Joel Embiid, Marcus Hayes, and How to Deal with Irresponsible Media Members
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Marcus Hayes recently criticized Joel Embiid for missing so many games throughout his career--a factual and valid criticism--but Hayes veered from factual and valid to irrelevant and irresponsible when he asserted that Embiid's lack of professionalism dishonors Embiid's young son and the memory of Embiid's deceased brother.
Embiid played in just 39 of 82 regular season games last season, he has never played in more than 68 games in a season, and he has missed all five of the Philadelphia 76ers' games this season--but he was in the locker room after Philadelphia's 124-117 loss to Memphis on Saturday night, and he told Hayes, "The next time you bring up my dead brother and my son again, you are
going to see what I'm going to do to you and I'm going to have to...live with the consequences." Embiid and Hayes exchanged words, Embiid did not accept Hayes' apology, and then Embiid pushed Hayes on the shoulder/neck area. A 76ers' security official urged media members in the locker room to not report what Embiid had done, but Embiid declared, "They can do whatever they want. I don't give a ----."
The NBA is investigating Embiid's conduct, and the NBA will presumably consider not only that Embiid made physical contact with a media member but also that Embiid repeatedly stated that he does not care about the consequences of his actions. Embiid dared the NBA to punish him. When David Stern was the NBA's Commissioner, he would have accepted that dare, and levied discipline commensurate with the severity of Embiid's actions combined with Embiid's lack of remorse. It will be interesting to see how current NBA Commissioner Adam Silver handles this situation. One could joke that the appropriate discipline would be to force Embiid to play in games right now and to play in back to back games, but this situation is no laughing matter, and unless Silver fancies the idea of NBA players teeing off on every media member who they dislike he must suspend Embiid without pay for multiple games. It may be fun to joke about Kevin Durant punching Stephen A. Smith or LeBron James punching Skip Bayless, but if those things actually happened then the NBA would rapidly descend into a sideshow instead of being a professional sports league.
The fact that Embiid's actions are way out of bounds in no way justifies what Hayes wrote. Bringing up Embiid's deceased brother and Embiid's young son was not only cruel and heartless but it was also irrelevant: the issue that Hayes supposedly cared about is Embiid's professionalism, and that issue can and should be discussed without ever bringing up Embiid's family. Embiid has rarely if ever been in tip top physical condition during his NBA career, and it can reasonably be argued that this lack of professionalism--and not "luck," which is how Embiid explained his large number of missed games--explains why Embiid has been so injury-prone. If Hayes had stuck to discussing Embiid's history of missing games, not being in shape, and playing poorly in the playoffs then Hayes could have produced a timely, relevant column--but, instead, Hayes went for the cheap shot, the clicks, and the attention.
In short, Hayes showed that he is unprofessional, and lacks the judgment that should be a requirement for a columnist.
Unfortunately, Hayes is far from an exception. I have documented many examples of writers and TV commentators who often demonstrate their lack of professionalism.
Justin Termine, one of Sirius XM NBA Radio's main hosts, has a website that declares that he is "an entertainer, not a journalist," and he consistently lives up to the low standard that he sets for himself, including but not limited to the false narratives that he applies to the careers of Rick Barry (who he adores) and Julius Erving (who he denigrates as being overrated compared to Barry); to be clear, Barry and Erving are both all-time greats, but Termine's descriptions of their respective careers are not accurate or objective.
Amin Elhassan and Zack Harper think that it is amusing to mock Bob Cousy and Russell Westbrook. It is fair to say that Cousy and Westbrook will be remembered as significant figures in basketball history long after Elhassan and Harper will be forgotten. A little humility, a bit of knowledge about basketball history, and a modicum of respect for sustained greatness are three traits that Elhassan and Harper lack.
Before parlaying his friendship with LeBron James into an opportunity to become coach of the Lakers despite having no coaching experience at the college or pro levels, J.J. Redick worked as a media member who repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance about basketball history, culminating in his disrespectful comments about Bob Cousy.
Stephen A. Smith and Kendrick Perkins regularly spout hot takes that are cold as ice and disconnected from reality. The problem is not just that many of their evaluations and predictions are wrong--no one is always right about evaluations and predictions--but rather that their evaluations and predictions have no logical basis. What qualifies them to be paid so much to pontificate about the NBA? The answer is that they are not hired to be journalists but--like Termine--to be entertainers, and their bosses apparently think that they are entertaining.
It is problematic that so many of the most prominent media members who receive credentials to cover the NBA do not even pretend to be qualified journalists. When Stern was the NBA's Commissioner, he would call out media members who did not have their facts straight and who acted in an unprofessional manner; this was not about censoring opinions, but rather about insisting that media members should be held to a professional standard.
Hayes is just the latest example of a media member who has been
blessed with an NBA credential despite lacking the judgment and
professionalism that should be a prerequisite for receiving such a
privilege.
One might argue that the public is receiving the media
coverage that it wants and deserves, but I would argue that media
outlets have a professional obligation to hold themselves to a high
standard regardless of what the public wants or expects. Contrary to
what Termine explicitly states and what many of his colleagues implicitly
accept as reality, it is possible
to be entertaining while also being informative and professional.
Jalen Rose was one of the few prominent commentators who would challenge Stephen A. Smith, Kendrick Perkins, Skip Bayless, and others when they made foolish and unprofessional comments--and we see where Rose's candor landed him: out of work.
It's your move, Commissioner Silver. Will you discipline Embiid sufficiently such that no NBA player will ever again make aggressive physical contact with a media member? Will you take a more active role in oversight of who receives NBA media credentials, and the ways that credentialed media members often sully the league's image and its proud history? Or will you attempt to sweep this Embiid/Hayes situation under the rug?
Labels: Adam Silver, Amin Elhassan, David Stern, J.J. Redick, Joel Embiid, Justin Termine, Marcus Hayes, Philadelphia 76ers, Stephen A. Smith, Zach Harper
posted by David Friedman @ 2:39 AM
Bob Cousy Provides Brilliant Response to J.J. Redick
Today on Sirius XM NBA Radio, Justin Termine interviewed Bob Cousy. I am not a fan of Termine--who candidly admits that he is "an entertainer, not a journalist"--but it is good that Termine understands Cousy's greatness, and that he gave Cousy an opportunity to respond to J.J. Redick's ignorant comments comparing Cousy's contemporaries to "plumbers and firemen."
Cousy said that "since Adam and Eve" there have been people who lack "credibility and skills" who seek to gain credibility by attacking people who have superior credibility and superior skills. Cousy could not have offered a more fitting description of Redick.
Cousy added that responding directly to such people only feeds their desire to gain credibility, so he will not talk about his accomplishments, but that he will speak on behalf of the "plumbers and firemen" he played with and against. Cousy listed a few of them: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor (who he called the greatest small forward ever), Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, George Mikan, John Havlicek, and Bob Pettit. Cousy said that those players were "not too shabby," an understatement that highlights the absurdity of Redick's statement. When Cousy starred in the NBA, the league had fewer teams and fewer players per team; many fringe players who are highly paid today would not have even earned a roster spot back in the day.
As Termine noted, Cousy played an important role in the formation and development of the NBA Players Association, and Cousy also laid the groundwork for the NBA's modern success by playing in a spectacular way that attracted fans. Termine asked Cousy if he thinks that the modern players appreciate what the previous generations of players did. Cousy replied, "I hope so."
Redick should be ashamed of his ignorance, and he should study NBA history before he opens his mouth again--and the same is true of Termine's Sirius XM NBA Radio colleagues Amin Elhassan and Zach Harper.
Labels: Amin Elhassan, Bob Cousy, J.J. Redick, Justin Termine, Zach Harper
posted by David Friedman @ 8:16 PM
J.J. Redick's Disrespectful Comments About Bob Cousy Betray Redick's Ignorance
J.J. Redick had a long but not particularly impactful NBA career during which he averaged 12.8 ppg while proving to be a below average passer, ballhandler, rebounder, and defender. He played sparingly last season before retiring, and he was heading rapidly toward obscurity if he did not do something to grab attention. Redick has begun working for ESPN, and has apparently chosen "Screamin' A" Smith as his role model. Smith has demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between volume and depth, because the less sense he makes the louder he screams. Redick does not scream, but he shares Smith's penchant for blurting out nonsense and refusing to admit that there is no historical or logical basis for what he says.
Redick recently declared that Bob Cousy's Hall of Fame numbers and records mean little because Cousy played against "plumbers and firemen." Cousy is not only one of the greatest point guards of all-time, but he is a class act who is still alive and well, and it is awful that he is repeatedly subjected to having his legacy trashed not only by uninformed media members but now by a mediocre retired player who is seeking attention.
How great was Bob Cousy, and who did he play against? Consider Cousy's 1956-57 MVP season, during which he ranked first in assists (478, 7.5 apg), sixth in free throw percentage (.821), and eighth in scoring (1319, 20.6 ppg). The next six finishers in the MVP voting (Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, George Yardley, Maurice Stokes, and Bill Russell) are all Hall of Famers, as are two other players who each received one MVP vote (Harry Gallatin and Jack Twyman). The league consisted of just eight teams of 11 players each, and those rosters were stacked with Hall of Famers. The worst team in the league that season, the Rochester Royals, finished 31-41 and was led by Hall of Famers Stokes and Twyman. No teams practiced "load management," and no teams tanked, which meant that Cousy could not pad his numbers against inferior competition. Also, the games were physical, the scheduling and traveling were brutal, and the arenas, training regimens, and equipment were nowhere close to what would be considered standard or acceptable now.
As I noted in February 2022, Amin Elhassan regularly demeans Cousy for no reason:
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.
Comparing athletes from two different eras involves two main considerations: (1) How great was each athlete compared to the athletes from his own era, and (2) a skill set comparison of each athlete. The first is much easier to determine, but the second is more complex and nuanced.
It is obvious that Cousy was much greater in his era than Kyrie Irving--to cite the modern player who Redick asserts would be viewed as a "wizard" if he were teleported to the 1960s NBA--is in this era: Cousy won one regular season MVP, made the All-NBA First Team 10 years in a row, won six championships (and was an All-NBA First or Second Team player for each of those championship teams), led the league in assists for eight straight seasons (1953-60,), ranked in the top 10 in free throw percentage for eight straight seasons (1952-59), led the league in triple doubles in five different seasons, and still ranks 12th all-time with 33 regular season triple doubles. Only nine other players have earned at least 10 All-NBA First Team selections: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Michael Jordan, Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. Only John Stockton won more assist titles (nine) than Cousy.
In contrast, Irving's resume is much thinner: he not only has never won a regular season MVP, but he has never received a single top five MVP vote. He has never made the All-NBA First Team, and during his 11 year career he has received one All-NBA Second Team selection and two All-NBA Third Team selections (the All-NBA Third Team has only existed since 1989, long after Cousy retired). Irving has won one NBA title, he has never ranked in the top 10 in assists, he has ranked in the top 10 in free throw percentage four times, and he has just three career triple doubles.
Cousy was not playing against "plumbers and firemen"--he was playing
against some of the best players of all-time, and he was the best guard in the NBA for at least a decade. Irving has never been close to being the best guard in the NBA in any one season, let alone being the best guard for a decade. Supposedly the level of competition is much higher now, but that argument can cut both ways: yes, the modern game is globalized while the 1950s NBA drew from a smaller talent pool, but there are also many more teams in the NBA now, and thus the talent is more spread out/diluted. As noted above, in Cousy's MVP season the worst team in the league went 31-41 (a .436 winning percentage which is slightly worse than the winning percentage of this season's New Orleans Pelicans, a playoff team). The rampant practices of tanking and "load management" also help today's players to post gaudy numbers. Every season of Irving's career he not only regularly takes time off for one reason or another, but he also has the opportunity to boost his numbers by playing against teams that are losing on purpose.
Regarding the skill set comparison, Cousy may not have been the first player to dribble behind his back and throw no-look passes, but he was the first player to do such things while being the point guard for multiple NBA championship teams. Cousy was a pioneer. The showmen who came after him patterned their games on Cousy's game; Kyrie Irving would not exist as we know him today without Cousy, Pistol Pete Maravich, Archie Clark, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, and the many other great ballhandlers who preceded him, so it is not fair or relevant to speak of teleporting Irving to the 1960s without acknowledging the debt that he owes to the great players who came before him. On the other hand, if you teleported young Cousy into today's game and permitted Cousy to travel, to carry the ball, and to dribble all over the court without perimeter defenders being permitted to touch him there is every reason to believe that Cousy would be as great now as he was in his time.
You may think that comparing the shooting skills of two players just involves looking at shooting percentages, but such a simplistic view fails to take into account how different today's game is from the NBA game in the 1950s and 1960s: the defensive rules are different, the addition of the three point line changed both offensive and defensive strategies, and there are other differences (medical care, playing four games in five days, etc.) that impacted shooting percentages (and other statistics). Cousy's field goal percentage was above average during his career, and he was one of the league's top free throw shooters. Irving's field goal percentage is also above average relative to his era, and he is one of the league's top free throw shooters. There is no objective way to measure Cousy's range because the three point shot did not exist during his career, but throughout the past 40-plus years we have seen many players who were not nearly as accomplished as Cousy add the three point shot to their repertoire after entering the league as below average outside shooters, so there is no reason to think that Cousy would not have been at least a good three point shooter if he had played in the modern era.
Statistically, Cousy is one of the greatest playmakers of all-time, while Irving is a solid playmaker. I would not put too much stock in assist numbers alone, because those numbers are very subjective (although I trust the pre-1980s assist numbers more than I trust the post-1980s assist numbers, because in the 1980s the scorekeepers began awarding assists more generously), but I would note that Cousy was the top playmaker not just for his team but in the entire league, while Irving has generally been primarily a scorer while serving as a secondary playmaker for his teams.
Defense is even more difficult to compare than the categories listed above. Neither Cousy not Irving would be considered elite defensive players, but Cousy was the point guard for championship teams that were known for playing great defense and then for turning those defensive stops into fast break opportunities, and he played an important role at both ends of the court.
Redick's "hot take" got him the attention that he wanted, but it also let informed basketball observers know that Redick does not take basketball analysis or basketball history very seriously. According to one set of "advanced basketball statistics," based on Redick's NBA career his probability of being inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame is 0.0%, which coincidentally is also the likelihood that he has the slightest idea what he is talking about.
Labels: Amin Elhassan, Bob Cousy, J.J. Redick
posted by David Friedman @ 1:36 PM
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
COVID-19, the NBA, and Unanswered Questions
It was surreal to watch in real time last Wednesday night as an NBA game, an NBA season, and then life as we know it disappeared before our eyes. I feel like we are all now living in an X-Files movie, but Mulder and Scully are not here to seek the truth.
So many questions, and so few answers.
I understand that as soon as one NBA player became infected with COVID-19 the league had to shut down, at least temporarily, to evaluate the situation. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is being hailed as a visionary, but it is more honest to say that he is a realist. How can a season continue with possibly five or six teams under quarantine? Anyone with sense knew that as soon as one NBA player tested positive for COVID-19 the season had to be suspended.
I don't understand why ESPN was in such a rush to publicly announce the name of the infected player, possibly before he even had an opportunity to communicate this news to his family. It is OK to mention Rudy Gobert's name now, because he has gone public to talk about the situation, but that was not the case when his name was first broadcast by ESPN.
SIRIUS XM NBA Radio's Jason Jackson and Amin Elhassan--the former used to work for ESPN, while the latter is still employed by the network--had a thoughtful, in depth discussion of why it is meaningless (and, at times--like this time--harmful) for a media member to report something "first" as opposed to being both accurate, and also sensitive to larger issues. It was sufficient for ESPN to report that a player had tested positive. As Elhassan noted, the NBA and/or the player would have revealed the rest in short order. Elhassan pointed out a recent, and even worse, example of being "first" as opposed to being accurate, and being sensitive to larger issues: the initial "reporting" about the helicopter crash that took Kobe Bryant's life was a confused and confusing mixture of wrong-headed speculation pertaining to who exactly had perished. It was falsely reported that Bryant's former teammate Rick Fox was on the helicopter, and it was also falsely reported that more than one of Bryant's daughters were aboard. Being "first" and wrong is worse than meaningless. It is irresponsible, if not evil.
I understand that once the NBA suspends its season, most other sports organizations are going to follow suit.
I don't understand why Gobert's situation is not being studied more closely by medical professionals who are trying to figure out how to deal with COVID-19 (if Gobert's situation is being studied, I apologize for suggesting otherwise). The initial, breathless reporting--including referring to Gobert as "Patient Zero"--suggested that Gobert was going to singlehandedly infect, if not imperil, a large number of people, including the players and support staff from the Utah Jazz plus opposing players and other people with whom he came into contact after becoming infected. Much was made of Gobert intentionally touching reporters' microphones/recorders just two days before he tested positive; much less has been made of an interview given by a reporter covering the Jazz who stated that medical officials told all of the media members covering the Jazz that what Gobert did had a very low risk of transmitting COVID-19. That is not meant to suggest that what Gobert did was anything other than stupid, reckless and possibly dangerous, since he had no way to properly assess the potential consequences when he engaged in those actions. However, media coverage focusing incessantly on what Gobert did without providing any proper medical context to the actual risk is misleading at best, and panic-inducing at worst.
Presumably all of those people who came in close contact with Gobert have been tested, and it turns out that only one other person directly connected to Gobert has COVID-19: his teammate Donovan Mitchell (whose name I mention only because Mitchell has also gone public to discuss the situation). Note that even though there was a report that a fan who received an autograph from Gobert at a Utah Jazz game has COVID-19,
medical officials have stated 1) that Gobert was not infected/contagious at the time he signed the autograph, and 2) that interaction was not likely to have transmitted the disease even if Gobert had been infected at that time.
I wear many hats--father, lawyer, basketball commentator, chess player--but I am not a medical doctor or an epidemiologist. I don't pretend to have any expertise about how contagious COVID-19 is, or how deadly it is. So, what follows are honest, sincere questions, with no subtext. If a medical doctor or epidemiologist reads these words, feel free to post a comment to enlighten me and my readers.
If COVID-19 is as contagious as it is depicted to be, and if Rudy Gobert had the kind of sustained, direct contact with so many people that one can reasonably assume that he had after he became contagious but before he was isolated, then why is there only one infection directly connected to him? Whole countries are being shut down, and millions of lives are being disrupted on the premise that this disease is highly contagious. More than one media outlet has reported that one person in New York singlehandedly infected over 100 people.
Shouldn't somebody with medical expertise be looking into why Gobert is not very contagious, and why this other person supposedly is so contagious? Do we not have all the facts? Did Gobert somehow infect more people than we know? That seems doubtful based on how many people connected to him have already been tested. Is the one person in New York possibly not responsible for infecting over 100 people? If Gobert only infected one person, but this other individual infected over 100 people, then what actionable knowledge can we gain from those two situations to limit the spread of this disease? Alternatively, if this other individual only infected one or two people, then other method(s) of disease transmission involving the rest of the folks incorrectly linked to that individual presumably would have implications for the effort to slow the spread of the disease.
Gobert felt well enough to play NBA basketball on the night that he tested positive. By all accounts, Donovan Mitchell is doing fine, too.
Are people who are younger than a certain age and reasonably healthy seriously at risk?
I understand the concepts of "flattening the curve," and the importance of minimizing how many people get sick so that the healthcare system is not overwhelmed--but shutting down the entire country will also have a serious impact on the economy, on mental health, and ultimately on physical health. An autopsy can prove if someone who died had COVID-19. An autopsy cannot prove that someone who died would have lived if not for the transformative disruptions of society that are increasing on a daily basis to mitigate the spread of a disease that we do not understand very well.
Is it possible that protectively isolating the elderly and the most vulnerable without shutting down the whole economy would lead to a better outcome, both in terms of disease mitigation, and the mitigation of other negative outcomes?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions--but I know that these are very important questions, and that they need to be answered intelligently not only to deal with this crisis, but to deal with whatever the next crisis will be.
I extend my deepest sympathy to all the family and friends of those who have died as a result of COVID-19, and to all those who are suffering as a result of the mass disruptions of society, and I hope that there are better days ahead for all of us as soon as possible.
Labels: Adam Silver, Amin Elhassan, COVID-19, Jason Jackson, NBA, Rudy Gobert
posted by David Friedman @ 1:39 AM
