20 Second Timeout

Knicks Fire Their Most Successful Coach of the Past 25 Years

"You're timing stinks. We've just made a billion eight for the second year in a row. That's three and a half billion in the past two years. But mark my words, Henry. You may never see a billion eight again. And do you know why? Because you don't know how the f--- we made it in the first place." Lee Iacocca to Henry Ford after being fired by Ford

A family run business can hire and fire on a whim. That is how Ford Motor Company operated under Henry Ford II, which is how Lee Iacocca ended up at Chrysler, where he revitalized a company that had seemed to be on the brink of imminent collapse; meanwhile, Ford Motor Company's market share gradually declined after the Iacocca firing. Iacocca had a lot to do with Ford Motor Company's success in the 1960s and 1970s, but job performance had nothing to do with Henry Ford II's decision to fire Iacocca. 

What does this trip down automotive history memory lane have to do with the NBA? Tom Thibodeau just coached the New York Knicks to their most successful season in the past 25 years--the culmination of three straight years of improved regular season records--but that was not enough to save his job when James Dolan decided to fire him. Much like Henry Ford II ran Ford Motor Company as a family business (never mind the existence of a supposedly independent board of directors), Dolan runs the Knicks as a personal fiefdom where he can declare "Off with their heads!" on a whim. 

The Knicks steadily improved during Thibodeau's tenure, and before this season began no reasonable person would have said that reaching the 2025 Eastern Conference Finals would constitute failure, let alone be a fireable offense. The Knicks went 21-45 in the COVID-19 abbreviated 2019-20 season, and then went 41-31 in Thibodeau's first season at the helm. After slipping to 37-45 in 2021-22, the Knicks went 47-35, 50-32, and 51-31 in the next three seasons, advancing to the second round in back to back years before reaching the Eastern Conference Finals this season.

Prior to hiring Thibodeau in 2020, the Knicks had missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons under six different coaches. The Knicks have had 13 head coaches in the 24 years since the departure of Jeff Van Gundy in 2001.

Do you see the pattern? The one constant is James Dolan, who has owned the team through all of this turbulence; the general managers change, the coaches change, the players change, but Dolan is always there, presiding over the chaos. 

Firing excellent coaches is a trademark move of a dysfunctional franchise. Sensible reasons to fire a coach include underperformance relative to reasonable expectations, declining performance in the absence of extenuating circumstances, or the availability of a superior coach. Those reasons are not applicable to Thibodeau and the Knicks. 

Bashing excellent coaches is a trademark move of media members who do not understand the sport that they cover. The correct way to critique a coach is to focus on a specific coaching decision, provide evidence demonstrating why that coaching decision was suboptimal, and then suggest an alternative coaching decision that would have been better, supporting that alternative with evidence. Media members do not do this for a simple reason: they are not capable of doing this. The barriers to entry for some fields are quite high: to become an attorney, you must first get a high LSAT score, then you must graduate from law school, and then you must pass the bar exam; to become a chess master, you must achieve a rating in timed, competitive play that exceeds the ratings of 99% of competitive chess players. To become a media member, all you have to do is know someone who knows someone who likes you, and that is why media members who could not coach their way out of a paper bag with a machete are paid to intone solemnly (or yell bombastically) about how they would coach a team much better than a career professional coach would.

The prevailing media-driven narrative that Thibodeau did not use his bench enough is as lazy as it is stupid, and the people who propagate that nonsense fail to explain (1) who specifically Thibodeau should have played more minutes, (2) who specifically Thibodeau should have played fewer minutes, and (3) what evidence exists to demonstrate that making those moves would have produced a better outcome than losing in the Eastern Conference Finals.

When I critique a coach, I provide specific evidence-based reasons for that critique. For example, when Kevin Durant entered the NBA and Seattle Coach P.J. Carlesimo declared that he would move Durant from forward to guard, I expressed skepticism: 

Durant has not played one minute of regular season action in the NBA, yet even though he has been advertised as a great inside player his coach already wants him to switch positions. Carlesimo clearly wants to spare Durant from being pounded in the paint but the move to the backcourt will lead to other problems. To the best of my knowledge, Durant has never played guard; now he will have to learn how to do so against the best guards in the world. Also, from what I saw in the summer league, Durant has a very high dribble and is not a great ballhandler, so he will be a turnover waiting to happen if he is relied upon to do a lot of dribbling.

Durant clearly needs to put on some weight but that will be true regardless of which position he plays. I think that he and Seattle would be better served if he takes his lumps at his natural small forward position where he will at least be in the comfort zone of playing in areas of the court that are familiar to him.

The Seattle franchise subsequently moved to Oklahoma City and replaced Carlesimo with Scott Brooks, who immediately shifted Durant back to forward, a decision that I praised: "Moving Durant to small forward is a big step in the right direction that I predict will pay noticeable dividends, possibly as soon as the end of this season." The rest is history, as Durant assembled a Hall of Fame career as a forward; he averaged 20.3 ppg on .430 field goal shooting in his one year as a shooting guard, and in the next 16 seasons he never averaged less than 25.1 ppg and he never shot worse than .462 from the field.

A few years later, Carlesimo was coaching the Brooklyn Nets and Thibodeau was coaching the Chicago Bulls. The teams met in the first round of the 2013 playoffs, and I predicted that Chicago would win: "This series features a huge coaching mismatch. TNT's Kenny Smith says that if a team loses by more than five points then blame the players but if it loses by less than five points blame the coach; the games in this series figure to be low scoring and close and I trust Chicago's Tom Thibodeau much more than I trust Brooklyn's P. J. Carlesimo; this is not just about in-game adjustments but also about elements of preparation that give one team an edge over another." Sure enough, Chicago--which had won 45 games during the regular season while Brooklyn had won 49 games--won that series, 4-3. After the series, I distinguished coach evaluating from coach bashing:

Coach bashing is a favorite media pastime but most media members do not have a clue how to determine if a team is well coached or poorly coached. I respect all NBA coaches tremendously and I fully realize that even a bad NBA head coach knows more about basketball than the vast majority of coaches at any other level of the sport; [George] Karl is a very good NBA coach but he seems to be better suited for rebuilding teams/coaching underdogs than he is at extracting the maximum out of 50-plus win teams. Carlesimo was an excellent collegiate coach and he served as an assistant on Gregg Popovich's San Antonio staff so Carlesimo obviously has a very good basketball mind--but as an NBA head coach he has not measured up well in comparison with the best of the best, a category in which Thibodeau clearly belongs.

When I critique coaches like Carlesimo and Karl I am not trying to suggest that I know more about basketball than they do or that I would be a better NBA head coach; in other words, I am not acting like Bill Simmons. I am just doing my job as an NBA analyst by pointing out that, as much as Karl and Carlesimo know about basketball, there are other coaches who are demonstrably performing at a higher level.

Media members do not like to admit being wrong and it is interesting to see the lengths some of them will go to in order to avoid such admissions. Simmons used to regularly bash Doc Rivers' coaching acumen but now Rivers is widely recognized as a great coach so Simmons had to stop degrading Rivers--but did Simmons admit that he was wrong? Of course not! Simmons' story is that Rivers has evolved into being a great coach. Rivers won the 2000 Coach of the Year award in his first season as an NBA head coach after leading the "heart and hustle" Orlando Magic to a 41-41 record with Darrell Armstrong, John Amaechi and Chucky Atkins as the top three players in the rotation. Has Rivers become a better coach in the intervening 13 years? I am sure that he has; I hope that anyone who does something for more than a decade becomes better at it--but the idea that Rivers was a terrible coach who then became a great coach is absurd. Simmons was dead wrong about Rivers and he should just admit it. 

After retiring from the NBA, Brian Scalabrine has played several one on one games versus regular people who assume that because he was a bench player in the league and is now a retired player they have a chance to beat him--but Scalabrine routinely dominates these players, and he has correctly stated that he is closer to LeBron James' level than any of those players are to his level. Similarly, the worst coach in the NBA is closer to Phil Jackson's level of basketball understanding and acumen than any media member is to the worst coach's basketball understanding and acumen. In other words, media members should approach their craft with humility and with the goal of trying to learn more about basketball strategy--but that does not generate hype or TV ratings, so basketball fans will continue to be subjected to empty minds with large mouths loudly proclaiming "hot takes" devoid of cold logic.

Labels: James Dolan, Jeff Van Gundy, Kevin Durant, New York Knicks, Oklahoma City Thunder, P.J. Carlesimo, Scott Brooks, Seattle Supersonics, Tom Thibodeau

posted by David Friedman @ 10:32 PM

2 comments

Harden’s Hubris, Lillard’s Situational Loyalty, and ESPN Abandons Even the Pretense of Providing Substantive Commentary

NBA free agency 2023 has just begun, but there has already been a flurry of activity. Three stories in particular caught my eye so far, and none of the stories relates to a player who has changed teams (at least up to this point): James Harden once again demanded to be traded after doing little to improve his current team, Damian Lillard asked to be traded after spending his whole career bragging about how loyal he is to Portland, and ESPN got rid of several credible commentators while retaining the services of "Screamin' A" Smith and other no-nothing blowhards.

Harden has never pretended to be loyal, nor has he ever shown self-awareness about his basketball abilities. Harden lusted after the money and accolades of a number one option without ever having the ideal mentality or game to be a number one option on a legit championship contender; instead of staying with the Oklahoma City Thunder to be the third option in an organically constructed "Big Three" with Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, Harden fled to Houston seeking money and individual glory. Harden's sorry elimination game resume--to which Harden added yet another awful stat line in 2023 (nine points, five turnovers, 3-11 field goal shooting in a game seven loss to Boston)--speaks for itself.

As Harden's career winds down, he is shamelessly jumping from team to team trying in vain to be what he should have been all along--the third option on a championship contender; he quit on the Rockets to force his way to Brooklyn (and reunite with Durant, who won two rings without Harden), then he whined his way out of Brooklyn to reunite with his biggest fan (Daryl Morey, who called Harden a better offensive player than Michael Jordan) in Philadelphia, and now Harden has exercised his $35.6 million player option for 2023-24 before making it clear that he prefers to hitch his wagon to Kawhi Leonard and Paul George of the L.A. Clippers, presumably believing that this duo has enough talent to overcome his perpetual playoff choking and deliver him a championship ring. 

It will be fascinating to see how Morey handles this situation. Morey has devoted his career to slavishly admiring Harden, but Morey is known as a tough negotiator who is comfortable being uncomfortable: will Morey stand firm to get the best possible return for the 76ers (which is, after all, the job Morey is being paid to do), or will he cave in and lovingly send Harden to Harden's preferred destination regardless of what the Clippers offer in return? It will also be interesting to see when/if the 76ers' ownership group becomes fed up with being led by the nose by a series of "stat gurus" (first Sam Hinkie, now Daryl Morey) whose devotion to "advanced basketball statistics" has yet to lift the 76ers past the second round of the playoffs.

While Harden is a basketball mercenary/pirate seeking personal glory with little regard to the carnage he leaves behind with each of his former teams, Lillard's brand is built in no small part on his character and loyalty. Just a few months ago, I wrote about Lillard's Loyalty; my analysis of his skills was on point, but my praise for his loyalty was premature. This is not about Lillard's right to seek employment elsewhere, because I am not questioning that; my point is that no one forced Lillard to write an article titled "Loyalty Over Everything" in which he almost broke his arm patting himself on the back for his character, toughness, and loyalty: 

I'm saying, you think you know how deep this goes, but you have no idea. When I say that I will never, ever switch up on the city of Portland, I mean what I say. When I say that I will never, ever switch up on this organization, I mean what I say.

They might switch up on me. That's business. That's basketball. But I will never switch up on the city. I don't want it easy. I'm drawn to the struggle. When I came here, we hadn't won a playoff series since 2000. You had so many injuries to franchise guys like Brandon Roy and Greg Oden over the years, and it's so tough to come back from that. Even going way back, you had All-Stars like Clyde Drexler and Bill Walton who didn't choose to end their careers as a Blazer.

Well, I'm going to be that. I'm going to carry that. I'm going to bring a ring to this city or go down swinging...

I ain't turning my back on the city, because the city has been riding with me since Day One. 

I'm not for the fake or the pretend. Too much of that going around these days. I'm for the authentic. It's the same as it was when we were sleeping four-to-a-motel-room with the Rebels. I'm trying to win with my people. Everything I ever experienced, every chapter of it, the good and the bad and the grimy, that's what made me.

At best, the above paragraphs now sound corny and contrived; at worst, Lillard looks like a liar, or at least like someone who lacks the inner strength to stay true to his expressed core beliefs. Don't tell us "I'm going to bring a ring to this city or go down swinging" and then beg to be traded to Miami to hook up with a team that has reached the NBA Finals twice in the past four seasons without you. Going to the Heat is the opposite of being "drawn to the struggle"; it is hitching your wagon to Jimmy Butler's star, and hoping to ride all the way to a championship.

Lillard's trade request makes one reevaluate his whole career, because it is just not clear what he wants or what he ever wanted. It has always been evident to any informed observer that Lillard is not good enough to be the best player on a legitimate championship contender (every time I hear someone compare Lillard or Chris Paul to Isiah Thomas I feel physically ill, because Thomas--in marked contrast to Lillard and Paul--joined a lousy NBA team, stayed with that team his whole career, and won two titles while facing Bird, Magic, and Jordan in their primes). Thus, if Lillard's main goal is to win a title then he should have been taking less money throughout his career so that the Trail Blazers could sign a player who is qualified to be a legit number one option for a championship contender. If Lillard's main goal is to make as much money as possible, then there is nothing wrong with him signing max deals even though that did not leave enough money available to build a legit championship contender--and there is no reason for him to leave Portland, because Portland can pay him more than any other team. More to the point, if Lillard is really the ride or die type of guy that he has always portrayed himself to be then he should never have asked for a trade. 

It is not clear what changed to induce Lillard to renounce a central aspect of his public identity; it is not a newsflash that the Trail Blazers have not provided the superstar and role players that Lillard would need to seriously contend for a title--and Lillard never publicly complained about that--so it is odd that all of a sudden Lillard changed his tune and decided to join the team-hopping brigade, which includes LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, Harden, and Kyrie Irving. At least James, Durant, and Leonard can plausibly argue that they bring championship contention with them in their suitcases; Harden, Irving, and now Lillard show up asking (metaphorically) "Who is going to carry me to the mountaintop?"

It is also not clear what the Heat are thinking if it is true that they are eager to acquire Lillard. The Denver Nuggets bludgeoned the Heat in the paint at both ends of the court in the 2023 NBA Finals, so adding the undersized Lillard and his infamous logo shots to the mix in no way positions the Heat to beat the Nuggets in a playoff series, nor does it position the Heat to beat a full strength Milwaukee team (or any other elite team that uses its size effectively). Lillard could help the Heat's inconsistent offense, but that is not enough to win a title.

Shifting focus to the people who cover the NBA, it is disappointing--but, sadly, not surprising--that ESPN let go several outstanding commentators, including Jeff Van Gundy and Jalen Rose (plus Steve Young, perhaps the network's most insightful NFL analyst). ESPN's NBA analysis is now reduced to Tim Legler--who is outstanding--and a few games per season during which the legendary Hubie Brown provides color commentary. Other than Legler and Brown, when one watches ESPN's NBA coverage one can abandon all hope of hearing intelligent commentary (Mark Jackson is solid, but why isn't more made of the fact that he left Nikola Jokic off of his 2023 regular season MVP ballot?).

Rose was one of the few ESPN commentators who would contradict nonsense even if it was spouted by another ESPN commentator. Rose used the phrase "concert tour" to describe James Harden's ridiculously poor playoff field goal percentages (Harden's numbers look like spring or summer concert tour dates, such as 5-13); that turn of phrase--both funny and insightful--is typical of the perspective that Rose provided. He was the entertaining and intelligent commentator that "Screamin' A" believes himself to be.

Van Gundy had a little Bill Walton in him in terms of going off on whimsical tangents, but Van Gundy consistently provided an elite coach’s insight about basketball. He often declared, "Horses trot, players run"--in reference to so-called superstars who jog up and down the court--and during the height of Kobe Bryant's career his voice provided a lonely but welcome counterpoint to the nonsense spewed by the likes of Bill Simmons, Mike Wilbon, and other nationally prominent commentators who constantly made unfair and unwarranted criticisms of how Bryant played. Van Gundy did not buy into the nonsense that other ESPN commentators spew about in game adjustments. Van Gundy consistently stated that playoff series are not decided by in game adjustments because "You are who you are by this time of the year and you have to go with your best stuff and expect them to go with their best stuff." It is amazing that Mike Wilbon and Brian Windhorst have been with ESPN for so long yet apparently are incapable of grasping this piece of wisdom dispensed by a colleague who, unlike either of them, coached a team to the NBA Finals.

No one gets everything right in terms of predictions or skill set analysis, but the best commentators view the game in a way that consistently enables them to provide insights that elude many media members and "stat gurus." Hopefully, TNT or NBA TV will pick up the ball dropped by ESPN, and hire Rose and Van Gundy. 

Labels: Damian Lillard, Daryl Morey, ESPN, Hubie Brown, Jalen Rose, James Harden, Jeff Van Gundy, Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trail Blazers

posted by David Friedman @ 11:09 AM

8 comments

NBA's 75th Anniversary Celebration Game Provided Stirring Trip Down Memory Lane

On Wednesday night, ESPN and ESPN2 did a simulcast of the Brooklyn Nets-New York Knicks game; ESPN did a regular broadcast, while ESPN2 presented an NBA 75th Anniversary Celebration game featuring old-school graphics from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, plus guest appearances from legendary players and broadcasters. Dave Pasch and Hubie Brown handled the ESPN duties, while Mike Breen, Mark Jackson, and Jeff Van Gundy--each clad in 1970s-style yellow ABC blazers--hosted the 75th Anniversary Celebration Game. Normally, I would be glued to any broadcast featuring Brown, but I could not resist the stirring trip down memory lane provided by the 75th Anniversary Celebration Game. I have been following pro basketball since I was a young child in the 1970s, and this sport has been a huge part of my life: I love to play basketball, I love to watch basketball, and I love to write about/analyze basketball. The game changes and evolves, but my fascination endures.

Oscar Robertson was the first guest, as the first quarter of the 75th Anniversary Celebration Game focused on the 1960s. He talked about how competitive the NBA was when the league had just eight teams, and he mentioned playing each team 13 times per season. When Robertson was a rookie in 1960-61, his Cincinnati Royals were a Western Division team. The Royals played the other three Western Division teams--the Bob Pettit/Cliff Hagan-led St. Louis Hawks, the Elgin Baylor/Jerry West L.A. Lakers, and the Bailey Howell/Gene Shue-led Detroit Pistons--13 times each, and they faced the four Eastern Division teams--including Bill Russell's dynastic Boston Celtics stacked with future Hall of Famers, Wilt Chamberlain's Philadelphia Warriors, the Dolph Schayes/Hal Greer-led Syracuse Nationals, and the Willie Naulls/Richie Guerin-led New York Knicks--10 times each. 

Robertson also praised the skills of today's players, and he marveled at Kevin Durant's ability to handle the ball so fluidly at seven feet tall. 

Marv Albert was the next guest. He talked about the 1960s--when his career began--but he also discussed covering the 1992 Dream Team (the only real Dream Team; the other teams were Team USA, but not Dream Teams). Albert said that when he first did a Dream Team game at the Tournament of the Americas he got chill bumps as the players came on to the court, and he added that without question this was the greatest set of talent ever assembled on one team in sports history. Albert explained that his trademark "Yesss!" call evolved from the "gyrations" of NBA referee Sid Borgia, channeled through one of Albert's friends who would do play by play while he and others played pick up games. Albert recalled that he first said "Yesss!" during a broadcast after a Dick Barnett jump shot, that fans and players began repeating the line back to him, and he soon incorporated it into his routine--but only for spectacular shots and/or shots that happened at key moments.

The second quarter focused on the 1970s. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar talked about doing the Mikan drill as a fifth grader, and how this practice helped transform him from a gangly, awkward player into a skilled player who wielded the sport's greatest weapon ever: the skyhook. Asked why more players do not shoot the skyhook, Abdul-Jabbar provided a very insightful answer: he said that coaches do not teach the shot properly, because after a player masters the Mikan drill fundamentals he should learn to shoot the skyhook in a way that fits his athletic abilities; Abdul-Jabbar insisted that it would be wrong to try to teach another player to shoot the skyhook with the exact same form that he used, because his form was based on his physical characteristics. 

Abdul-Jabbar said that Wilt Chamberlain was the strongest player he ever faced, but quickly noted that he never played against Shaquille O'Neal. He explained that both big men were physically imposing in a similar way, but with different physiques.

Another guest representing the 1970s, Bill Walton, was in typical form: he talked straight through his whole segment without giving anyone a chance to ask a question. He remembered playing against NBA players as a 14 year old high schooler, and he noted that Marty Glickman (who also influenced Marv Albert) helped him to overcome his speech impediment. Walton praised David Stern and Adam Silver as two NBA commissioners who have helped grow the sport. Stern was certainly a trail blazer, but I am much less impressed by Silver's legacy thus far.

My favorite NBA decade is the 1980s. In 1981, Julius Erving, after winning three ABA regular season MVPs and two ABA Finals MVPs, became the first non-center to win an NBA regular season MVP since Oscar Robertson (1964), and two years later Erving teamed with Moses Malone for a glorious, record-setting championship run. The Bird-Magic rivalry was outstanding, and the Isiah Thomas-led back to back champion Detroit Pistons remain underrated. Michael Jordan's incredible NBA career began in the 1984-85 season, though he did not start winning championships until 1991.

The third quarter guest who discussed the NBA in the 1980s was Dick Stockton, who is one of the most gracious people I have ever had the privilege of interviewing. I have an indelible memory of the first time I met him: "When I approached Stockton face to face--without prior notice--at a Cleveland Cavaliers game and asked him if he could take a few moments to answer some questions for my upcoming Andrew Toney article, he could have politely--or impolitely--declined: he was a big-time national TV star who had no idea who I was. Instead, Stockton warmly agreed to my request and he enthusiastically answered my questions. I bumped into him on a few subsequent occasions at other games and he always gave me a friendly greeting. I can assure you that this is not typical behavior in this business."

Stockton shared his memories of covering the great Celtics-Lakers NBA Finals in the 1980s. He made two interesting points: (1) those series were competitive, but often the individual games were blowouts as first one team asserted its will over the other, and then the situation reversed in the next game; (2) CBS marketed team matchups over individual matchups, which Stockton liked because he firmly believes that basketball is a team game. Breen recalled that Stockton influenced his style by telling him that broadcasting is about reaction and not just preparation; Stockton said that viewers will react a certain way to what happens during a game, and if the broadcaster is not in tune with that then he loses credibility. Stockton deflected some of the praise directed toward him by making a point of lauding Sandy Grossman, Pat O'Brien, and the rest of the NBA on CBS crew, stressing that it was a team effort and not just about the announcers.  

My favorite NBA broadcasting duo of all-time is Dick Stockton doing play by play alongside analyst Hubie Brown; they first teamed up at CBS, and then they later reunited at TNT. Stockton talked about Hubie Brown's meticulous preparation and attention to detail. Stockton has such a great grasp of what it takes to have a top notch NBA game broadcast: he is right that the play by play announcer must have the ability to react to game flow changes, and he is also right that no analyst matches Brown's ability to not only prepare for a game but to then seamlessly weave into the telecast the insights that he gained from his preparation. Stockton noted that Brown talks to the viewer like he would talk to a player who he is coaching. I will always remember Brown telling me that he never talks down to the viewer but rather attempts to help the viewer understand basketball's strategic nuances. 

Several of the guests talked about how blessed and fortunate they feel, so I must say that I feel blessed and fortunate that I have had the opportunity to interview Robertson, Erving, Stockton, Brown, and so many other legends.

In the fourth quarter, guest Bob Costas recalled covering not only Michael Jordan's six NBA titles, but also having a close-up view of the excellence of the other stars of the era--many of whom played on the Dream Team. Costas noted that the standard set by the Dream Team led to the emergence of international players on the NBA stage. Asked to weigh in on the ubiquitous Michael Jordan-LeBron James comparisons, Costas said simply, "Statistically they be may be equal, but Jordan was greater." Costas explained that Jordan has had a greater impact on the game by virtue not only of winning more championships but also having more iconic moments, from winning the 1982 NCAA title at North Carolina all the way to the Dream Team and his six NBA titles. Costas emphasized that taking Jordan over James is not a knock on James, comparing this to a baseball historian taking Willie Mays over other great players.

Breen asked Costas about starting his career not in the NBA but in the ABA. Costas is an ABA guy through and through, and it was great to listen to him add some much needed ABA flavor to the telecast. Costas recalled serving as the play by play announcer for the Spirits of St. Louis from 1974-76, and he talked about the noteworthy "in perpetuity" deal executed by the team's owners, the Silna brothers; in exchange for giving up the right for their team to join the NBA via the ABA-NBA merger, the Silna brothers received a share of NBA TV revenue "in perpetuity," which turned into a windfall worth at least several hundred million dollars.

The NBA has a rich history that has produced indelible memories, and it was tremendous fun to revisit so many of those great moments.

Labels: Bill Walton, Bob Costas, Dick Stockton, Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Mark Jackson, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Oscar Robertson

posted by David Friedman @ 1:06 AM

0 comments

What is the Value of Non-Emergency "Breaking News"?

Two basketball-related stories caught my attention today. One story noted that ESPN has reportedly agreed to pay Adrian Wojnarowski $10 million a year to retain his services; his major role with the network is to report breaking news. The other story listed individuals who, "sources say," have been selected for the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's 2022 class; the official announcement will, per tradition, be made this weekend during the Final Four festivities.

Those two stories brought to mind something that has puzzled me for a long time: What is the value of non-emergency "breaking news"? The value of emergency breaking news is obvious: if a tornado, hurricane, military invasion, or terrorist attack is imminent or just beginning, it is important to report such news as quickly as possible.

Wojnarowski proved himself to be a solid writer/commentator before ESPN hired him, but ESPN does not use his writing/commentating skills very much: he has become best known for his "Woj bombs," his much-admired ability to break a story a day, an hour, or even a minute before that story becomes publicly available knowledge to everyone. Forgive the sarcasm, but what is the great value in finding out non-emergency news a short time before such news is the subject of a press release? 

Take the Hall of Fame story as an example. Anyone who missed the "breaking news" today would find out this weekend when the Hall of Fame makes the official announcement. Not only that, but it has often happened that non-emergency "breaking news" turns out to be wrong. Prior to LeBron James announcing to the world that he would take his talents to South Beach, how many "breaking news" stories incorrectly reported that James was going to New York or some other destination? Even if all of the "breaking news" stories had been accurate, what is the value of knowing where James is going shortly before James tells everyone? 

You may counter by asking, "What harm does such reporting cause?" 

One "harm" is that a journalist's first and most important obligation is accuracy; reporting what "sources say" before a story has actually happened carries an inherent risk of being wrong. Even if that risk is small, there is no corresponding reward to balance that risk; consumers are better served by 100% accurate reporting than by reporting that is less than 100% accurate but sometimes "breaks" non-emergency stories shortly before those stories can be reported with 100% accuracy.

A second "harm" is that no one is giving out information to "news breakers" out of the kindness of their hearts; the price that Wojnarowski and other "news breakers" invariably pay--whether or not they admit it--is the promise (overt or implied) to give favorable coverage to the "source" at some future time when that "source" needs some public relations help. Since the "sources" who are doing all of the "saying" are anonymous, the public has no way to know which "sources" are owed favors by which "news breakers." I am not accusing Wojnarowski or anyone else of any specific wrongdoing, because I have no way of knowing if he or any other "news breaker" has committed any specific wrongdoing--but that is the point: the inherent nature of the "news breaking" process is suspect, and ripe with opportunities for various types of corruption. When Wojnarowski or any other "news breaker" provides commentary about teams, GMs, coaches, or players, we have no way of knowing the extent to which his commentary is influenced by which people have agreed to be his sources or refused to be his sources. More broadly, when ESPN's coverage appears to be slanted for or against a player or a team we have no way of knowing the extent to which this apparent slant is related to sources providing or refusing to provide information to the network's $10 million "news breaker."

I don't need or want to know non-emergency news before it happens; I would prefer to have accurate, unbiased coverage of news when it happens, along with objective, informed commentary about the news.

Since "breaking news" of non-emergency stories is demonstrably not valuable while also coming at the cost of corruption, why are such "news breakers" provided such outlandishly large compensation? I understand why play by play announcers and in-game analysts are highly-paid; it takes a special skill to be a smooth play by play announcer (which is painfully evident when you have the misfortune of watching or listening to a play by play announcer who lacks that special skill), and an expert in-game analyst like Hubie Brown or Jeff Van Gundy points out strategic nuances that average fans might otherwise miss. The NBA is a multi-billion dollar business, so it makes sense that TV networks are willing and able to pay millions of dollars to their play by play announcers and in-game analysts--but it does not make sense that networks and news organizations pay so much for "breaking news" of non-emergency stories. ESPN and ESPN's viewers would be better off if the network got rid of "Screamin' A" Smith--who is reportedly paid even more than Wojnarowski--and changed Wojnarowski's role from "news breaker" to commentator. Instead of Wojnarowski proving "Woj bombs" of what "sources say" will happen, I would prefer to wait until something happens and then hear his objective take on what happened. Objective commentary about actual news is much better than hearing "Screamin' A" bloviate about what Wojnarowski's "sources say" will happen. 

Labels: Adrian Wojnarowski, Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy

posted by David Friedman @ 10:19 PM

8 comments

LeBron James Scores 56 as L.A. Lakers Defeat Slumping Golden State Warriors

The Golden State Warriors (2015, 2017-18) and L.A. Lakers (2020) have combined to win four of the last seven NBA championships, but both teams entered Saturday's night's matchup mired in slumps; the Warriors had lost three games in a row and seven of their last nine games, while the Lakers had lost four games in a row and eight of their last 10 games. The Lakers and Warriors combined to play an exciting--but far from flawless--game, with the Lakers winning 124-116 as LeBron James scored 56 points, becoming just the fourth player in NBA history to have a 50 point game after his 37th birthday (joining Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Jamal Crawford). The Lakers trailed 67-62 at halftime, but outscored the Warriors 35-22 in the final stanza. Russell Westbrook finished with 20 points on 9-17 field goal shooting while grabbing four rebounds and dishing for four assists, while Stephen Curry led the Warriors with 30 points on 13-22 field goal shooting.

James scored efficiently from all areas of the court, shooting 19-31 from the field (including 6-11 from three point range) and 12-13 from the free throw line. This performance provides yet another example of why it is ludicrous to characterize James as a pass first player. Even James, who has often spoken about how much he loves to pass the ball, seems to have grown weary of this misconception, and he recently expressed displeasure at not being acknowledged as a great scorer. James, more so than any other all-time great player, is prone to publicly beg for/demand more praise, and it is not difficult to believe that James meant to send a message about his greatness as a scorer by putting his individual talents on full display in a nationally televised game.

Both teams played small ball for the vast majority of the game. James started at center, and the Lakers did not use a traditional center during the entire game. Kevon Looney started at center for the Warriors, but he only played 13 minutes as the Warriors played small ball for the other 35 minutes. James grabbed a team-high 10 rebounds, tying the Warriors' Otto Porter for game-high honors. 

As I watched this game, I had mixed feelings about James' performance. I have mentioned many times before that James is the most baffling great player who I have ever watched. His talent is undeniable, and his accomplishments are impressive. Yet, there often seems like something is missing. I have also mentioned many times how difficult it is to score 40 points or more in a game at any level of basketball, let alone in an NBA game. Scoring 56 points on efficient shooting is something that very few players can do, and it is even more remarkable to do this past one's 37th birthday; many Hall of Famers were retired by 37, or else they were playing out the string as reserves. What James did was historic, and we may not see a performance like that by a player of his age for a long time (unless he does it again).

James was very productive when he had the ball, and he was very effective as a rebounder as the biggest player on the court with both teams playing small ball, but when he did not have the ball on offense or when he was not guarding the man with the ball on defense he was very disengaged, which has been a consistent pattern throughout this season. A major reason that the Lakers often trailed during this game and that they had to fight until the end to defeat a slumping team is that James gave up points on defense at almost the same historic clip that he scored points on offense. To their credit, ABC's Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson do not just fall in line with the common media practice of praising James while ignoring his flaws; they understand that you can give James credit for his greatness while also pointing out his deficiencies. Van Gundy repeatedly pointed out times when James did not cross halfcourt on defense as the Warriors scored, and he also singled out times when "help" or the "rotating big man" did not arrive on time (or even move at all), though in those instances he could have more often explicitly called out James by name (James was the only "help" or "rotating big man" in the picture on those plays, so maybe Van Gundy thought that it was obvious who he was talking about).

Van Gundy has a very simple take on what is wrong with the Lakers: without Anthony Davis in the lineup, the Lakers are too old, too small, and too slow to consistently play championship-level defense. The team's only hope is that Davis returns soon, and plays at a high level. Mark Jackson agreed with Van Gundy to some extent, but also said that some of the Lakers' problems could be minimized--if not solved--by playing harder. Van Gundy replied that the Lakers would have better results if they played harder, but he is still not convinced that the Lakers sans Davis are or can be very good.

In my 2021-22 Western Conference Preview, I wrote, "If the Lakers are healthy, they will win the West, and it would be fascinating to see prime Giannis Antetokounmpo versus elder statesman LeBron James in the NBA Finals." I could just note that the Lakers have not been healthy and move on, but because there has been so much talk about "fit" and so much effort to blame everything on Westbrook I would like to clarify why I expected the healthy Lakers to be so good, and what I think has gone wrong. My expectation was that Davis would anchor a strong defense, and that Davis, James, and Westbrook would control the defensive rebounds, enabling the Lakers to score a lot of points in transition; I pictured an older, but still potent version of James' Miami Heat teams that featured James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh. I expected that in the half court set the Lakers could punish teams inside with James and Davis, much like the 2020 Lakers did en route to winning the title. I knew that Westbrook's numbers would decline a bit, but I thought that his rebounding and playmaking would fit in very well. Instead, what happened was (1) Davis has been hurt for most of the year, and he has not played at peak effectiveness even when he was healthy, (2) James missed a lot of games due to injury, and when he has been healthy he has been much more focused on scoring than on defense, (3) Westbrook has not been provided with a defined role that maximizes his strengths, and he has been turned into the main scapegoat, and (4) the older players who the Lakers relied on to provide bench play have been injured, ineffective, or fallen out of the rotation for various reasons.

There has been constant chatter throughout the season about what is wrong with the Lakers. ABC devoted almost their entire pregame show to the topic, but when Stephen A. Smith and Mike Wilbon do so much of the talking you can be sure that a lot more heat than light is being generated. Smith and Wilbon kept baiting Magic Johnson to blame everything on Russell Westbrook and to call for Westbrook to be benched, but Johnson refused to follow their foolishness. Wilbon mentioned that during the Michael Jordan-Scottie Pippen era Scottie Pippen often played with the reserves; Wilbon has brought this up before, and he seems incapable of understanding the difference between staggering minutes so that either Jordan or Pippen is in the game for as close to 48 minutes as possible (which resulted in Pippen playing some minutes alongside several bench players) and removing Pippen from the starting lineup, which Coach Phil Jackson did not do for reasons that are obvious to anyone who is not biased and/or an idiot. Johnson did not correct Wilbon about the Pippen comparison, and Johnson just said that Westbrook needs to play better and needs to accept the high expectations that are part of playing for the Lakers. Johnson added that the blame for the Lakers' failures goes across the board. When pressed about benching Westbrook, Johnson smartly said that he goes to all of the games but he is not in the locker room, the practices, or the meetings so he has to defer to the coach's judgment. Johnson believes that if Davis returns then the Lakers are capable of making a postseason run, and he compared this team to his 1991 Lakers who he said overcame a slow start to reach the NBA Finals.

Johnson is too polite--or too business savvy--to directly tell Smith and Wilbon that they have no idea what they are talking about, or maybe Johnson realizes that this is so obvious to informed basketball fans that it need not be stated, but it was fascinating to hear Van Gundy offer his take during the game telecast. Play by play announcer Mike Breen mentioned that there have been reports about internal strife within the Lakers organization about whether or not Westbrook should be removed from the starting lineup. On the topic of removing Westbrook from the starting lineup, Van Gundy declared, "Whoever made that suggestion does not understand coaches, coaching, or players." Van Gundy added that you do not bring a player of Westbrook's caliber to a team and then bench him, even if Westbrook has a bad stretch of games. Mark Jackson agreed with Van Gundy that Westbrook has earned the right to play himself out of a bad stretch. Westbrook said as much during a few press conferences, and he was pilloried by media members who attack everything that Westbrook says or does.

Let's be very clear: during yesterday's pregame show, Wilbon proudly noted that he has been making the bench Westbrook suggestion all season-long, apparently believing that repeating a dumb idea enough times will transform that dumb idea into a smart idea. During the game, Van Gundy emphatically stated that anyone who thinks that Westbrook should be removed from the starting lineup "does not understand coaches, coaching, or players." I agree with Van Gundy that Wilbon "does not understand coaches, coaching, or players." I hope that whoever produces NBA programming for ESPN/ABC takes heed, and acts accordingly. It should also be noted that Hubie Brown, perhaps the best NBA color commentator of all-time, has a much different take on Westbrook and the Lakers than Smith and Wilbon.

Earlier in the day on Sirius XM NBA Radio, Sam Mitchell provided a more intelligent take on Westbrook and the Lakers than Wilbon could ever dream of having. Mitchell, a former NBA player and the 2007 NBA Coach of the Year, called the Lakers' treatment of Westbrook "disgraceful." Mitchell said that the organization should be protecting Westbrook but instead Westbrook is just hung out to dry, and Mitchell stated that any intelligent free agent would think twice about signing with the Lakers, because if the Lakers are willing to throw a former MVP/perennial All-Star under the bus then no one is safe. Mitchell also declared that if Westbrook were playing for a team that understood how to use him correctly then Westbrook would average a triple double or close to a triple double. Regarding LeBron James, Mitchell and his co-host Brian Geltzeiler noted that James left Bosh and Wade behind in Miami, and he left Kevin Love behind in Cleveland; it is a pattern of behavior for James to abandon a team (and his teammates) for what he perceives to be greener pastures. Geltzeiler emphasized that James has seemed disengaged throughout this season when the ball is not in his hands.

It is fascinating to watch how most media members operate, and then contrast this with the few media members who are smart enough (and honest enough) to understand and speak the truth. LeBron James is a one of the greatest basketball players of all-time. At times, though, he is selfish/self-centered, he is not "pass first," and this season in particular has devolved into him chasing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's career scoring record as opposed to trying to maximize the team's success. Along the way, James has deftly manipulated the narrative--with help from his friends Stephen A. Smith and Michael Wilbon, both of whom gave him big hugs on air before yesterday's game--so that he escapes any criticism for the Lakers' failed season. Russell Westbrook, even with his recent slump, is averaging more than 18 ppg, more than 7 apg, and more than 7 rpg. As Reggie Miller correctly noted during a recent TNT telecast, no other point guard would be so heavily criticized while posting such numbers--and he could have added that few point guards are even capable of posting such numbers. Magic Johnson had five 18-7-7 seasons in his 13 year NBA career (and in one of those five seasons he played just 37 games). Oscar Robertson had six 18-7-7 seasons in his 14 year NBA career. That is not meant to suggest that Westbrook is as good or better than Johnson or Robertson, nor is it meant to suggest that 18-7-7 is the only (or best) way to evaluate performance--but it is meant to suggest that Westbrook is making positive contributions that are being diminished, if not ignored, while media members focus on his weaknesses instead of pointing out (1) how poorly the Lakers are using Westbrook and (2) James' defensive indifference, which not only hurts the Lakers directly but also is no doubt affecting the team's overall morale and effort level.

Labels: Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Mike Wilbon, Russell Westbrook, Sam Mitchell

posted by David Friedman @ 12:41 PM

15 comments

Don't Believe the Historical Revisionism About the Cavaliers

It is easy to forget that not too long ago the Cleveland Cavaliers were considered to be a deep and talented team that was favored to win the NBA Championship. Very few people publicly predicted that the Boston Celtics would beat the Cavs. As the Lakers' Pau Gasol recently said, "I'm not going to lie, I had Cleveland getting to the Finals. It's been surprising."

In the wake of Boston's Eastern Conference semifinal win over the Cavs it has become fashionable in some quarters to suggest that the Cavs were not really that good, that LeBron James carried the team as far as it could go and that Mike Brown got outcoached--but those statements are demonstrably false: the Cavs had enough talent to post the best record in the NBA for two years in a row, overcoming injuries and adjusting on the fly to various personnel moves. The Cavs accomplished this by being a defensive-minded team and that is a reflection of Mike Brown's coaching. If one great player could lead a team to 60-plus wins without any help then Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Micheal Jordan would have never played on sub.-500 teams. Why doesn't Mike Brown get any credit for presiding over LeBron James' transformation from an indifferent--at best--defender to an All-Defensive First Teamer? Yes, James had to put in the individual work but he also needed someone providing guidance and devising an overall team defensive game plan.

In the process of reviewing Cleveland's playoff run, I just watched ABC's broadcast of Cleveland's 96-83 victory over the Chicago Bulls in game one of the first round. Analyst Jeff Van Gundy made several very interesting comments and observations during that game:

1. Mike Breen opened the telecast by correctly stating that anything less than winning a championship would be a disappointment for the Cavs and then he asked Van Gundy what would be the "key" for the Cavs to accomplish that goal. Van Gundy replied, "I think that there are three things. First, they've got to keep defending like they've defended since Mike Brown took over: they're a top three defensive team. Secondly, Mo Williams has to play well. Last year in the Orlando series, he did not play well enough--or shoot well enough--for them to win that series. Finally, LeBron James has to continue to be the best player in the NBA, which he has been for the last two years."
2. Early in the game, Van Gundy declared, "To me, Cleveland is a far superior team to what they had last year--the ability for (Antawn) Jamison to spread the floor more, (Shaquille) O'Neal can get centers in foul trouble and provide an offensive rebounding presence. I think they have a much better team this year." Mark Jackson then said, "I agree with you. I think the reason why, you look at the versatility--they can throw out multiple lineups and guys can play multiple positions. It allows them to match up with different teams when you talk about playoff basketball."
3. A few minutes later, after sideline reporter Lisa Salters mentioned that LeBron James had told his teammates before the game that the regular season is over and "You know what time it is," Van Gundy said, "If I (were) him and had given that speech, I would have looked around and said, 'I'm really good. We're not losing. I'm the best player in the NBA. Come on.'"
4. During a discussion about the job that Vinny Del Negro did as Chicago's head coach, Van Gundy made a point that also applies to Cleveland's Mike Brown: "I'll tell you this: you're never a good defensive team in this league by accident. You're a good defensive team because of coaching and a commitment."
5. Near the end of the first quarter, Breen said of the Cavs, "(General Manager) Danny Ferry has done an unbelievable job in terms of assembling the players around LeBron James and this bench--it's like a good bullpen in baseball: if you need a lefty reliever to go up against a lefty batter, you've got it; if you need a tall wing player to go up against a quick wing player, you've got it. They've got an answer for everything that the opponent throws at you."
6. After Jackson said that by the time James' career ends he "is going to be in the discussion" about who is the greatest player ever, Van Gundy said, "To me, he is already in that discussion."
7. Those who think that James can start stacking up championships by setting up shop in Chicago should keep in mind what Van Gundy said early in the second half: "I just don't think that they (the Bulls) have even close to the talent level of Cleveland. I just don't even think that they are in the ballpark talentwise." I still contend that in a seven game series Cleveland's reserves--including Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Delonte West, Jamario Moon and Daniel Gibson (five players who have started for NBA playoff teams, the first three of whom started for Cleveland's 66 win team in 2008-09)--could be competitive with the Chicago Bulls' starting five. If you disagree, then just go back and watch the April 8 game when a full strength Bulls team that needed a win to keep their playoff hopes alive barely beat a Cleveland team that rested LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal and Delonte West (and sat other key players down the stretch when the game was up for grabs).

So why is a deep, talented, defensive-minded team led by a two-time MVP sitting at home now? One problem, which I mentioned in March as a possible stumbling block for the Cavs, is that Shaquille O'Neal's thumb injury prevented Coach Brown from having the opportunity to firmly establish his player rotation prior to the playoffs. In a piece that ran in the December 8, 2003 issue of Sports Illustrated, 11-time NBA champion Bill Russell--who earned his last two titles as a player-coach--wrote, "How close can great teams get to reaching team ego and ignoring individual accomplishment? It's tougher to coach an excellent team than a poor one--there are never enough minutes or enough shots." The challenge of coaching a great team is compounded when several of the key pieces of that team do not have much time together on the court prior to the playoffs. Yes, I picked Cleveland to win the championship anyway because I thought that the Cavs could overcome this obstacle but that evaluation was based on a big assumption--one of the three "keys" that Van Gundy mentioned prior to Cleveland's first playoff game: I assumed that LeBron James would be highly motivated, highly focused and highly productive.

I declared prior to game six of the Cleveland-Boston series, "The bottom line is simple: even the best game plan in the world will fail if the team’s best player does not invest his mind, heart, body and soul in the process of trying to win a championship." The best player sets a tone for his teammates to follow: if he plays hard then they will do so as well. The number one reason that the Cavs lost to the Celtics is that at some point, for some as yet unknown reason, James became disengaged from the process of leading Cleveland to a championship; we saw signs of this during Cleveland's game two loss to Boston and the whole nation "witnessed"--to borrow a catch phrase--his listless play during game five. The Cavs owned a 2-1 lead in this series after blowing out the Celtics in Boston, so it is pretty silly to suggest that the Cavs simply could not match up with Boston; they only could not match up with Boston when James acted like he could not wait for the playoffs to be over.

What about James' much discussed elbow problem? That injury may be real but it is also a red herring in terms of assessing blame for the Cavs' playoff failure: the Cavs publicly stated that the MRI of James' elbow revealed no structural damage and GM Ferry said after the Boston series ended that there is no reason to believe that James will need surgery. James was officially diagnosed with an elbow bruise but that problem was not serious enough to prevent him from firing several half court shots prior to game six versus Boston and it clearly was not serious enough to limit his range of motion during games, as demonstrated by a number of plays that he made during the postseason. As TNT's Kenny Smith said, if James had not shot a late game free throw versus the Bulls lefthanded--after swishing a free throw with his normal motion--no one would have even suspected anything was wrong because James did not seem the slightest bit impaired.

It is easy to say that James' teammates should have stepped up--and it is true that overall Mo Williams (the second of Van Gundy's keys for a Cleveland championship run) had a disappointing playoff run--but it is hard to play offense four on five; during the fifth game of the Boston series, James spent far too much time camping out so far behind the three point line that he was not even a credible threat to shoot if the ball came his way. The Cavs might have been better off without James during game five (and possibly game two as well), because if he had sat out then other players would have known from the start of the game that they had to fill bigger roles--but as long as James was on the court you could sense that his teammates kept waiting for him to snap out of his funk and do something.

For the past two years I have picked the Cavs to win the NBA championship; during each of those regular seasons they affirmed my assessment that they were the best team in the league by winning more games than any other team but then they fell well short of the ultimate goal, not even advancing to the NBA Finals. The Cavs dealt with various challenges during those seasons but think about some of the things the last two NBA championship teams overcame: the 2008 Celtics were thrown together in one offseason and survived two tough seven game series (including one against Cleveland) before winning the title, while the 2009 Lakers won despite a broken finger suffered by Kobe Bryant, a knee injury that vastly reduced starting center Andrew Bynum's effectiveness and some very inconsistent play by their bench.

Few teams just coast to a championship without having to surmount tough obstacles and each of the four teams remaining in this year's playoffs have responded well to a variety of challenges:

1) The Lakers have overcome multiple injuries suffered by Bryant, yet another knee injury to Bynum and a bench that has become even more erratic.

2) The Suns improved defensively despite having to constantly hide point guard Steve Nash at that end of the court and they survived the loss of starting center Robin Lopez.

3) The Magic seamlessly added two players to their starting lineup in the offseason and lost point guard Jameer Nelson for 17 games due to injury.

4) The Celtics battled the aging process, injuries and some chemistry problems.

In other words, whoever wins the 2010 NBA title will have dealt with issues at least as severe as anything the Cavs faced. It is indisputable that the Cavs have significantly upgraded the talent surrounding LeBron James since he led the team to the 2007 NBA Finals and yet they have regressed in terms of postseason success. Some people argue that this means that the Cavs must add even more talent to their team but I think that at this point it is fair to ask how perfect of a scenario LeBron James needs in order to win a championship. It is so tiresome to hear "stat gurus" proclaim that if James played for the Lakers they would go 80-2 and win the championship every year while if Kobe Bryant played for the Cavs their record would be much worse than it has been with James; leading a team to a championship is about more than just posting gaudy individual numbers: it is about doing whatever your team needs you to do in crucial situations--and it surely is not about wandering around passively behind the three point line while your team gets blown out at home in a crucial playoff game. There is no way to really know what would happen if Bryant and James "traded" supporting casts (though I think that the "stat guru" take on the matter is nonsense), but I can guarantee you this: if Kobe Bryant had a teammate--any teammate, from an All-Star to the 12th man--who played as listlessly as James did in game five Bryant would get right up in his face and demand more from him. Bryant feuded with Shaquille O'Neal not about the nonsense that the media liked to focus on but rather because of O'Neal's lax training habits and Bryant has not hesitated to confront any of his current teammates when their effort and/or toughness has been lacking. Bryant's style may not win points with the media and its value may not be quantifiable but it produces championship results. LeBron James likes to declare that he is a no excuse player but Kobe Bryant does not have to say that because with the kind of effort he puts forth he knows that he will not have to make any excuses.

Labels: Cleveland Cavaliers, Jeff Van Gundy, LeBron James, Mike Brown

posted by David Friedman @ 1:55 AM

7 comments

Jeff Van Gundy Speaks the Truth About Allen Iverson

About a minute and a half after the Detroit Pistons acquired Allen Iverson from the Denver Nuggets in exchange for Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess (the Pistons later re-signed McDyess after the Nuggets released him), Dave Berri--of Wages of Wins/True Hoop fame--blamed every ill in the Detroit metro area on Iverson. When I posted some comments on Berri's site pointing out that it was not fair or logical to hold Iverson entirely responsible for the Pistons' record considering that the Pistons were without McDyess' services for a month, that they had a new coach and that they foolishly decided to bench either Iverson or Richard Hamilton so that Rodney Stuckey could start, Berri's dittohead idiot followers came out of the woodwork anonymously spewing nonsense (Berri generally lets his drones do his dirty work as opposed to directly responding--unless the various creatively named commenters on his site are in fact him in "disguise").

During Denver's 119-105 win over the L.A. Lakers on Friday night, ESPN analyst Jeff Van Gundy spoke the truth about the Iverson situation in Detroit--and his words should sound very familiar to anyone who followed my analysis of the situation: "This is not to defend Iverson for some of the things--practicing and all that, whatever--but I think in the last year he has been the biggest scapegoat for the Detroit Pistons' shortcomings last year. That team just ran out of steam...Last year, the Detroit situation with him (Iverson) was mishandled. You don't bring in a guy like that and then tell either Richard Hamilton or Allen Iverson they're coming off the bench. You start Iverson, you start Hamilton, you bring Stuckey off the bench--or you just buy Iverson out when you make the trade. But to ask either one of those guys to come of the bench, to me, doesn't make any sense." In other words, a veteran NBA coach who is considered one of the sport's top TV analysts agrees 100% with what I have been saying for months about Iverson and Detroit.

Labels: Allen Iverson, Dave Berri, Detroit Pistons, Jeff Van Gundy

posted by David Friedman @ 1:17 AM

4 comments

Jeff Van Gundy Sounds Off on Iverson, Isiah and Redick

Hubie Brown and Doug Collins have long been the gold standard for NBA color commentators but Jeff Van Gundy's candor and insight have moved him up to just below their level; the only drawbacks with Van Gundy are some of his forced attempts at humor and his occasional off the wall comments (that perhaps are meant tongue in cheek).

During the telecast of New York's Friday night 105-95 win over Orlando--which must have been awkward for Van Gundy since his brother Stan coaches the Magic--Jeff Van Gundy provided concise and accurate analysis about a variety of NBA subjects:

1) Van Gundy said that it is wrong to place all of the blame for Detroit's poor performance this season on Allen Iverson. The Pistons have changed coaches and endured far more injury problems than they faced in previous seasons. Although Van Gundy did not mention this, it is also worth noting that as part of the Chauncey Billups-Iverson trade, Detroit's leading rebounder Antonio McDyess was also dealt to Denver and--by NBA rules--the Pistons could not re-sign him for a month. Van Gundy said that the rest of the Pistons are being given a free pass for their collapse from last season's 59-23 record while everyone simply piles blame on Iverson.

2) Similarly, Van Gundy said that while it is easy for everyone in New York to blast Isiah Thomas, the truth is that Thomas did a great job of selecting players in the draft, particularly his late first round selections (including David Lee and Nate Robinson). Van Gundy added that Thomas made some mistakes with his free agent signings but he deserves to be given credit for bringing in a number of young players who are playing key roles with the Knicks.

3) Van Gundy pointed out that the Knicks used a defensive strategy against the Magic that other teams would be wise to copy: single cover Dwight Howard in the post while the perimeter defenders stay attached to Orlando's three point shooters. Howard has yet to show that he can consistently go off for 35 or 40 points, so there is no need to double team him; Howard has only scored 35 points or more three times this season--and the Magic lost two of those games. Howard is often compared to Shaquille O'Neal but when O'Neal was a young beast he would drop 30 or more points on any team that single covered him, particularly in the playoffs; Howard has yet to score 30 points even once in his 14 game playoff career and has had fewer than 20 points in eight of those 14 contests. O'Neal scored 32 points in his 14th career playoff game and had only two games of fewer than 20 points in his first 14 playoff games; O'Neal added two more 30 point efforts in his next seven playoff games as he led the Magic to the NBA Finals in just his third year in the league, 1994-95, when he won the regular season scoring title with a 29.3 ppg average, a total that Howard has surpassed in just nine games this year while averaging a career-best 20.9 ppg in his fifth season.

That is why even though Howard's rebounding and defensive dominance make him a lock for the All-NBA First Team and a top five MVP candidate there is no way I would rank him ahead of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade in the MVP race--and the same thing is true of Chris Paul, another excellent player whose team can best be contained by guarding him one on one and staying attached to the three point shooters: Paul has scored 35 or more points just four times this season and his New Orleans Hornets lost three of those games. If a team is foolish enough to single cover James, Bryant or Wade, any of those players will go off for 40 or 50 points while shooting a good percentage and their teams will most likely win but Howard and Paul do not have the skill sets and/or dispositions to dominate by scoring in that fashion.

4) Van Gundy observed that the Magic do not have enough players who are capable of creating dribble penetration. Jon Barry accused the Magic of "settling for three pointers" but Van Gundy made an important distinction: the Magic are not "settling for three pointers" but in fact "maximizing what (they) do well." Van Gundy added that Rashard Lewis is not going to post up power forwards, not is Courtney Lee going to break down his man off of the dribble; other than posting up Howard, the Magic's best offensive weapon is the three point shot. This goes back to point #3: Magic opponents should strive to take away the three point shot and dare Howard to go off for 35 or 40 points.

5) J.J. Redick shot 0-7 from the field and he looked even worse on defense. Redick is averaging 6.0 ppg on .394 field goal shooting in 17.5 mpg this season and it hardly seems likely that the former Lottery pick will ever make a significant impact in the league. He is listed at 6-4, 190 but I've seen him in person and can say that 6-4 is a most generous estimate; Redick has hit the weights a bit since entering the league and may very well be a bit bigger than 190 but he is of course still giving away 15-20 pounds to most shooting guards even if he actually weighs 200. Van Gundy said that Redick is simply too short to be effective at either end of the court; on defense, opposing players can just shoot right over him, while on offense Redick's diminutive stature means that he has to alter his natural shooting motion at times even to get his shot off, which is part of the reason that he is not shooting well from the field. Barry--a 6-4, 195, 14 year NBA veteran--added that one of the biggest differences between college and the NBA is the speed of the game. In the NBA it is imperative to have a quick release, something that Redick does not have; Van Gundy and Barry mentioned that similarly sized players from the 1990s and early 2000s such as Jeff Hornacek (6-3, 190) and Dell Curry (6-4, 190) had much quicker shot releases than Redick, while a contemporary player like Kyle Korver (6-7, 210) is much bigger than Redick and has a quicker shot release. An extra inch of height or a split second quicker release may not seem like much but Van Gundy said that those things make the difference between being able to make an on balance attempt with good form and having to change your shooting motion or rush your shot. Of course, long-time 20 Second Timeout readers know that I have made similar points about Redick on many occasions, including a March Madness post in 2006 during the height of Redick's acclaimed collegiate career in which I predicted that he would be drafted higher than he should be and would likely become the next Trajan Langdon. Langdon (6-3, 197) averaged 5.4 ppg in 14.6 mpg while shooting .416 from the field in three NBA seasons and is now a productive player in Russia, thriving in FIBA play where his strengths as a spot up shooter are maximized and his weaknesses as a ballhandler and defender can be masked. Redick has averaged 5.5 ppg in 14.4 mpg while shooting .407 from the field in his three NBA seasons. Perhaps Van Gundy will enlighten David Thorpe about the true nature of Redick's skill set, since my attempt to do so fell on deaf ears.

Labels: Allen Iverson, Detroit Pistons, Isiah Thomas, J.J. Redick, Jeff Van Gundy, New York Knicks, Orlando Magic

posted by David Friedman @ 5:35 AM

2 comments

Nuggets Stun Celtics by Playing Good Defense

The Denver Nuggets defeated the Boston Celtics 94-85 on Friday night, earning their first victory against a team with a winning record this season and handing the Celtics their first home loss of the year. The Nuggets were playing their third game in four nights and had looked lackadaisical at times during Thursday's 110-99 loss at Cleveland--but after Boston opened the game with an 8-0 run the Nuggets played with energy and enthusiasm, building a 15 point lead. The Celtics rallied to go back in front by the end of the third quarter but with the score tied at 84 late in the fourth quarter the Nuggets seized control by going on a 10-0 run.

Carmelo Anthony scored 18 points and had a game-high 13 rebounds, while Chauncey Billups had 18 points and a game-high seven assists; in the final 2:50, Billups had a big three point play, made a pair of free throws and had two assists, thus playing a part in every point Denver scored in that late, game-deciding outburst. Ray Allen led the Celtics with 26 points, 18 of which he scored in the first quarter. Paul Pierce added 19 points, seven rebounds and four assists, while Kevin Garnett had 16 points and nine rebounds. Eddie House scored 13 points off of the bench but the remaining seven Celtics who played combined to produce just 11 points on 4-20 field goal shooting.

Here are some comments/observations about a very interesting contest:

*ESPN's Mark Jackson referred to Boston's Ray Allen and Eddie House as "born shooters" but Jeff Van Gundy strongly disagreed, arguing that shooting is a learned skill that can only be mastered after thousands of hours of practice. Jackson said that he spent thousands of hours practicing but could never shoot as well as Reggie Miller or Ray Allen. Van Gundy responded, half jokingly, by pointing out that Jackson used his off hand too much on his shot release but that Miller and Allen shoot the ball correctly. What Van Gundy is talking about is called "effortful study" and there is a body of research that shows that, in endeavors as diverse as music, science and sports, mastery is achieved only after an individual devotes at least 10,000 hours of "effortful study" to his craft; in line with Van Gundy's quip about Jackson's shooting technique, the significant thing about "effortful study" is not simply practicing mindlessly for 10,000 hours but rather practicing proper techniques for that period of time. You can read more about this in my posts titled Clyde Drexler Explains How He Developed His Jumping Ability and Basketball, Chess and Boxing, Part II.

*During a timeout early in the game, Denver Coach George Karl implored his players to finish out defensive possessions by getting rebounds. Meanwhile, several disinterested players looked at the floor, the ceiling and everywhere else but at Karl. Jackson commented, "If you're going to be a great defensive team, you have to get upset when teams score on you. I don't see the Nuggets talking about it, getting upset, discussing how they're missing assignments. That's the first step to being an effective defensive team." Although the Nuggets looked like they were not paying attention to Karl, they did start doing a better job on the glass and the Nuggets finished the game with a 43-37 rebounding advantage. Plus/minus data can be "noisy" (deceptive) at times but in this game it does reflect the fact that Denver received a big boost from three bench players who posted the top plus/minus numbers in this game: Linas Kleiza (+16), Renaldo Balkman (+12) and Anthony Carter (+12).

*Boston trailed by double digits for the fifth time in six home games after only trailing by double digits three times in 41 home games last season. I've seen the Celtics in person once so far this season--the Pacers stomped them 95-79 in Indiana's home opener--and I noted at that time that the Celtics played "harder and with more focus" each of the several times that I saw them in person last season than they did against Indiana this year. It is early and at 8-2 the Celtics may very well still end up with the best record in the East, but there has undeniably been some slippage in Boston; the question is whether or not the Celtics can regain what they have lost come playoff time.

*With Denver leading 61-51 during the third quarter after being up by as many as 15 points, Jackson said, "The thing you don't realize as a young team is that this is where you win or lose ball games. It's not down the stretch--it's when you have a chance to take it (the lead) from 15 to 20 as opposed to bringing it down to 10." This is precisely what I meant in my recap of the Lakers' 106-99 victory over the Mavericks when I referred to what I called "hidden clutch" performances. "Stats gurus" define the parameters of "clutch" as consisting of things that happen "late and close," which in basketball terms usually refers to a game that is five points or closer with less than two minutes remaining--but defining "clutch" this way is like looking for your lost watch at night under the streetlight because it is dark everywhere else, even though you lost your watch on the other side of the street; just because "late and close" is easy to quantify and measure does not mean that this is the best, most accurate way to define "clutch."

*After the Nuggets went on their late 10-0 run to take control, Van Gundy said simply, "This is un-Celtic like," referring to Boston's numerous mistakes, including turnovers, poor shot selection and bad defense.

Are the Celtics in trouble? Have the Nuggets turned the corner to become a solid defensive team? One game cannot answer such questions. My educated guess is that the Celtics simply are not quite as hungry on a night in, night out basis as they were last year; after winning a title it is harder to be so hungry every second of every game. As for the Nuggets, there is no doubt that this was a big win but I would have to see sustained defensive effort on a regular basis to believe that this was anything other than an aberration in terms of their overall prospects this season.

Labels: Boston Celtics, Denver Nuggets, Jeff Van Gundy, Mark Jackson

posted by David Friedman @ 12:59 AM

0 comments

Is the Effectiveness of Tim Duncan's Bank Shot Overrated?

During Phoenix' 94-87 victory over San Antonio last Sunday, ABC commentator Jeff Van Gundy made an intriguing and counterintuitive assertion about one of the game's most fundamentally sound players, declaring that Tim Duncan's bank shot is "overrated." Van Gundy said that defenders should not worry about that shot at all and instead back off of Duncan to prevent him from getting into the paint. I wonder if Van Gundy or anyone else has some numbers that would prove or disprove this. Duncan shot .546 from the field last season--the second best mark of his career--and his field goal percentage this year (.504) is just a tad below his career norm (.508). I have not tracked or charted Duncan's percentage from specific areas but my subjective impression the past couple years is that Duncan has not shot quite as well on his bank shots as he did early in his career but that he has made up for that by finishing very well on his close-in shots, which kind of goes along with Van Gundy's statement. It also seems to me that Duncan shoots the bank shot better at home; he likes to tee it up from a particular spot on the Spurs' logo that is painted on the wing. If anyone has some statistics regarding Tim Duncan's field goal percentage on bank shots I'd be very interested to see them.

Labels: bank shots, Jeff Van Gundy, Tim Duncan

posted by David Friedman @ 8:40 PM

7 comments