20 Second Timeout

Heat Chill Knicks, Take 2-1 Series Lead

The Miami Heat never trailed, never stopped hustling, and never left a doubt about their superiority while beating the New York Knicks 105-86 to take a 2-1 series lead. Jimmy Butler missed game two because of a sprained right ankle and he was listed as questionable prior to the start of game three, but he proved to be the best player on the court not only because of his game-high 28 points but also because of his energy, defense, and playmaking; he was only credited with three assists, but this game is a great example of how a player can create plays without piling up a large number of assists. The New York defense had to shift to help out Butler's primary defender, which created passing angles for Butler and space for his teammates to cut; Butler consistently made the correct reads and the correct passes, even if the next pass after Butler's pass became the assist pass. This is a significant part of playing winning basketball, because there are many NBA players who prefer racking up assists to racking up wins, and those players hesitate to make non-assist passes: they either shoot or else they make a pass that they believe is likely to result in a shot attempt (which is not always the optimal pass for the team). The Heat's other double figure scorers were Max Strus (19 points), Bam Adebayo (17 points, team-high 12 rebounds), and Kyle Lowry (14 points).

Hubie Brown provided the color commentary on the ABC broadcast. I believe this was his first national telecast since he did game three of the Atlanta-Boston first round series. Even though Brown is no longer a lead color commentator doing every game in the most high profile series, it is obvious that he does his research and knows the strengths and weaknesses of the players and the teams. In the first quarter, Brown noted that the Heat already led 18-8 in points in the paint, and he said that was a bad sign for the Knicks. Brown repeatedly emphasized the importance of attacking the paint, noting that even if doing so does not result in points early in the game it has the effect of wearing down the opponent and creating easier shot opportunities later in the game (Lakers fans should hope that Anthony Davis and LeBron James take note). At the other end of the court, Brown pointed out that the Heat's multiple efforts on each defensive possession shut down the Knicks' halfcourt offense. Both observations proved prescient: the Heat outscored the Knicks in the paint 50-36--nearly matching the margin of victory--and the Heat shut down the Knicks' halfcourt offense, holding New York to .341 field goal shooting, including .200 from beyond the arc. 

Jalen Brunson led the Knicks with 20 points, but the Heat harassed him into 7-20 field goal shooting. Josh Hart added 15 points and 12 rebounds. Brown loves Hart's game: "Hart is like the maintenance man--he's everywhere." R.J. Barrett struggled to make a shot (14 points, 5-16 field goal shooting), and Julius Randle was more off target (10 points, 4-15 field goal shooting) than Knick fan "Screamin' A" Smith acting like he understands basketball; it would be wonderful if someone explained to Smith (1) no one cares which team he likes, (2) no one cares how much he wants to go to South Beach (he reportedly makes at least $12 million a year, so he can go there whenever he wants, and true basketball fans wish he would just go there and stay off the airwaves), and (3) having access to coaches and players does not confer basketball wisdom unless you use that access for the purpose of gaining greater understanding.

Smith and Mike Wilbon love dropping names, but no one watching cares who they met and who they know, particularly when it is apparent that having NBA legends on speed dial is not helping Smith or Wilbon understand the sport. It should be noted and emphasized that Wilbon has been an excellent general sports columnist for a long time (his tribute to legendary sports writer Shirley Povich is wonderful and he wrote a great remembrance of Sam Lacy as well)--but his NBA takes are often off target, and that has been true for a long time. Granted, Wilbon sounds like the voice of reason when sitting next to "Screamin A," but that is a bar so low that an earthworm could hurdle over it.

Recently, I listened to a Jeff Van Gundy radio interview during which he correctly noted that in-game adjustments and adjustments in general are highly overrated, a point that he often makes during telecasts. "Play harder" is Van Gundy's recommendation for the best "adjustment" that any team can make. I don't think that it is a coincidence that we rarely if ever see Van Gundy on the same telecast with Wilbon, "Screamin' A," McMenamin, or Windhorst, and I cannot ever recall listening to Van Gundy discuss/debate basketball on air with any of those guys--and the reason for that is evident: much of what those guys say that is supposed to be basketball wisdom would be contradicted by anyone who understands the sport and is not afraid to contradict them. I am not talking about the unwatchable exchanges between "Screamin' A" and Wilbon, nor am I talking about the restraint and diplomacy that the perceptive Jalen Rose employs when he contradicts "Screamin' A" and Wilbon; I am talking about someone looking Wilbon, "Screamin' A," McMenamin, or Windhorst in the eye and telling the full truth about in-game adjustments and about how to correctly evaluate/rank players. Listening to ESPN's "experts" during the pregame show and then listening to Brown or Van Gundy during games is as different as listening to a delusional person screaming gibberish versus listening to a subject matter expert calmly providing relevant analysis.

Speaking of "adjustments," the most important thing for the Knicks to do in game four is to match the Heat's energy and intensity. The Heat are missing Tyler Herro and Victor Oladipo, and Jimmy Butler is not at full strength, but every Heat player plays hard on every possession, and that has been the biggest difference in this series.

Labels: Hubie Brown, Jimmy Butler, Julius Randle, Miami Heat, Mike Wilbon, New York Knicks, Stephen A. Smith

posted by David Friedman @ 8:24 PM

0 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

"Inside the NBA" Should Have Discussed DeSean Jackson's Comments and the Farrakhan Issue

It was great to see the original "Inside the NBA" crew tonight. "Inside the NBA" is probably the greatest sports studio show ever, providing a deft combination of intelligence and humor while covering a broad range of topics beyond who won and who lost. "Inside the NBA" has a long track record of thoughtfully discussing a wide variety of issues.

The high standard long set by "Inside the NBA" is why I am disappointed that tonight's episode ignored recent pro-Louis Farrakhan statements made by several high profile people, including Ice Cube, DeSean Jackson and Stephen Jackson.

Ice Cube has been a guest on "Inside the NBA" and he collaborated with Kenny Smith for a Kobe Bryant tribute aired by TNT. DeSean Jackson is an NFL player, but "Inside the NBA" discussed at length comments recently made by NFL player Drew Brees. Stephen Jackson is an NBA champion and a prominent sports media personality.

Ice Cube tweeted, "The Honorable Louis Farrakhan continues to warn America to this very second and he's labeled one of your 'evil names' and you turn your ears off. Why is the truth so offensive that you can't stand to hear it?"

DeSean Jackson tweeted with approval a quote that he (incorrectly) attributed to Adolf Hitler stating that Jews "will blackmail America" and Jackson also tweeted his support for Louis Farrakhan.

Stephen Jackson reacted to DeSean Jackson's tweet by repeating the classic antisemitic trope that Jews run all of the banks: "You know who the Rothschilds are? They own all the banks...I haven't said one thing that's untrue yet." Stephen Jackson also said, "I'm a fan of Minister Farrakhan because nobody loves Black people more than him. He hasn't told me to hate somebody one time. He's teaching me how to be a leader. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean I'm gonna not like him."

It never should be acceptable to promote hatred, and one would hope that in today's climate any kind of hatred would be deemed unacceptable. Perhaps you are not familiar with Louis Farrakhan; perhaps you agree with Chuck D, the front man for Public Enemy--unquestionably one of the greatest rap groups ever--who once sang, "The follower of Farrakhan/Don't tell me that you understand/Until you hear the man."
The SPLC article about Farrakhan is worth reading in full. Here is an excerpt:

Farrakhan’s antisemitism has earned him some strange allies. Former Klan and White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger was so impressed with Farrakhan's anti-Semitic bombast that he donated $100 to NOI after attending a Farrakhan rally in Los Angeles in September 1985. Given that white supremacists share NOI’s belief in separation of the races, a month later, Metzger and 200 other white supremacists from the United States and Canada gathered on a farm about 50 miles west of Detroit, where they pledged their support for the Nation of Islam.

Antisemitism is only one of Farrakhan's many prejudices. Over the years, his comments have consistently been rabidly anti-gay. "God don't like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female," he told a Kansas City crowd in 1996. "If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you're out of your damn mind."

"Inside the NBA" is watched by millions of people, and the "Inside the NBA" crew is highly respected and influential. They missed a golden opportunity to educate their audience about these issues. Ray Allen would have been a perfect guest. Allen has discussed how moving it was for him to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Speaking of the Holocaust Museum, New England Patriots' receiver Julian Edelman provided a heartfelt response to DeSean Jackson: "How about we go to DC and I take you to the Holocaust Museum. And you take me to the Museum of African American history and culture...And we have those uncomfortable conversations." It would have sent a wonderful and positive message if "Inside the NBA" had spoken truth to power, and had asked Allen to give his thoughts about Edelman's statement.

I have often criticized Mike Wilbon for his basketball analysis, but I will give him credit for addressing directly and unequivocally the comments made by Stephen Jackson. On "Pardon the Interruption" Wilbon declared, "This is not tolerable...It undermines everything Stephen Jackson said so eloquently on behalf of Black Lives Matter. He has no credibility now. He has undermined his own previous good work with this garbage. And it's garbage. I know Stephen Jackson. I like him. If I was sitting with him now--I have worked with him--I would say, 'Stephen, stop! You're wrong. You're not speaking any truth. You're going to have to become more familiar with the truth via history. Let's read some. We'll read it together. This is insane. You are ruining weeks of actually trying to appeal to people on one level and then bringing your own bigotry and prejudice in at a time when no one can afford to say that, to have that, to entertain it.'"

Wilbon is right. It is a shame that Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, and Shaquille O'Neal did not step up and deliver a similar message. For that matter, where are NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Louis Farrakhan has spent decades making it very clear who he is and what he believes. The time has past for the sports figures, celebrities, politicians, and public figures who have invoked his name to make it clear who they are and what they believe.

Labels: Charles Barkley, DeSean Jackson, Ernie Johnson, Ice Cube, Inside the NBA, Julian Edelman, Kenny Smith, Louis Farrakhan, Mike Wilbon, Ray Allen, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Jackson

posted by David Friedman @ 11:56 PM

6 comments

Is LeBron James the Modern Wilt Chamberlain?

No team has ever surrendered a 3-1 lead in the NBA Finals, so for the Cleveland Cavaliers game four at home was as important--at least in a practical sense--as a game seven. Cleveland led the defending champion Golden State Warriors 55-50 at halftime and still led 83-81 with just over 10 minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. During the next nine minutes of play, LeBron James shot 0-4 from the field (two attempts were three pointers from well behind the arc) with a turnover. James split a pair of free throws with 1:12 remaining to cut the margin to 96-89. James scored six points in the final minute--on three uncontested drives--to pad his final scoring total to 25 points but at no time during the final 1:12 did Golden State lead by fewer than seven points, a comfortable three possessions cushion.

Thus, Golden State won 108-97, closing out the game (and likely the series) with a 27-14 run down the stretch, while James was largely invisible, save for three late, inconsequential buckets.

James, a four-time NBA regular season MVP and the self-proclaimed "best player on the planet," disappeared from sight during a pivotal fourth quarter that likely decided the outcome of the NBA Finals. Some people have suggested that James was tired, but the reality is that previous greats of the game shouldered equally heavy burdens in terms of minutes played and overall responsibilities. That decisive nine minute fourth quarter stretch was an opportunity for James to grab this series by the throat and force his will upon the proceedings. In such a situation, Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant would have gone down shooting--or they would have attracted so much defensive attention with their aggressiveness that their teammates had wide open shots. 

James did not do that at all. He shrank from the moment, in the biggest moment of all. Maybe he will have a monster game five on the road, maybe not--but game four was an opportunity to extend the series to at least six games and to plant at least some doubt in the Warriors' minds.

James' final box score numbers look tremendous: 25 points on 11-21 field goal shooting, 13 rebounds, nine assists. Seemingly the only blemish would be his seven turnovers, but there are good reasons that I do not rely on statistics--whether basic or "advanced"--to evaluate players.

I remember an NBA Finals telecast from decades ago during which Bill Russell noted that what matters is not so much how many points a player scores but when the player scores them. Russell was speaking specifically about the impact that Julius Erving had not only because Erving was a high scoring player but also because Erving scored at crucial moments when the outcome was up for grabs.

Watching James play for more than a decade has given me at least some insight about why some of Wilt Chamberlain's contemporaries rank him below Bill Russell even though Chamberlain's individual numbers dwarf Russell's. James has repeatedly demonstrated that context and timing matter more than raw statistics. The Cavaliers built their game four halftime lead even though James was quiet during the first 24 minutes (seven points); this demonstrates that the Cavaliers are not solely dependent on James to be productive and competitive but it also represents a wasted opportunity: if James had been aggressive in the first half, the Cavaliers may have opened up a double digit lead that would have given them a bigger cushion and also possibly affected how the Warriors played in the second half--but, instead, the Warriors were understandably quite comfortable at halftime, as Golden State Coach Steve Kerr noted after the game.

Russell once said that after the outcome of a game was decided, he would sometimes let Chamberlain score. It was all psychological warfare to Russell, who wanted to placate Chamberlain and let Chamberlain feel satisfied about winning the personal duel as long as Russell's team won the overall war. In a recent ESPN the Magazine article, Jackie MacMullan wrote that Kobe Bryant--inspired by this Russell tactic--used to pull a similar "rope a dope" on Tracy McGrady and LeBron James. Bryant laughingly told her that he would "neither confirm nor deny" this, but MacMullan claims to have verified this with several of Bryant's former teammates and coaches.

James has an almost unhealthy awareness of his personal statistics. When his teams lose, he is quick to blame injuries or his teammates' lack of production or any factor other than his own effort. The most infamous example of this is the final playoff series of his first stint in Cleveland, when he churlishly responded to questions about his indifferent game five performance by stating that he had "spoiled" the fans with his excellence over the years. I cannot recall Russell or Erving or Jordan or Bryant blaming the fans for a playoff loss or calling the fans "spoiled" by their own greatness.

Chamberlain, like James, was the best player on two championship teams while also falling short in several other trips to the NBA Finals. Chamberlain was much more dominant than James and for the most part Chamberlain fell short against another greatest player of all-time candidate (Bill Russell) who was surrounded by Hall of Fame teammates led by a Hall of Fame coach, while James has lost to some teams/players that cannot be compared to Russell and his Celtics.

Ultimately, based on the available footage I have seen, the people from that era who I have interviewed and the research that I have done, I give more credence to those who state that Chamberlain was more dominant than Russell and a better all-around player than I do to those who claim that Chamberlain was overrated--but James has provided vivid proof that gaudy individual numbers in a losing cause do not necessarily prove that a superstar is blameless and has been saddled with an insurmountably inferior supporting cast.

Not surprisingly, the media coverage of game four spun in many directions--but without question the most bizarre take was offered by Mike Wilbon. Wilbon is a respected and accomplished sportswriter but I have never understood why ESPN touts him as some kind of basketball expert. Wilbon often gets his facts wrong and his analysis is typically way off-base.

When SportsCenter host Scott Van Pelt asked Wilbon for his perspective on game four, Wilbon ignored James' disappearing act and then blasted Kyrie Irving (who scored a team-high 34 points on 14-28 field goal shooting while committing only one turnover in 43 minutes) in a way that Wilbon probably has not blasted anyone since he used to blame Kobe Bryant for supposedly shooting too much. Wilbon declared that he had never seen anyone play as selfishly as Irving did in the fourth quarter and that under no circumstances should Irving take more shots than James. Then, mercifully, Wilbon's microphone went out and Van Pelt turned to Brendan Haywood in studio. Haywood, who was a teammate of James and Irving last year after winning a ring versus James in the 2011 Finals, tried to be diplomatic but he completely disagreed with Wilbon, noting that Irving had a great game and that someone "has to have that Michael Jordan moment" when James "is not being aggressive."

Haywood concluded, "I like the way he (Irving) played," adding, "If LeBron was asking for the ball on the block or getting into the lane and being aggressive then I would say 'Hey Kyrie you have to defer.'"

Haywood then rightfully put Van Pelt on the spot and asked Van Pelt what he thought of Wilbon's commentary. Van Pelt wanted no part of directly attacking his more famous and influential colleague but at least Van Pelt had the guts to say, "I don't understand why LeBron doesn't take it to the hoop every time he has someone smaller on him."

That is the issue in a nutshell. This series' impact on James' legacy is not based on how many points James averages or how good his supporting cast is compared to Golden State's supporting cast; James, as his team's best player, has an obligation to relentlessly attack the paint to score and his failure to consistently do this tarnishes his legacy, particularly since James has fallen short in similar fashion on this stage several other times. If James relentlessly attacked the paint, he would (1) score, (2) put Golden State in foul trouble and (3) force Golden State to double team him, which would in turn enable Cleveland's role players to shine.

James built this roster and hired this coach. James cannot blame his teammates when he spends most of the game--including the decisive nine minutes of the fourth quarter--standing passively outside the three point line or else driving with the primary intention of passing even if his teammates are not open. Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson both said it repeatedly during the telecast: James must drive or post up with the intention of scoring and then only pass if the pass creates an advantage.

There is so much talk about how this series could impact James' legacy that it is easy to forget that the "other" team in the series is not only on the verge of capping off a record-setting 73 win season by winning back to back titles but that squad features a great player who is building his own legacy. Prior to scoring a game-high 38 points in game four, Stephen Curry had not covered himself in glory in the 2016 Finals and it is fair to ask why his play was not as scrutinized and criticized as James' play or as Kobe Bryant's play had been in years past. Typically, an MVP is expected to perform at a high level in the Finals--and Curry is not "merely" an MVP but he is a two-time reigning MVP who is just the fourth point guard (Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson and Steve Nash are the others) to win a regular season MVP. Curry's pedestrian performances in games one and two could perhaps be excused by the fact that his team won so easily that greatness was not required but in game three Curry played poorly when his team had an opportunity to deliver a knockout punch.

The interesting thing about Curry is that he has been the best, most consistent regular season performer in the league the past two years but his postseason play has not quite matched that level and he clearly does not have the size, strength and two-way maximum potential possessed by James. Put another way, James' best game would clearly be better than Curry's best game. We expect less from Curry despite the accolades he has received and thus we are more apt to give Curry a pass. That does not mean that it is wrong to criticize James for the shortcomings that I detailed above, but it does mean that two-time MVP Curry should be expected to perform at an elite level and he should be criticized when he fails to do so.

The main thing that can be said in Curry's defense--and this is far from insignificant--is that Curry does things to help his team win that do not show up in the boxscore; Curry moves without the ball, he sets screens and he is always active. Curry will make the pass to initiate an action even if it is likely that someone else down the line will get the assist. James orchestrates things such that his passes lead directly to shot attempts, increasing the chance that he will get an assist. That is not necessarily a bad thing but his team would be better served in many instances if he posted up, drew a double team and then passed to a teammate who then made a skip pass for an assist. Hakeem Olajuwon and Kobe Bryant opened things up for their teammates during championship runs by consistently making those kinds of plays and they were both deadly passers even though their assist totals were not always gaudy.

I have watched LeBron James intently for his entire NBA career. I have seen many of his games in person and during his first stint in Cleveland I had the opportunity to speak to him before and/or after some of those games. There is no question that he is smart, driven and supremely talented. He is one of the greatest basketball players of all-time, without question or hesitation.

Yet, he is also the most puzzling and frustrating of the truly great players who I have had the opportunity to witness firsthand. The only historical analogy that I know of for the way that James' individual numbers give an inflated reckoning of the true quality of his performances would be Wilt Chamberlain. Perhaps that comparison is not at all fair to Chamberlain; many of Chamberlain's contemporaries swear that Chamberlain was much better than Russell and that if their situations had been reversed Chamberlain would have won just as much as Russell did. There will never be a definitive answer to that question and I mean no disrespect to Chamberlain, a childhood hero of mine who is perhaps my favorite basketball player whose prime took place before I was born.

All I can say is that my impression of James matches up with the critiques that some people provided of Chamberlain; the Chamberlain critiques may not be fair but from firsthand knowledge I know that it is fair to say that James has not maximized his individual talent or his championship potential, based on his inexplicable reluctance to attack mismatches in these Finals and in previous playoff series. The bottom line is this: if LeBron James is unwilling or unable to catch the ball on the block, drop step to the baseline (or quickly spin to the middle for a jump hook) and score/get fouled until the Warriors are forced to double team him then he is not as great as his supporters say he is, no matter what individual numbers he posts. Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala or Harrison Barnes cannot stop an aggressive, engaged James in the post, nor can any of them can stop James from catching the ball at the elbow, taking two power dribbles to the hoop and scoring. Jordan and Bryant were not as physically imposing as James but they both controlled games and series by aggressively and relentlessly attacking from the post and/or the midrange area. James' inconsistent midrange game and his default tendency to passivity when facing elite teams in playoff series are two major reasons that he must be ranked below Jordan and Bryant in pro basketball's Pantheon.

Labels: Bill Russell, Golden State Warriors, Julius Erving, Kobe Bryant, Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Mike Wilbon, Stephen Curry, Wilt Chamberlain

posted by David Friedman @ 7:28 PM

26 comments

Kobe Bryant Quotes Provide Insight Into His Basketball Philosophy

When Kobe Bryant turned 37 a couple months ago, ESPN posted a list of 37 quotes from Bryant over the years. A few of those quotes are worth examining in greater depth.

Bryant is often accused of shooting too much but he is unfazed by that criticism: 

I've shot too much from the time I was 8 years old. But 'too much' is a matter of perspective. Some people thought Mozart had too many notes in his compositions. Let me put it this way: I entertain people who say I shoot too much. I find it very interesting. Going back to Mozart, he responded to critics by saying there were neither too many notes or too few. There were as many as necessary.

Here is another quote from Bryant about supposedly shooting too much:

I would go 0-for-30 [from the floor] before I would go 0-for-9. 0-for-9 means you beat yourself, you psyched yourself out of the game...The only reason is because you've just now lost confidence in yourself.

ESPN is well acquainted with the critique that Bryant shoots too much, since ESPN's Mike Wilbon frequently attacks Bryant on this basis--and Wilbon's facts are usually as off-base as his feeble attempts at basketball analysis. Regarding great players, I agree with Bryant's philosophy that such players should never go 0-9 from the field; a great player must have the confidence that if he misses nine shots in a row he is about to make nine shots in a row. Michael Jordan is lauded for having that high degree of self-confidence and it is odd that Bryant is bashed for having a similar belief in his abilities.

***

Speaking of ESPN, Bryant was unfazed before last season when the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader" ranked him as the 40th best player in the NBA:

I've known for a long time they're a bunch of idiots...I tend to use things as motivation that tend to be in the realm of reality.

ESPN's basketball rankings are pretty predictable: Bryant will always be ranked lower than he should be, while players who never have won anything of substance and probably never will win anything of substance will be praised for their unselfishness and how much their teammates supposedly love them. The reality is that, prior to the 2014-15 season, Bryant should not have been listed as the 40th best player in the NBA; during his last full season (2012-13), he was a legit top five player/MVP candidate, so upon coming back from injury he should have either been still considered a top five player until proven otherwise or else he should have not been ranked at all due to his prolonged absence from the court. It made no sense to arbitrarily rank him 40th--except for the fact that by doing so ESPN generated a lot of clicks for their website and a lot of bantering opportunities for their talking/screaming heads, like Wilbon and Stephen A. Smith.

***

Bryant learned from an early age to not be intimidated:

The last time I was intimidated was when I was 6 years old in karate class. I was an orange belt and the instructor ordered me to fight a black belt who was a couple years older and a lot bigger. I was scared s---less. I mean, I was terrified and he kicked my [butt]. But then I realized he didn't kick my [butt] as bad as I thought he was going to and that there was nothing really to be afraid of. That was around the time I realized that intimidation didn't really exist if you're in the right frame of mind...

That is a good life lesson in general. One of the best things my Dad ever taught me was that no matter how scary a bully might seem the bully is actually more scared than the kids he bullies and that if you stand up to him he will respect you and leave you alone. Once you learn to not be intimidated mentally, emotionally or physically (the latter was the toughest one for me but my Dad helped me figure it out) you open up a whole vista of possibilities--including the reality that many people are easily intimidated, a piece of knowledge that is very useful during any kind of competition and something that Bryant applies to good effect.

***

Not everyone learns the lesson about being strong in the face of intimidation. If you are scared and/or soft, Bryant does not want to play with you:

There's certain players that I've made cry. If I can make you cry by being sarcastic, then I really don't want to play with you in the playoffs.

Jordan is commended for being this way, while Bryant is criticized for being this way. In The Jordan Rules, Sam Smith quotes Horace Grant saying that if you were scared during practice Jordan would put a saddle on you and ride you right out of town. Jordan attacked his teammates during practice--both verbally and, at times, physically (ask Steve Kerr)--to see how they would respond under duress because he did not want to battle the "Bad Boys" Pistons at playoff time with a bunch of soft dudes who were scared or soft. That is not "nice" and it is not the only way to be a leader (Julius Erving and Tim Duncan are two championship-winning superstars who led/lead in a completely different way) but if the sports media world is going to canonize Jordan for such traits then Bryant deserves the same treatment; if we are in a kinder, gentler era in which such conduct is no longer cool then Jordan's reputation should be reevaluated as well.

***

Some players thought that they could get Bryant off of his game by talking smack to him. That did not work out very well for those players:

Better learn not to talk to me. You shake the tree, a leopard's gonna fall out.

This quote refers to J.R. Smith, who then played for the Denver Nuggets, yapping at Bryant during a 2008 playoff game. Here is my recap of what happened: Unstoppable: Kobe Drops 49 as Lakers Smash Nuggets, 122-107. Bryant's raw numbers that game were 49 points, 10 assists, 18-27 field goal shooting. The "leopard" reappeared in the 2009 playoffs after Ron Artest, who then played for the Houston Rockets, verbally and physically confronted Bryant; that time, Bryant dropped 31 points on 14-23 field goal shooting in a 102-96 Lakers win.

Although my default preference is for athletes--like Julius Erving and Bjorn Borg--who let their performances speak for themselves, I have also enjoyed the exploits of athletes like Muhammad Ali and Reggie Jackson who talked big but fully backed up what they said. However, I believe it was Chris Mullin who said that if you talk a lot but cannot play then you are just a chump. I love it when a player like Bryant shuts up a chump like J.R. Smith. Smith is a good player--anyone who makes it to the NBA is a good player--but he has no business talking smack to a great player like Bryant. 

***

After Bryant poured in 44 points on 34 field goal attempts in just 31 minutes as his overmatched L.A. Lakers lost 136-115 to the eventual NBA champion Golden State Warriors he was unapologetic about shooting so much:

I'd rather not have to do that, but you can't sit back and watch crime happen in front of you.

I love this quote because it captures so many truths about Bryant, about basketball and about the bizarre double standard applied against Bryant.

One, most of the media coverage of that game stated directly or at least implied that Bryant played inefficiently and/or selfishly, so it is worth noting that 44 points on 34 shots is very efficient. For years, Doug Collins has mentioned that the standard for good defense against a great player is to hold him to a point per shot; in this case, Bryant well exceeded that mark despite playing alongside no credible offensive threats and despite facing a dominant team that won 67 regular season games en route to capturing the championship.

Two, some people may scoff at the idea that Bryant does not want to shoot 34 times but he was the primary playmaker on five championship teams so he is a willing and capable passer when he has teammates who can do something with the ball.

Three, instead of just quitting and accepting inevitable defeat, Bryant fought the basketball "crime" being committed in front of him by doing everything he could to compete against a clearly superior team. As Phil Jackson used to say (borrowing a line from his teammate "Super" John Williamson), "Go down as you live." I would much rather be in a foxhole with someone who fights to the end as opposed to someone who whines or makes excuses or just quits.

***

During his third season with the Miami Heat, LeBron James declared that the Lakers would never receive the scrutiny that the Heat did. Bryant was unimpressed by James' complaint:

What does it matter? What does he want, a cookie for that?

This quote reveals so much about the difference between Bryant and James. Bryant focuses on results, on what he and his teammates need to do to win games and championships. Bryant does not care about hype and he does not care what people think of him as long as he is doing his job. James craves the spotlight but only if it is shining on him positively. In Miami, James belatedly learned that he needed to accept and embrace the challenge of being the best player on the court and this self-awareness resulted in winning two championships--but Bryant figured this out from the start.

***

For a time during the early 2000s, a legitimate debate could be held about Kobe Bryant versus Tracy McGrady, but Bryant did not think that the debate was particularly legitimate:

I played T-Mac. I cooked him. Roasted him. Wasn't even close. Ask him, he'll tell you. When I was about 20, we were in Germany doing some promotional stuff for that other sneaker company and we played basketball every day. We were in the gym all the time. We played three games of 1-on-1 to 11. I won all three games. One game I won 11-2. After the third game he said he had back spasms and couldn't play anymore.

Of course, a few one on one games played during the players' formative years do not prove who was the better player in a five on five context but it is interesting that Bryant took the challenge so seriously and remembered the outcome so vividly. This is reminiscent of how Jordan viewed the 1992 NBA Finals not just as Chicago versus Portland but also a one on one showdown to determine who was the best shooting guard in the NBA.

***

This quote sums up Bryant's focus, determination and work ethic:

I feel like killing everybody every time I go to the arena.

Nothing more needs to be said.

Labels: ESPN, J.R. Smith, Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Miami Heat, Mike Wilbon, Tracy McGrady

posted by David Friedman @ 12:39 PM

29 comments

Are the Lakers Really Better Off When Kobe Bryant Shoots Less Frequently?

If you watch the ESPN/ABC NBA pregame shows with any regularity then you know that Mike Wilbon and Jon Barry have repeatedly cited statistics that they say prove that the Lakers are better off when Kobe Bryant shoots less frequently. Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran a brief item headlined The Lakers Fare Better When Bryant Shoots Less; that piece included a chart titled "Don't Shoot, Kobe" that listed Bryant's field goal attempts averages for the past six seasons during wins and losses. Somehow I doubt that "Don't shoot, Kobe," is a mantra that Lakers Coach Phil Jackson utters too often, particularly in the fourth quarters of close games.

It is not entirely clear if Wilbon, Barry and the WSJ mean to suggest that Bryant is being selfish when he shoots more than their arbitrarily determined optimal amount of field goal attempts for a game (20 is the number that Wilbon and Barry apparently prefer) or if they simply believe that his teammates should be more assertive and less deferential. In any case, even though it is obvious that the best teams involve many players on offense, it seems more than a little odd to suggest that the way for a team to be most successful is to limit the shot attempts taken by its best player and maximize the shot attempts taken by lesser players; likewise, it seems highly unlikely that the difference between winning and losing is primarily determined by whether a given player takes 19 shots or 21. After all, some field goal attempts are last second heaves as the shot clock winds down or as the game clock expires at the end of a quarter; also, a player's official field goal attempts may not reflect how many times he actually tried to shoot the ball if he drew a lot of fouls on shots that he missed: field goal attempts are a "noisy" statistic that does not tell the complete story about how much a player dominated the ball in a given game or what kind of impact he had offensively. For instance, the Lakers went 24-1 this season when Lamar Odom attempted between eight and 10 field goals in a game but they were only 12-8 when he attempted between five and seven field goals in a game and they posted a 12-4 record when he attempted between 11 and 13 field goals in a game. Does that mean that the Lakers should make sure that Odom always attempts between eight and 10 field goals, never permitting him to stray outside of that range? Or does it just mean that there are a lot of other factors that determine the result for the Lakers besides how frequently Odom shoots?

Kobe Bryant has led the Lakers in scoring and assists in each of the past three seasons and in six of the past seven seasons (Odom led the Lakers in assists in 2005-06); Bryant averaged between 24.0 and 35.4 ppg and 4.5 and 6.0 apg during those seven seasons. Bryant has the dual responsibility of carrying the lion's share of the scoring load while also creating quality shot opportunities for teammates who could not create good shots for themselves on their own. The number of shots that Bryant attempts in a given game is affected by how often the opponent double teams him, how many fouls Bryant draws and other factors.

Rather than focusing on how many field goals Bryant attempts to try to determine his optimal role for the Lakers, it makes more sense to look at the end result of his field goal attempts (and free throw attempts): Bryant has scored 40 or more points in 96 regular season games, third on the all-time career list behind Wilt Chamberlain (271) and Michael Jordan (173). The Lakers posted a 65-31 record in those games, a .677 winning percentage that is better than their overall winning percentage (.656) during Bryant's career. Bryant had 27 of those 40 point games in 2005-06, when he led the NBA in scoring with a 35.4 ppg average that ranks eighth on the single season scoring list; the Lakers went 45-37 overall that year (.549) but they went 18-9 (.667) in his 40 point games. Bryant "only" had four 40 point games in the 2008-09 season and the Lakers went 2-2 in those contests; obviously, that is a small sample size, but Bryant had 27 games this season in which he scored at least 30 points and the Lakers went 21-6 (.778) in those games, which is virtually identical with their overall winning percentage (.793) this season.

Bryant has scored at least 50 points in a game 23 times; he ranks third on that all-time career list as well, again trailing only Chamberlain (118) and Jordan (31). The Lakers went 16-7 in Bryant's 50 point games, which is an even better winning percentage (.696) than they posted in the games in which he scored 40-49 points. Bryant's only 50 point game this season happened when he set a Madison Square Garden record with 61 points in a 126-117 victory.

One could easily argue that the Lakers are better off when Bryant scores more than 40 points, so it is strange that Wilbon, Barry and the WSJ pay so much attention to Bryant's field goal attempts to the exclusion of considering the results on those attempts. During the playoffs the past couple years, Hubie Brown and Jeff Van Gundy have pointed out on several occasions that Bryant does an excellent job of reading the defense and making the correct decision about whether to shoot, drive or pass. It is foolish to think that there is an ideal number of field goal attempts for Bryant that applies in all situations; if a team primarily single covers Bryant then he should probably attempt 25-30 shots but if a team traps him aggressively then the right play is to give the ball up. During this year's playoffs, Bryant has once again proven that he will make the right decisions and punish defenses no matter how they try to deal with him: the Lakers have gone 6-3 when Bryant had at least five assists but they also have gone 4-2 when Bryant had three or fewer assists.

It is worth noting that the Lakers are 3-0 in this year's playoffs when Bryant scored at least 40 points but just 1-2 in the three games when he scored fewer than 20 points--but those numbers do not fit the storyline that Wilbon and Barry apparently are determined to tell, so you can rest assured that you will never hear them talk about how well the Lakers do when Bryant tops the 40 point barrier.

Labels: Jon Barry, Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers, Mike Wilbon

posted by David Friedman @ 4:37 AM

13 comments