcing that he planned to move the team to Baltimore and little to do with Belichick's coaching.
On the way out of Cleveland, Modell fired Belichick. The next time Belichick was hired to be an NFL head coach, he led the New England Patriots to six Super Bowl titles. Belichick's coaching staff in Cleveland included Nick Saban (who became arguably the greatest college football coach ever), Ozzie Newsome (who later won two Super Bowls as Baltimore's General Manager), and several others who became successful coaches in the NFL or college. Objectively, it seems obvious that a coach who assembled a talented staff like that and who led the team to a playoff win not long after a 3-13 season must have known what he was doing--but Belichick being competent in the early 1990s (after he had already won two Super Bowls as a defensive coordinator, by the way) did not fit the media narrative, so instead we are told that Belichick "evolved" in New England.
If you converted what most media members understand about coaching into an explosive device, you would not generate enough power to ignite the smallest firecracker!
It should be obvious that any diligent professional learns and evolves--but the notion that Belichick "evolved" from incompetent bumbler to six-time Super Bowl champion is preposterous, as is the media's obsessive focus on "in-game adjustments." The most important coaching is done in practices. That is when coaches prepare their teams for (1) what is most likely to happen during games and (2) how to react to the various most likely scenarios. If the coach fails at anticipating what is most likely to happen and preparing how to react then he is not going to come up with some magic halftime "adjustment" to save the day; what media members incorrectly call "adjustments" are in reality just the coach implementing the parts of the pre-game plan that are most relevant at that time.
Tom Brown, who played safety for Vince Lombardi's Super Bowl-winning Green Bay Packers, told me that what changed after Lombardi left the team was the attention to detail in practices. Uninformed media members blabber about "in-game adjustments" and are often overly impressed by sideline histrionics, but--as I noted in that article mentioning Brown--the reality is (as I explained) "The importance of coaching is not revealed by sideline tantrums during
games or witty comments in press conferences; the great coaches do their
work on the practice field, outside of the public eye."
Much like Cleveland media members did not like Bill Belichick or understand what he was doing, they did not understand what Mike Brown was doing as the Cleveland Cavaliers' coach (though they may have liked Brown on a personal level more than they liked Belichick).
The season before Mike Brown first became the Cleveland Cavaliers' head coach, the Cavaliers ranked 11th in points allowed, 14th in rebounding, and 19th in defensive field goal percentage. Two years later, with the same frontcourt starters--LeBron James, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and Drew Gooden--the Cavaliers ranked fifth in points allowed, eighth in defensive field goal percentage, and second in rebounding en route to advancing to the NBA Finals for the first time in franchise history. In Brown's final two seasons during his first run in Cleveland, the team went 66-16 (ranking first in points allowed, second in defensive field goal percentage, and seventh in rebounding), and 61-21 (ranking sixth in points allowed, fourth in defensive field goal percentage, and 11th in rebounding). The same guy who is now declaring that Brown has "evolved" was one of many who at that time questioned Brown's ability to make "in-game adjustments." Brown built the Cavaliers into a defensive powerhouse and perennial championship contender, but the media narrative was that LeBron James was singlehandedly carrying a team that lacked talent and was not particularly well-coached--as if James, by himself, could outrebound entire teams and also lock down entire teams defensively. That is not a knock against James--who is one of the greatest players of all-time--but just an objective assessment of what it takes to win over 60 games in back to back seasons, something that no poorly coached team has ever done or ever will do.
If your career is based on following James around and being some sort of confidant to him--and if Brown does not even deign to provide you good soundbites--are you going to praise Brown's coaching or are you going to say that James is a one-man team overcoming bad teammates and bad coaching? That question is not difficult to answer, and the proof can be found in various articles and TV appearances.
After being dumped by the Cavaliers, Mike Brown coached the L.A. Lakers for one season, succeeding Phil Jackson and leading the team to a 41-25 record in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 campaign. The Lakers fired Brown after a 1-4 start in 2012-13, limped into the playoffs under Mike D'Antoni, and did not sniff the playoffs again until player/general manager LeBron James joined the team and acquired Anthony Davis.
The Cavaliers brought Brown back for the 2013-14 season, and he guided the team to a 33-49 record after the squad had won 19, 21, and 24 games in the previous three campaigns. The Cavaliers fired Brown at the end of the season, and Brown then served as a Golden State assistant from 2016-2022, winning three championships to go along with the 2003 title he won as a San Antonio assistant. It is amusing that media members question Brown's coaching ability but two of the most successful head coaches of all-time (San Antonio's Gregg Popovich and Golden State's Steve Kerr) both hired Brown.
This season, Mike Brown inherited a Sacramento Kings team that went 30-52 last season while ranking 26th in rebounding, 28th in defensive field goal percentage, and 29th in points allowed. So far this season, the Kings are 27-20 while ranking 25th in rebounding, 28th in defensive field goal percentage, and 22nd in points allowed. Those are not huge improvements, but Brown's first Cleveland team did not make huge defensive improvements in the first season, either; Hank Egan, then an assistant coach in Cleveland, explained to me that when teaching defensive principles to a team it takes until "deep into your second year before you’re getting to the point that it is second nature."
The notion that Brown has "evolved" from a defensive coach into an offensive coach based on a 47 game sample size is as silly as it is premature; Brown inherited a team with a lot of offensive talent and not much of a defensive mindset, so as any smart coach would do he is maximizing their offensive efficiency while also attempting to improve the team's defensive efficiency. I expect the Kings to be better defensively in a year, and possibly even in the second half of this season.
Brown has always been an excellent coach, but in terms of media relations he never found a great niche; you are not going to see soundbite clips of him the way that you do with Gregg Popovich, Steve Kerr, and other popular coaches. Media members resent coaches like Brown because in order to cover him effectively they are forced to either (1) understand the nuances of the game (fat chance!) or (2) come up with catchy narratives. The Mike Brown narrative that has stuck is "Mike Brown is a good defensive coach who does not understand offense and is not good at making in-game adjustments." The Kings' success this season without immediately becoming a defensive powerhouse challenges that narrative, which means that media members either have to admit that the narrative is wrong or else they have to assert that Brown "evolved."
I am not suggesting that Mike Brown is as great at coaching basketball as Bill Belichick is at coaching football--but I am stating that the way that Cleveland media members (and other media members) misunderstood Belichick in the 1990s foreshadowed the way that Mike Brown has been misunderstood and continues to be misunderstood.
Labels: Bill Belichick, Cleveland Cavaliers, Golden State Warriors, L.A. Lakers, Mike Brown, Sacramento Kings, San Antonio Spurs
posted by David Friedman @ 8:26 PM
