Thunder's Stars Outshine Timberwolves' Stars in Tightly Contested Game Four
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored a playoff career-high 40 points and Jalen William added a playoff career-high 34 points as the Oklahoma City Thunder outlasted the Minnesota Timberwolves 128-126 to take a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference Finals. Sports in general are very strategic, and basketball in particular is a game in which the smart take from the strong, but sometimes the game is simple: a team whose stars dominate has a great chance to win. Chet Holmgren, the Thunder's third option, scored as many points (21) as Minnesota's Anthony Edwards (16) and Julius Randle (five) combined.
Gilgeous-Alexander also had a game-high 10 assists, and a game-high tying nine rebounds. He did not shoot very efficiently (13-30, .433) and he had a game-high tying five turnovers, but--as we saw with Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant--a team's best player has the responsibility to take a lot of shots because he will not only score but he will also attract defensive attention (only called "gravity" when Stephen Curry does it) that opens up opportunities for his teammates. One of the most impressive obscure statistics in pro basketball history is that Michael Jordan scored at least 20 points in 35 consecutive NBA Finals games. Jordan regularly faced double teams and triple teams, and he learned to pass the ball when necessary--but he always understood his responsibility to put up big scoring totals in every game, particularly in playoff games and NBA Finals games. Julius Erving scored at least 20 points in 26 straight Finals games (his last seven in the ABA and his first 19 in the NBA), and he scored at least 20 points in 31 of his 33 Finals games overall (10/11 in the ABA, 21/22 in the NBA). Jerry West ranks third with 25 straight NBA Finals games with at least 20 points.
Nickeil Alexander-Walker led the Timberwolves with 23 points, Jaden McDaniels scored 22 points, Donte DiVincenzo added 21 points, and Rudy Gobert contributed 13 points plus a game-high tying nine rebounds, but the problem is not just that Edwards only had 16 points in a de facto elimination game; the problem is that Edwards shot 5-13 from the field--and the low number of field goal attempts is at least as concerning as the poor field goal percentage, for the reason mentioned above: a team's best player must force the action at times. It sounds great to talk about "making the right play," but often the right play is attacking the opposing defense until it breaks; passively accepting a double team and then making a pass that does not threaten the defense is not "the right play," nor is it a winning play. Edwards and Randle each committed five turnovers, and Randle shot just 1-7 from the field; those numbers do not point to making the right play: they point to being tentative, indecisive, and careless with the ball.
After Minnesota won game three 143-101 a lot was said about a momentum shift in this series. How much momentum carried over into game four? None. Momentum is something that talking heads mention in lieu of analyzing basketball strategy and matchups. In game three, Minnesota was the more aggressive team at both ends of the court, while Oklahoma City looked like a team that had relaxed after taking a 2-0 series lead. In contrast, the Thunder led 37-30 at the end of the first quarter of game four, scoring almost as many points in the first 12 minutes as they scored in the first 24 minutes of game three (41)--and the stars led the way, with Gilgeous-Alexander and Williams scoring 13 first quarter points each. The Timberwolves briefly led in the first quarter, but never by more than two points, and they did not lead at all in the final three quarters; the game remained close throughout--the Thunder's largest lead was only 11 points--but the outcome was never in serious doubt, because a team whose stars play passively throughout the game is not often rewarded with a win by the basketball gods.
Opposing fans call Gilgeous-Alexander a "foul merchant," which is an odd phrase. Is he being accused of selling fouls or buying fouls? Gilgeous-Alexander is not James Harden flopping and flailing while looking for bailout calls. Gilgeous-Alexander is aggressive, which all great offensive players are--and aggressive players draw fouls, which not only leads to free throws but also puts the opposing team in foul trouble. Edwards and Randle would be well-advised to match that level of aggressiveness to have any chance of extending this series beyond game five in Oklahoma City.
Labels: Anthony Edwards, Jalen Williams, Julius Randle, Minnesota Timberwolves, Oklahoma City Thunder, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
posted by David Friedman @ 1:02 AM
9 Comments:
David,
I didn't get to watch the game last night, but as I followed it on ESPN "gamecast" by far the most significant stat to me was Edwards' shot attempts. My initial thought as I followed his anemic number of shots was: Is Ant-man injured? Is he playing on a sore ankle or something? What?!
Like, how does a man who clearly thinks himself Jordan's and Kobe's heir apparent not take, at the very least, 20 shots in a conference finals game? To your point, we can live with 5/20 or the like, perhaps a worse percentage. But deep in the playoffs the marquee player, especially the first scoring option, has to take a lot of shots. As much as Ant-man complains about SGA's free-throw fakery, if Ant-man attacked the basket more, maybe he'd get more calls. (Also to your point about "efficiency," SGA was not stellar 13/30 but he did what the franchise player is payed big bucks to do, attack attack attack.)
I was also thinking that maybe "Ant-man" was trying to be cute, trying to "make the best play" as you sarcastically noted. But this ain't the time for that. Maybe Ant-man has misconstrued "efficiency" in analytics terms, much like DOGE's so-called "government efficiency". No, SGA wasn't necessarily "efficient" last night, but he sure as hell was EFFECTIVE.
David:
As you said, I find it odd that people call SGA a "foul merchant". In 2022-23, Shai led the league in drives per game (23.9). In 2023-24, Shai led the league in drives per game (23.3). And this season, he again led the NBA in drives per game (20.6). If a player is going to drive to the rim that many times, of course he's going to get fouled. And that's exactly what makes SGA such a great player; he's very difficult to defend without fouling.
All this talk of Ant being the heir to MJ and Kobe, and yet Shai is 6’6 with a 6’11 wingspan just like they were, doing things that we really haven’t seen from the perimeter since those two. He’s not the athlete they were but he’s pretty athletic in his own right. He is his own player but it’s obvious he takes from those two with his fundamentally sound game and his high utilization of the midrange shot
I see people mention how MJ and Kobe would average way more 3s today, I’ve also seen that they would struggle today because supposedly their 3 point shots were not good enough (insane take especially since SGA is not all that much better from 3, if at all) but I am pretty confident if they played today their bread and butter would still be the mid range, they would take far less long 2s but far more shots from 10 ft which is easier today, back then a clogged paint meant long 2s were the closest shots. Now the 10 ft midrange is wide open
Anyway, what I have seen out of SGA in this postseason has been impressive, and he has gradually improved over the course of the postseason. Small sample but it’s interesting to me that his worst playoff performances have been in the 1st round and play-in. Like many I had my concerns because of that when he was unproven, but once he’s past the 1st round he seems to enter another gear.
He still needs to prove he’s a championship caliber player, but I like what I have seen so far
how did the Clips not see SGA's massive upside? if they had, then would they have done the deal with OKC -- even if not acquiring P George meant not signing Kawhi?
Anonymous:
I am not sure if anyone quite understood SGA's upside at that time--he averaged 10.3 ppg as a rookie in his only season with the Clippers--but the biggest factor for the Clippers was their (mistaken) belief that the Leonard-George duo would (1) remain healthy and (2) vault the Clippers into immediate championship contention.
same anon: I saw him play in his rookie year, and I'm not saying that I would've predicted MVP, but he clearly had serious handles, shooting, and
game. also not sure I'd judge by aggregate rookie year stats. he scored at least 20 in 4 of his last 7 games, which is pretty impressive for a rook (https://www.espn.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/4278073/type/nba/year/2019)
Anonymous:
There have been a few players who averaged 10 ppg or less as rookies and then became MVPs (Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett immediately come to mind), but that is not a typical trajectory. I didn't look up the last seven games of his rookie season, but by that point of the season teams are often tanking or resting, so scoring 20 points or more in four of those seven games is not necessarily indicative of an MVP trajectory, either.
SGA did not make the All-Star team or receive a single MVP vote until his fourth season in OKC, so I am not sure how someone could look at young SGA and be sure that he would become a perennial MVP candidate. Of course his talent was evident; that is why he was a Lottery pick. However, there are many talented players who don't become great players.
In retrospect, trading SGA looks terrible, but I wonder if even OKC suspected how great he would become. If he averages 30-plus ppg next season then he will join Wilt, Oscar, and MJ as the only players in ABA/NBA history to average at least 30 ppg in four straight seasons. If you could foresee that based on his rookie handles and a few 20 point games, that is impressive foresight.
same anon: good points, but (1) shouldn't a team (here, the Clips) have a sense of its own players' character and work ethic, far beyond what the public or other teams see?, and (2) in SGA's rookie year, for the entire month of March (which includes many games before any potential resting/tanking), he averaged 14.2 points on shooting 52.3 / 59.4 / 80.0 ... yes, that's right, 59.4% from 3% ... I only saw him play up live once in his rookie year and wouldn't have predicted he'd be an MVP; but I remember watching him and thinking who's this guy? the fact that I remember it vividly, after all of these years, tells you that something stood out -- his movement and ability to create offense 00 even for a very casual observer watching one game
Anonymous:
That is a valid point, but notice that it took SGA four years to become an All-Star. The Clippers assumed that they could be immediate contenders with Leonard plus George. I am not sure if their error was underestimating SGA as much as overestimating what the Leonard-George duo could do.
I don't think that teams should make long term decisions based on a small sample size like seven games or even a month (which is typically 12 games or so).
You are correct that in retrospect the Clippers made a terrible decision. My point is that I am not sure how clear it was at the time that this was a terrible decision, particularly considering that not acquiring George could also have meant not acquiring Leonard. Remember that when the Clippers made this trade, Leonard had just led Toronto to a title, George had been a regular season MVP candidate, and SGA was a 10 ppg rookie.
Post a Comment
<< Home