20 Second Timeout

K.C. Jones: Consummate Champion

Players and teams talk so much about the thrill of winning just one championship that it is worth remembering and emphasizing that K.C. Jones, who passed away earlier today at the age of 88, won two NCAA titles, an Olympic gold medal, and eight NBA titles as a player before winning two NBA titles as an assistant coach (1972 Lakers, 1981 Celtics) and two more NBA titles as a head coach. Only two players have won more NBA titles than Jones: his Boston teammates Bill Russell (11) and Sam Jones (10).

K.C. Jones may be the most underrated head coach in NBA history. He not only coached the best Boston Celtics teams of the 1980s--one of which, the 1986 Celtics, will forever be on the short list of greatest single season teams ever--but his regular season winning percentage of .674 ranks sixth in NBA history (minimum of 200 regular season games coached), trailing only Steve Kerr, Phil Jackson, Billy Cunningham, Larry Bird, and Gregg Popovich (Jones is only .001 percentage points behind Popovich, so Jones may move past Popovich on that list this season unless the San Antonio Spurs perform much better than expected). Jones' playoff winning percentage of .587 ranks 13th in NBA history (minimum of 60 playoff games coached). Jones is one of eight coaches who have won two NBA titles; only six coaches have won more than two NBA titles (Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, John Kundla, Pat Riley, Gregg Popovich, and Steve Kerr).

As a player, Jones was not a great shooter but he was cerebral, tough, and athletic. Jones was drafted by the NFL's L.A. Rams, and he might have made the final cut had he not injured his knee; despite only spending a brief time with the Rams, Jones is credited with being the first defensive back to utilize "bump and run" coverage technique.

Jones' partnership with Russell dates back to their days at the University of San Francisco, where they captured NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956 while putting together a 55 game winning streak. Russell was such a dominant defender that he would tell Jones to run to a particular spot so that Russell could block a shot directly to Jones to start the fast break! The combination of elite athletic ability and supreme basketball IQ/mental toughness is impossible to beat. It is not an accident that Russell and Jones won at every level (college, Olympics, NBA), and anyone who assumes that they would not be very successful as players in this era fails to understand the essence of championship competition. 

Jones' NBA statistics are not eye-popping, but he ranked third in the league in assists for three straight seasons (1964-66), each time trailing only Oscar Robertson and Guy Rodgers. The Celtics won the championship during each of those seasons, and it speaks volumes that Jones was not only a stout defensive player for those squads but that he was also the team's quarterback after Bob Cousy retired.

Jones' Boston teammate Tommy Heinsohn passed away a few weeks ago. I interviewed Heinsohn on June 10, 2004. A few days later, I interviewed K.C. Jones. At the time, I was working on an article about their Boston teammate Sam Jones (the article appeared in the December 2004 issue of Basketball Digest), but our wide ranging conversation covered not only Sam Jones but also Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Bill Fitch, Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and more. 

My K.C. Jones interview has never been published in full anywhere, though some quotes and insights from that interview have appeared in various articles that I wrote. Here, in tribute to Jones, is that June 20, 2004 interview:

Friedman: "The idea for this article came out of an interview that I did with Slick Leonard, the Pacers’ broadcaster. He mentioned that he felt that Sam Jones is the most underrated guard in the history of the NBA. From your perspective as a teammate of Sam's, what made him a special, unique player?"

Jones: "What made him unique? That's kind of hard to explain. He had such supreme confidence in his shot. One example that I recall is when he went for a nine foot jumper and Wilt came over to block it and while Sam was in the air he said, 'You can't get this one baby' and it went off the backboard and in."

Friedman: "Was that the game that Wilt went after Sam? I read about a game in which Sam so infuriated Wilt—telling him that he couldn't block his shot—that Wilt went after him."

Jones: "I'm not sure if it was that game. I don't think that Wilt would go after somebody for trash talking. I think that something physical happened and Wilt went over to shake Sam's hand to say, 'Let's put it behind us' and Sam thought that he was coming after him so he picked up a stool from behind the basket."

Friedman: "Oh, so it was kind of a misunderstanding."

Jones: "Yeah."

Friedman: "I noticed in researching this article that Sam Jones averaged 27 points per game in game seven situations and that the Celtics were 9-0 in those games. Obviously, that was above his regular season scoring average. What enabled him to be so successful in clutch situations?"

Jones: "He very seldom went to the basket for the layup. He would drive and then pull up for the jumper. We did all kinds of things to get him open or to get Havlicek open. That's the way we played. That's similar to what Detroit is trying to do now, work for your teammate. Sam could go one-on-one. He had a stutter step that would kind of halt your defense and then all of a sudden he just glides by you. He did that to me in a scrimmage and it just totally blew my mind that he was so smooth with that. He was driving on the right side from around the top of the key extended. It looked like he was going to pull up. He just hesitated, I stopped and then he just went by me. In our offense we always tried to get him open for shots. When Russell would get the ball for his play he could just take the ball and shoot it because it was the '6' play but he would not shoot the ball unless Sam and Havlicek were not open. That's the way we played. So we liked to get out shooters open because that's the high percentage play."

Friedman: "Would that be a play where Russell would be getting the ball on the block looking for cutters and Sam would cut off of him?"

Jones: "He'd mainly look for our shooters. He wouldn't look for me or Satch (Tom Sanders), even if I was open. One time he got an offensive rebound and I was five feet away from him saying, 'Bill, Bill, Bill' and he looked me in the eye, reached around and threw the ball in the corner to Sam, which I thought was the right play. Some other player in my position would have been (ticked) off and then you have a problem but that's not the way we did it."

Friedman: "Right, because your role was not as a shooter on the team."

Jones: "Yeah, but other teams have guys who are not shooters but if they are not passed the ball they are ready to fight. My point is, I considered that the best play because we want the ball in the hands of the guy with the highest shooting percentage."

Friedman: "You mentioned guarding Sam in a scrimmage. Did you usually guard him or were you usually on the same team with you playing point and him playing shooting guard?"

Jones: "I didn't usually guard him. I don't know what happened in that practice, but that was the first time I guarded him, I believe. I guarded Bill Sharman most times in practice. I either guarded Sharman or Bob Cousy."

Friedman: "You mentioned the Detroit Pistons. For my readers who did not have a chance to see Sam play, what current or recent guard would you say is most similar to him either in shooting ability or performance in the clutch?"

Jones: "I guess Jerry West would be one. Maybe Hamilton. He would be another."

Friedman: "Hamilton from Detroit?"

Jones: "Yeah."

Friedman: "That's interesting. Tommy Heinsohn also mentioned him. Heinsohn mentioned Hamilton because he has a variety of shots—the long distance game, the mid-range game and the driving game. So you would see a similarity from that standpoint?"

Jones: "Oh, yeah. More times than not when Hamilton is driving he pulls up for the jumper. If he has the defense beaten he goes straight to the basket. More times than not he's running without the ball and he spends a lot of energy running around to get open and then he has to go to the other end and play aggressive defense. That man is in awesome shape. What's like Sam is that he moves without the ball and when he gets the ball he's going right up for the shot."

Friedman: "What's interesting is that when I brought that comparison up to Bob Cousy, who I later interviewed, he didn't like that particular comparison because he didn't think that there was anyone in the modern game who could really be compared with Sam. It's interesting to me to talk to his teammates and hear their different perspectives. You are the second one who brought up Rip Hamilton, which is interesting to me."

Jones: "What did Cousy say as far as comparisons go?"

Friedman: "Well, he was looking strictly on the basis of skill level and when I brought up that Tom Heinsohn had mentioned Rip Hamilton, Cousy replied that, for one thing, he didn't see Hamilton as a Hall of Famer and to him that was disrespectful of Sam Jones' talent. He felt that Rip Hamilton has not proven that he is a Hall of Famer. I made the point that what Heinsohn had said to me was not that Hamilton is as good as Sam Jones, but that their styles are similar in terms of having a variety of shots. There are very few modern guards who really have a complete game in terms of being able to shoot from deep, from mid-range and being able to drive. Most guards today only have one of the three."

Jones: "Yes."

Friedman: "So there is a comparison there from the standpoint of style. No one is saying that Rip Hamilton is an all-time great—"

Jones: "It's a little early for that."

Friedman: "Right, of course."

Jones: "He's only been in the league a few years."

Friedman: "Right, he's only been around for a few years and this is his first championship."

Jones: "Yeah. You take Kobe, you take Hamilton, you take Sam, you take Jerry West—in crunch time you are looking for these people, you want these people to have the ball."

Friedman: "So from the standpoint of producing in the clutch you would put Kobe in there as well because he hits last second shots. He and Sam had different playing styles, but they both produced in the clutch."

Jones: "The style is different, but what I'm saying is that in crunch time you want the ball to go to your best shooters. That's what I'm saying. I'm not talking about style—whether they use a spin move or all that—I'm saying in crunch time the ball goes to your best shooters. They approach it in different ways."

Friedman: "Sure. Another thing I want to ask you about—and I know that a similar question was once asked of Bill Russell about a hypothetical matchup with Kareem and his response was, 'Young man, you have the question backwards'—I'm interested from your perspective how you would picture a matchup of Sam Jones in his prime playing against Kobe or McGrady, what would that matchup be like, what strengths would Sam Jones use to counteract Kobe or McGrady, who are both a little taller than Sam?"

Jones: "Kobe would have a very difficult time staying with Sam defensively."

Friedman: "From a speed standpoint?"

Jones: "Yes, from speed or quickness, whatever you want to call it. Could Kobe stay with Hamilton? I don't think so. Kobe couldn't stay with Sam and maybe Sam couldn't stay with Kobe. Thinking in terms of guarding each other, I don't see it in that mode. There are changes and moves that can be made; they can guard other people so that they don't wear themselves out and wear their minds out guarding the best player on the other team."

Friedman: "So if they played against each other it would be a real shootout because they both would be scoring a lot."

Jones: "Well, yeah. They are masters of the offensive end, they don't master the defensive end. So you have to be someone who is defensive oriented to guard the Kobes and the Same Jones and the Hamiltons. That's what happened in Chicago when Drexler from Portland was guarding Jordan (in the 1992 Finals). I thought that was not a good move, putting Drexler on Jordan."

Friedman: "You're wearing out your best player."

Jones: "Yes, plus you experience a defeatist attitude, a sense of fear, guarding Jordan. Why would I put one of my best shooters out there to guard Jordan? It doesn’t make any sense to me."

Friedman: "So from your standpoint, if Sam Jones was playing at the same time as Kobe they might not even be guarding each other. You might cross-match or do something so that they wouldn't be facing each other."

Jones: "I think that would be the best move. If you saw Drexler in the game, it just took his mind away."

Friedman: "You're talking about the game in the Finals when Jordan hit all those three pointers."

Jones: "Yeah, whichever game that was. I know that Drexler is an offensive player and great at being an offensive player. How many great shooters do you see who are great on the defensive end?"

Friedman: "Very few."

Jones: "Very few."

Friedman: "Actually, Jordan would probably be one of the exceptions since he was Defensive Player of the Year in addition to winning all of the scoring titles. But your point is well taken. If you have a minute, I'd like to switch gears. I'd be interested to ask you some questions specifically about your career for use in a future article. I see some parallels between your coaching career and Phil Jackson's coaching career in terms of reluctance in some quarters to give you credit for your teams' success. With Phil Jackson, he has won nine championships but people say, 'He always had the best player. He had Jordan or he had Shaq' and I think that kind of echoes from your career in Boston when you won championships but people said that you had a Hall of Fame frontline. Do you see a parallel in that sense?"

Jones: "There was a great coach before I got to the Celtics, Bill Fitch. He was a great coach. He did a super job of winning the championship in 1981. I had the same players and went to the Finals four times in five years and won two championships."

Friedman: "Right. That’s a very similar run to what Jackson just had with the Lakers, winning three titles in five years."

Jones: "What you mentioned was that because I had these high profile players, that's how I was able to have a championship team and go to the Finals that often. That's what you're saying, right?"

Friedman: "I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's a criticism that others have said. I don't think that it is valid. I think that it is a challenge—and I wanted you to speak about this—when you have that many talented players to get them to accept roles and to understand what has to be done to win."

Jones: "I was speaking to the criticism. Of course, I'm not an entertainer, which all coaches should be, because the media lives off of that. I was just the opposite. I guess you are saying that (people say) that Jackson was a quiet guy sitting on the sidelines and only reason he won was because he had Jordan and Pippen. That really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me."

Friedman: "I agree."

Jones: "Here's what you've got. In college, the best coaches are the ones who do the best scouting. They come up with the Okafors and the Bill Russells and the Kareems. Without these great players, these great individuals, how are you going to get there? Shaq and Kobe, they won for three years. Then Jackson is criticized for having Jordan and Pippen. I don't understand that."

Friedman: "I don't understand it either. I think that it is a great challenge. The team that you had in Boston, which had Bird, McHale and Parish—any one of those guys could demand 25 shots a game. You were able to get them to work together to understand how to share the ball and—"

Jones: "It's the same thing with Bill Fitch. He had the same players and he did a great job with them to win a championship. But there wasn't any question that he had Larry Bird and Kevin McHale and Danny Ainge. He is not mentioned in the same way as Jackson and I am."

Friedman: "When you first took over in Boston what was the biggest challenge that you faced?"

Jones: "The biggest obstacle is always the communication factor. If you don't have good communication between you and your top players, then you are really alone. What Jackson did in Chicago was he had Jordan and Pippen as his protectors. Jerry Sloan did that in Chicago and he also did it with Malone and Stockton in Utah. I'm sure Jackson did that with Shaq."

Friedman: "So the key thing is to first make sure that the big star buys into your program and accepts what you are doing and then everyone else falls into line?"

Jones: "Those players have to be included. Your top two players, like Russell and Cousy. It's even better if you have three players. Your major guys are the ones who have to be included in your strategy planning. They have thoughts. Red Auerbach did that with Cousy and Russell. If you don't do that there is a fence there. You are alone. A wall is up."

Friedman: "You mentioned something about demeanor, that you were not a media darling or doing things that the media would pick up on and that is similar to Phil Jackson, because sometimes people will criticize him by saying, 'Look what is going on on the court and he is sitting there looking at his fingernails.' When you were on the sidelines you were not very demonstrative. Your teams were very effective. People would turn that into a criticism. I think that that is another way that you were similar to Phil Jackson. You had a very calm demeanor on the courtside, you weren’t running around or getting technicals."

Jones: "That's the entertainment factor. John Wooden seldom got off the bench, but that's what the media looks for and some coaches have a way of giving them what they want. Rick Pitino is great on the sidelines with the press and his demeanor on the court. That's awesome stuff. You have others who do the same thing and that's their coaching style."

Friedman: "From your standpoint, coaching—"

Jones: "Larry Brown in Detroit, what does he do?"

Friedman: "To me, he is a little bit of a mixture. A lot of times he is getting up and getting excited but sometimes—I think that he is a hybrid. I think he is in the middle. He is not as demonstrative as some, but he is not always just sitting there quietly—"

Jones: "Not in the playoffs (laughs). Maybe in the regular season. In the regular season there is a tomorrow."

Friedman: "Right. Your coaching philosophy, as I understand it, is your coaching was done in practice. You prepared the team for what they had to do and you didn't need to do a lot of histrionics on the sidelines—"

Jones: "It wasn't me to be that demonstrative and it's not Jackson to do that. Brown, same thing there. Then you have others—Bill Fitch was great, he was up on the sidelines. He could have been a comedian on the stage because he was great with the media and he was a super bright person."

Friedman: "One other thing that I wanted to ask you about is something that I recall and then I see it all the time on ESPN Classic. I noticed something about where Larry Bird would receive the ball. Usually when you have a great player who is predominantly right handed, when they catch the ball on the block—whether is it Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan—you can go down the line—they usually like that left block. What I noticed a lot of times—"

Jones: "The left block facing the basket?"

Friedman: "Right. Exactly. The left block facing the basket. If you picture Hakeem posting up or Shaq, they usually run to that left block. That seems to be where the great players who are right handed tend to go."

Jones: "Except for Kareem."

Friedman: "Right."

Jones: "Kareem liked the right block."

Friedman: "Yeah. But I noticed with Larry Bird a lot of times when he ran that exchange with Parish or if he was posting up and Ainge or Dennis Johnson were feeding him, a lot of times Bird would go to the right block or even the right side midway between the foul line and the block. I wondered if there was a particular reason why he received the ball there. I don't remember a lot of great players who were right handed getting the ball there. I've always been curious about that."

Jones: "Well, hey, that’s something new to me. I never thought about that. Of course, guys have special places they like to be. Right handed guys like to be on the right block, is that what you’re saying?"

Friedman: "Well, my observation—maybe I’m wrong and you can correct me. It seems to me that right hand dominant players tend to go to the left block—I'm thinking of Shaq, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon. I know that you mentioned Kareem. I think that he would go to either block."

Jones: "Yeah."

Friedman: "I noticed a lot of times with Larry Bird—I remember watching it during the 1980s and then I see it again on ESPN Classic—a lot of times he was getting the ball on the right wing, midway between the foul line and the post. I didn't know if this was by design or if that was where he liked to get the ball or if it had anything to do with the spacing of the other players. I didn't know if there was a grand reason behind it or it just happened that way."

Jones: "Well I never saw a grand reason behind Larry doing that. Of course, shooters follow the ball, and if you are a Reggie Miller or a Larry Bird or whoever, it's wherever you get the ball and deal with it. But then there are plays that put you in position to do that. Then it's, 'What side do you want it on?' or 'What block do you want it on?' Then you know that’s the way it goes and that’s how it’s dealt with."

Friedman: "Oh, OK. It seemed like he would get the ball a lot of times in that area. I even noticed it when they replayed the old 1979 NCAA Championship against Magic Johnson. I didn't know if it was something that developed early in his career for some reason. I know that he was effective anywhere on the court, but I didn't know if there was a particular reason he liked that spot, kind of midway between the foul line and the post. If he had a smaller guy it seemed like he would back him in—"

Jones: "Yeah."

Friedman: "If he had a bigger guy he would drive. In the (1988 playoff) game against Dominique, it seemed like he was getting the ball a lot of times in that spot and then he would wheel around and drive into the lane, like in that fourth quarter when he had 20 points."

Jones: "Yeah. Of course, players have spots that they like or positions that they like to be in to make their favorite move down there. You’re saying left block and right block and some of them could do both, but I was never really that aware of that except coming off certain plays if he wanted to post up he would come to either block, the block that he liked best. More times than not, Larry was on the right side of the court as a forward. Kevin was always on the block—him or Robert."

Friedman: "Right. Bird would be kind of in a mid-post position, between the foul line and the block or even outside the three point line."

Jones: "Yeah, Larry would come from the right side or the left side or coming off a screen set by Robert or Kevin. A lot of times he was on the right post."

Friedman: "Yeah, that’s what I'm saying. I noticed that on tape. I found that interesting. I didn't know if there was a specific reason. I guess some of that just comes out of the flow of the game."

Jones: "Yeah. It comes out of the flow of the game. What about other players? Hamilton, he does that circle thing, he comes around to the right side a lot of times and all of a sudden he’s up in the air for the shot."

Friedman: "He's perpetual motion."

Jones: "Yeah, but all he is doing is trying to get open. It's like a 1-4 setup, two guys on the right block, one guy on the left block and the point guard's up top. Hamilton’s down under the basket trying to find which way he can go to get the defense knocked off. So he'll fake this way and go that way. Or fake this way and go the other way. He's coming around and that's how he gets open."

Friedman: "He kind of bounces around like a pinball. He reads, he goes by one of his big men and reads which way his defender is going and he pops out the other way."

Jones: "Yeah. He's doing a mile run to get open to get his shot on a court that is what, 50 by 90?"

Friedman: "Right. Exactly."

Jones: "But that's him. There are different ways of doing it. Oscar Robertson would dribble you this way or that way for 15 seconds, let you make a mistake with one of his subtle fakes and he's by you. Different strokes."

Friedman: "Oscar's philosophy, as I understand it, was always that he was never satisfied. If he had a 15 foot shot, he would try to back you in or fake so that he could get a 12 foot shot. If he had a 12 foot shot, he was always trying to get closer to the basket, and of course he had great size, so he was always trying to get the closer shot. He was never satisfied."

Jones: "Well, why not?" (laughs)

Friedman: "Sure, it makes sense. Well, the current players don't always necessarily think that way. If the shot is open then they think it is a good shot. They are not trying to get closer. It’s not the same type of approach. Of course, Oscar's approach makes sense."

Jones: "That's what you work for. If you can get it, you get it, but you have to work for it."

Friedman: "One more thing that I want to ask you—"

Jones: "There is one thing that I want to say. You were talking about that I had Larry Bird and Kevin McHale and all those people and that's how I was able to win. Then, I mentioned Bill Fitch. But I was not mentioning Bill Fitch in a negative way."

Friedman: "No, I understand."

Jones: "I was talking about the critics and what they were saying. If I had these people here and that is the reason that I got to the Finals and won championships—he was coaching the same guys."

Friedman: "No, I understand your point exactly."

Jones: "I wanted to be clear on that."

Friedman: "OK, no problem there. I understand what you are saying. Just to make it clear from my standpoint, I don't believe that that is a valid criticism. I am bringing up something that other people have said to get your reaction to it."

Jones: "That's what I was reacting to, not something that you said, but what you were asking."

Friedman: "When I thought about it and realized that I would have the opportunity to speak with you about Sam Jones, I was also thinking about a future article that I could write about you in a similar vein. The article that I am writing about Sam Jones is called 'Reconsidered,' when I look at somebody's career and take a different perspective—look at someone who has been underrated or neglected. I was thinking that in a future article I could do something very similar about your coaching career, because I see a lot of parallels between your coaching career and Phil Jackson's in terms of not receiving what I would consider to be adequate credit. Like you say, they don't look at Bill Fitch that way for whatever reason, but, sometimes, critics will say, well someone had the players—and someone else may have had the same players and they don’t make that criticism—it doesn't always seem fair."

Jones: "Look, that's being—what do you call it—not biased, but that's going straight at the coaches, K.C. or Jackson, because they had the talent. Those critics are saying that they really don't think much of these two coaches."

Friedman: "Right and some of it also gets back to what you were talking about in terms of how the coach may relate to the media or how the media perceives them."

Jones: "That's it right there. Bill Fitch had a great ability in controlling the media through his humor. He'd jump up every now and then and scream. They'd feel the spirit he put into it—a great communicator and that's what the media wants. That's what they accept. With a guy like me, they're not going to get much, because I'm the guy who sits quietly on the bench."

Friedman: "Right. In that sense also, although he hasn't won a championship as a coach, there is a little similarity between you and Maurice Cheeks from a demeanor standpoint. Maurice Cheeks is not real demonstrative, he is kind of quiet and that doesn't mean that the person is not coaching, that's just his personality—"

Jones: "If he had been in there and won a couple championships then he would have the same problem I have." (laughs)

Friedman: "Right. Exactly."

Jones: "And Dr. Jack Ramsay."

Friedman: "Right. One other thing that I want to ask you about is not the happiest memory from your coaching career, but I want to have your perspective on it. History is generally told from the standpoint of who won—also, in light of what happened this year in the Finals when we had an upset, of course. You coached the Washington Bullets in the Finals against Golden State (in 1975) and that was a team that was considered to be the favorite but you did not win. We always read the story from the perspective of what Rick Barry did or Golden State or whatever, but from your standpoint what do you feel like happened in that series? From your standpoint why did that series go the way it did?"

Jones: "Well, the scenario was that there was a circus that was going on during the Finals in San Francisco. So that changed the whole format from the usual 2-2-1-1-1. The change was we had the choice of playing game one in San Francisco and the next two in Washington or the other way around. I made the mistake of taking the first game at home and being on the road for the next two. You make a boo-boo like that, it makes it very difficult to win the championship as the favorite."

Friedman: "What you're saying is that when you lost the first game it put you behind the eight ball because you didn't have the home court advantage that you expected to have."

Jones: "Yeah, that was what the format was. By them winning the first game—and they won it narrowly, because we missed a layup that would've won the game—Golden State now felt confident as all get out, rather than being intimidated by the 2-2-1-1-1."

Friedman: "That's something that I know about because I've researched that series a little bit and read about what happened, but that's something that is not mentioned a lot when people talk about the upset or what Rick Barry did, but that was a big disadvantage—"

Jones: "What you're saying is that they just come out with their thoughts about how I did a terrible job because I was favored, but without mentioning how the series was set up. Nothing is mentioned about the circus, nothing is mentioned about the 1-2 format."

Friedman: "That also says something about where the NBA ranked in the sports universe or the entertainment universe at that time. I don't think that kind of scheduling could happen in today's NBA. I don't think that there could be some type of scheduling snafu where you end up playing 1-2—"

Jones: "Golden State, they had that schedule set (with the circus) because they felt that Golden State would not (still) be in the playoffs. So they used that playoff time to have the circus but all of a sudden Golden State beat Chicago and then it was like, 'Oh, (shoot).'"

Friedman: "Right, 'What are we going to do?'"

Jones: "'We have a circus here, da-da-da,' and the commissioner said, 'OK, 1-2.'"

Friedman: "But nowadays the NBA is such a huge business I don't think that anyone—even the Orlando Magic with the horrible record that they had last year—would have scheduled a circus to be in there during playoff time until they were mathematically eliminated. I don't think that anyone would say before the season starts, 'I don't think that we're going to be in the playoffs, let's have the circus here in May.' Well, I won't take up any more of your time. Thank you so much for your help with the Sam Jones article. As I mentioned, at some point I would like to do a 'K.C. Jones Reconsidered' dealing with your coaching career." 

A few minutes after the conclusion of the interview, K.C. Jones called back to state that he wanted it on the record that "Bill Fitch was a better coach than I was." K.C. Jones made it very clear that his comments about both of them having the same players but Fitch's coaching skills not being critiqued in the media the same way that his were did not mean that he did not respect Fitch as a coach. I reassured K.C. Jones that I understood what he had meant during the interview and that I have no intention of trying to create some type of rift with Coach Fitch. The operative comparison is between the laid back bench demeanors of both Jones and Jackson.

It speaks volumes about Jones' character (1) that he spent so much time doing an in depth interview with a writer who he did not know and who is not famous and (2) that he put so much thought into his answers, to the point of calling me back to clarify that he meant no disrespect to Coach Fitch. Longtime 20 Second Timeout readers know that Julius Erving is my favorite player of all-time. It goes without saying that I was not rooting for Jones' teams during the 1980s--but I hope that it is also evident how much I respect him, and how much research and preparation I did (for a basketball lifetime, not just for one interview) before I spoke with him. 

I am happy that I shared that time with K.C. Jones, and I hope that this interview helps basketball fans cultivate a greater appreciation for his accomplishments. I never wrote the "K.C. Jones Reconsidered" article, but in a sense that is what this article is. K.C. Jones deserves to be reconsidered, and to always be remembered as a championship player and a championship coach.

Labels: Bill Russell, Boston Celtics, Clyde Drexler, K.C. Jones, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson, Richard Hamilton, Sam Jones, Slick Leonard, Tommy Heinsohn

posted by David Friedman @ 7:09 PM

0 comments

Pistons are "Stuck" in Last Place

Joe Dumars is a Hall of Famer who won two NBA championships as a player and one championship as an executive; there is no doubt that he understands what it takes to win at the highest level, which makes his apparently undying belief in Rodney Stuckey all the more baffling: Dumars essentially got rid of three All-Stars (Chauncey Billups, Allen Iverson and Richard Hamilton) in order to hand the keys to the car to Stuckey, who has proceeded to drive the Pistons straight to the bottom of the standings. The Pistons missed the playoffs in each of the past three seasons and they are currently 1-8, sitting in last place in the Central Division and ranking ahead of only the 0-7 Washington Generals--I mean Washington Wizards--among the league's 30 teams.

If you click here for NBA betting at Top Bet you will see that the oddsmakers think that even the Dwight Howard-less Orlando Magic have a better chance to win the NBA championship than the Pistons--and Stuckey has played a major role in Detroit's pathetic record: he shot .282 from the field while starting in all eight losses and, probably not coincidentally, the Pistons finally cracked the win column when he sat out the ninth game of the season due to illness.

Only four NBA franchises have won at least three championships in the past 25 years: the Lakers, the Bulls, the Spurs and the Pistons--but the Pistons are not likely to add to that total as long as Stuckey is the team's second highest paid player and a key member of their rotation.

Labels: Allen Iverson, Chauncey Billups, Detroit Pistons, Joe Dumars, Richard Hamilton, Rodney Stuckey

posted by David Friedman @ 6:30 AM

2 comments

2005 NBA Finals Review: San Antonio Outlasts Detroit

A slightly different version of this article was originally published at Suite101.com on July 14, 2005.

The NBA Draft has come and gone and summer league play is underway, but before we completely turn our attention to the 2005-06 season it is worthwhile to briefly examine the 2005 NBA Finals. After blowouts in the first four games, basketball fans were treated to a classic championship battle--in effect a three game mini-series for the title. San Antonio won "game one" on Robert Horry's clutch three pointer but Detroit countered by winning "game two" on the strength of 23 point by Rip Hamilton and 21 points with no turnovers (!) by Chauncey Billups, who channeled Pete Rock and C.L. Smooth when he memorably described Detroit's motto as "If it ain't rough, it ain't right." Detroit had come back from a 2-0 deficit to tie the series and then bounced back from Horry's heroics to knot matters once again. It had certainly been "rough" for Detroit and when the Pistons took a 48-39 lead in "game three" of the mini-series it seemed like it would turn out "right" for the defending champions--but Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili made all the big plays down the stretch and the San Antonio Spurs claimed their third title in seven years.

Sports are a second guesser's delight. Would Miami have won the title if Shaq and Wade were healthy? Did fatigue from the Miami series cause Detroit's slow start in the Finals? (the Pistons took three of four from the Spurs in the middle of the series and might have won four straight games if not for Horry's shot) Why on Earth did Rasheed Wallace leave open the guy who had been killing the Pistons the whole second half of game five--the guy whose nickname is "Big Shot Rob"--to shoot a three pointer when Detroit was up two with less than 10 seconds left? How good would the Lakers have been if Shaq had lost weight and willingly deferred to Kobe the way that he lost weight and willingly deferred to Wade? The first two questions are unanswerable, the third will cause Larry Brown, 'Sheed and Pistons' fans endless sleepless nights for years and the fourth sounds like the basis for a future article.

While second guessing is entertaining, sometimes it is important to stick to cold, hard facts--just the stats, ma'am, to paraphrase a famous line. The Finals stats make for some interesting reading. One team outscored the other by nearly two ppg, had more assists, more steals, more blocks, many more field goals made (248-216), a better field goal percentage, a better free throw percentage, fewer turnovers and was only outrebounded by .7 rpg. That same team had six players average at least 10 ppg, compared to four such players for the other team. If you think that the team with the gaudy stats was San Antonio then you were not paying attention to the Finals. So how did the Spurs win? They dominated Detroit from behind the three point arc, punctuated and symbolized by the one moment that will always be remembered from this series--Horry's game five dagger. San Antonio made 51 threes and shot .398 from that distance, compared to 18 and .240 by Detroit. San Antonio won so convincingly in this category that the Spurs could lose almost every other statistical category and still emerge victorious. Despite his roots as an ABA player and coach, Larry Brown is not a big fan of the three point shot that was made famous by that league and after looking at the 2005 Finals stats he probably likes it even less.

If Larry Brown returns to coach the Pistons in 2005-06 it will be interesting to see how the Pistons seek to narrow the "three point" gap--will they add more shooters to the roster or will they place more emphasis on reducing the three point accuracy of their opponents? This question brings to mind a memorable sequence in Shaquille O'Neal's ESPN reality show; during a road trip bonding session with his new Heat teammates, O'Neal said that Phil Jackson's coaching philosophy versus the Spurs was to single cover Duncan and not leave any shooters open, believing that they could not create their own shots and that Duncan would not have four monster games in a seven game series. Who will test that theory first against the Spurs--Shaq's Heat in the NBA Finals or Jackson and Kobe's Lakers in the Western Conference playoffs?

Labels: Chauncey Billups, Detroit Pistons, Manu Ginobili, Richard Hamilton, Robert Horry, San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan

posted by David Friedman @ 2:31 AM

0 comments

Cavs Build 29 Point Lead, Coast to 94-82 Win Over Pistons

The Cleveland Cavaliers used a powerful three pronged offensive attack led by LeBron James plus stifling defense to race to a 29 point lead versus the sputtering Detroit Pistons en route to a 94-82 victory, placing Detroit in a 2-0 hole. James finished with game-high totals in points (29) and rebounds (13), adding six assists while committing only two turnovers. He thrilled the crowd with two sensational third quarter dunks: a two handed monster jam off of a slick bounce pass from Mo Williams at the 5:19 mark to put the Cavs up 61-44 and a two handed windmill fastbreak dunk that made the score 68-46 Cleveland with 3:27 left. Williams established playoff career-highs in points (21) and assists (seven), while Delonte West had 20 points and four assists, though he did commit a game-high five turnovers.

Richard Hamilton led Detroit with 17 points. Antonio McDyess grabbed a team-high 11 rebounds but only scored eight points on 3-9 shooting. Kwame Brown had the most interesting stat line of the night, accumulating more fouls (five) than points (zero) and rebounds (three) combined. The Cavs outrebounded the Pistons 43-34 and held them to .395 field goal shooting (32-81), though Cleveland only shot .424 from the field (28-66), a low percentage largely due to a 1-11 outing by Cleveland's reserves.

It would not seem like there could be much drama in such a game--many writers headed to the media room after the third quarter to get a head start on their game stories and some of the fans behind the media section asked me if I could switch one of the TV monitors to the channel featuring the Cleveland Indians game--but when James and the starters went to the bench in the fourth quarter the Pistons suddenly roared to life and cut the lead to 82-68 with 7:15 remaining. Even after James, Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao rode in like the cavalry to try to save the day, the Pistons continued their rally, narrowing the gap to 84-77 at the 3:51 mark. Then the Cavs got three straight stops and James, West and Williams each made a pair of free throws to reestablish control of the game. After another Cavs stop, James grabbed the rebound and fired a perfect outlet pass to Williams, who scored a layup and got fouled. Williams missed the free throw but the Cavs enjoyed a 92-77 lead with just 2:19 remaining, so the outcome was no longer in doubt.

The Cavs opened the game with a 10-2 run and never trailed. A 23-14 first quarter lead expanded to 46-32 by halftime, 77-50 after three quarters and 79-50 early in the fourth quarter. TNT's Kenny Smith has said several times that he believes that the playoff experience of Detroit's veterans actually works against the Pistons in this series because those guys have seen enough postseason action to understand quite clearly that their team has no chance to beat Cleveland in a seven game series; Smith thinks that this explains the lackluster way that the starters are performing and maybe he has a point, because Detroit's young reserves entered the game in the fourth quarter and played their hearts out, continuing to gain ground even for a few minutes after Cleveland's starters returned to the fray. Naturally, this is a sensitive issue for Detroit and after the game when Hamilton was asked about why the starters played so sluggishly compared to the reserves he deftly deflected that question by focusing his response on how well Detroit's second unit played: "I thought the bench did a great job. I thought they came in the fourth quarter and did a lot of things that our starters didn't do. They talked. They were on a string (defensively); when one guy got beat, another guy was there. Rotations were good."

Detroit Coach Michael Curry thought that the reserves set an example that the starters should follow during the rest of the series: "I think with the second group it showed it doesn't matter what we do coverage-wise. If you go out, execute it and do it extremely hard, we'll be okay. We cover a lot of ground. We showed on the pick and rolls. We trapped. They brought LeBron back in, we trapped, rotated, covered the shooters. Physically we were able to get it done and rebound the basketball as well. That's what we take from it--things we are trying to do and the things we are talking about doing going into the game, we can do it."

Not surprisingly, Cleveland Coach Mike Brown--who received the Red Auerbach Trophy (and a much deserved standing ovation from the sellout crowd of 20,562) prior to the game in honor of winning the 2009 Coach of the Year Award--preferred to focus his postgame remarks on the first three quarters of the game: "I thought our guys played a great three quarters of basketball. First, second and third quarters we were very good on both ends of the floor. I thought we moved the ball well in terms of ball reversals. We threw the ball ahead, trying to get some easy baskets. I thought we set screens for one another. I thought we spaced the floor very well. I thought, offensively, all of our staples were there. That was great to see, fun to watch. Defensively, I thought we did things terrific, too, in the first three quarters. We shrunk the floor; we made that paint look crowded. We didn't give up a ton of middle drives. We contested shots. We kept them off the glass. We did a lot of good things in the first three quarters basketball-wise. In the fourth quarter, offensively their second or third unit, however you want to call it, did a great job. You have to give them credit. They got up into us and we didn't respond well with the guys we had on the floor, so we had to go back to our starters to close the game, which they did a terrific job of doing."

One of the most remarkable things about James is the poise that he maintains on and off the court. He does not overreact to anything and when he was asked after the game about the poor performance of Cleveland's bench players he struck just the right tone: "We did a great job offensively and defensively and we played great basketball for the first three quarters. I think that in the fourth quarter we just got a little content, which we cannot do in the playoffs. We cannot allow ourselves to get content...As starters or as guys, we are all a team, so we had no problem going back in and finishing out the game. We all win together and we all lose together. We all play well together and sometimes we don't play well together, so there is no blame for anybody. The biggest thing is that we got a win but we know that we cannot allow ourselves to not close out a game the right way."

*****************************
Notes From Courtside:

Prior to the game, I had the opportunity to interview Cavs General Manager Danny Ferry. This season, I have asked both Cavs Coach Mike Brown and Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich to give their thoughts about the February 13, 2009 New York Times article that described how Houston General Manager Daryl Morey uses statistics to make player evaluations. The article focuses on Morey's acquisition of Shane Battier, though the author neglected to mention that the Rockets gave up a very promising young player (Rudy Gay) in order to get Battier.

Brown and Popovich both indicated very strongly to me that they are not "numbers guys." Ferry has a reputation of being at least somewhat a "numbers guy" and it has been reported that well respected "stat guru" Dan Rosenbaum has been advising the Cavs since the start of the 2005-06 season.

Friedman: "Did you have a chance to read the New York Times article about the use of advanced statistics to analyze basketball?"

Ferry: "Yes."

Friedman: "What did you think of that article in general? How much do you use advanced statistics?"

Ferry: "I read the article. I thought that it was a good article. I believe in using statistical analysis as part of your decision making process. Every team will look at things and do things differently based off of how they read the stats but I think it definitely has a place in studying the draft and it definitely has a place in studying in free agency and it has a place in getting ready for games."

Friedman: "You've been in the NBA a long time first as a player, then in the Spurs front office and now with the Cavs. How much has the use of statistics--and the sophistication of the statistics being used--increased during the period of time that you have been in the NBA?"

Ferry: "I think it has increased dramatically, over the past five years in particular. I think that owners, general managers and teams in general have looked at what baseball has done (with statistics) and know, obviously, that they can't recreate baseball--it's a different game with a different set up and a different structure and you look at the statistics differently--but it challenges you to think a little more analytically about the decision making process."

Friedman: "One thing that could be said to be different about baseball and basketball is that baseball is a station to station game--the pitcher throws the ball, the hitter hits it, the fielder fields it and each thing is a discrete action that can be evaluated--while in a basketball game you have 10 players in motion at once. Do you think that difference makes it more challenging to come up with accurate metrics for basketball than it is for baseball?"

Ferry: "I think that you can get accurate metrics for basketball but you also have to understand that it is a static thing and that whether it is baseball, whether it is football or anything, to just make decisions off of statistics would be a mistake but it can be an important part of the equation in basketball. I believe it can be."

Friedman: "If you are looking at either your team or at an opposing team, are there certain statistics that you consider to be very reliable to say that a given team is performing efficiently? For instance, are there numbers that you zero in on and say that if a team is doing well at this then I know that they are good defensively or that they are good offensively?"

Ferry: "You can look at points per possession, you can look at pace of play. There are a lot of different numbers--plus/minus statistics for players, adjusted plus/minus statistics for players, rebound rates. There are all different kinds of things that you can look at from a team standpoint and also from an individual player standpoint."

Friedman: "Are there certain particular stats you focus on from a team standpoint? Individual stats were going to be my next question. Are there certain team stats that you value over the others?"

Ferry: "Probably the one that we look at the most is just regular old defensive field goal percentage, because that is something the guys all see. It is also something that a statistics person would look at, beat it up and say that we are crazy to look at it but for us it is something that we can see that is right in front of our eyes and that our coaching staff is very comfortable using. Now, do we have other layers on top of that that we look at behind the scenes? Yes."

Friedman: "Can you describe--"

Ferry: "No."

Friedman (laughs): "OK, I had to ask, but I understand if you can't. From an individual player standpoint, obviously you expect different things from players at different positions--a point guard has different responsibilities than a center and so forth--but when you are evaluating players in a general sense, you mentioned plus/minus before, is there a metric that you look at that you think gives you a good gauge in general on players?"

Ferry: "Yes."

Friedman: "And again you can't say which one?"

Ferry: "No."

Friedman: "OK, I understand."

Ferry: "I don't want everybody to know how I look at things, necessarily. Other people may look at things differently."

Friedman: "I have asked the same or similar questions to Coach Brown and Coach Popovich. Coach Brown said to me that he is not really a big stat guy, that he goes more by feel. Coach Popovich said the same thing. Obviously, you already know this because you have dealt with both of them a lot longer than I have but I am just indicating what my research has been. On that continuum, are you more of a stat guy than they are?"

Ferry: "I am more interested in statistical analysis than Pop and Mike but that is not saying a whole lot."

Friedman: "Well, that is interesting because it may have a different value to you than to them. Your angle has more to do with player evaluation, while they are coaching and dealing with what is going on during games. Those things are not exactly the same, although they can overlap."

Ferry: "No, but I will look at how we are playing and what we are doing as a team as well. I like looking at statistical analysis things whether I am looking at our team or looking at other teams or looking at free agents. There is a place for it but it is only a small part of the equation."

Ferry also clarified for me something that Brown and Popovich had both mentioned about P.J. Carlesimo, who looks at stats much more than they do; Ferry explained that Carlesimo--who wa an assistant coach with Brown on Popovich's staff several years ago--relies mainly on traditional boxscore statistics, such as fast break points, as opposed to the newer, "advanced" stats, so the input that Carlesimo offered in that regard would not have been of interest to either the new wave stat guys nor to coaches like Brown and Popovich who rely more on feel than they do on new or old stats. Hopefully at some point I will have an opportunity to speak with Carlesimo not only about this subject but also about why he chose to play Kevin Durant at shooting guard instead of small forward, a decision that Scott Brooks reversed (with tremendously positive results) as soon as he took over for Carlesimo as Oklahoma City's head coach.

I mentioned to Ferry that I think that he has done an excellent job of making the Cavs arguably the deepest team in the league, one of the few teams that truly has a full complement of shooters, rebounders, defenders and passers, with reserve players being more than capable of stepping in if someone gets hurt or is in foul trouble. When I said this to Ferry, I focused on the 10 man rotation and while he appreciated the compliment he made the point that in addition to those players he really likes players 11-15, particularly 24 year old Tarence Kinsey, a very talented guard who only averaged 5.5 mpg this season. Although the bench players did not play well in game two versus Detroit, they have been a real strength for the Cavs throughout the season, enabling James to completely sit out more than a dozen fourth quarters as they protected/expanded leads.

***

During Coach Curry's pregame standup he made some interesting comments about defending LeBron James, his experiences as a first year coach, what went wrong with the Pistons this season and what kind of team he is trying to build.

Regarding the critique that the Pistons are supposedly not defending James as well as they did in the 2007 playoffs, Curry said, "I was doing interviews yesterday and I laughed when everyone said that we are a different Detroit team than we were two years ago as far as how we defended LeBron. I had to go back and check the records: I thought we lost that series--with home court advantage--in game six, so we want to do some things better than we did in 2007."

I asked Coach Curry, "What has been the most unexpected challenge for you as a first year coach? What is something that happened in the course of the season that--as much as you prepared to be a coach--was an unexpected challenge that you faced?"

Curry replied, "Changing the team right at the beginning of the year. It was kind of tough with the point guard but, really, just the fact that we had Allen (Iverson) and Rip (Richard Hamilton) both being really established shooting guards--trying to play them together was so-so but never was great. Trying to play each one of them in a supportive role off of the bench didn't work out either. So I didn't expect that. Everything else you try to prepare for the unexpected. As I said before back in Detroit (prior to game one on Saturday), I think that everything we've tried to do this year, if he had had Dice (Antonio McDyess) the entire time it would have been better--it still was going to be tough but we really got to see the value of having someone like Antonio McDyess on your team."

I then asked, "Do you think that was the biggest factor in why your record was not as good this year, not having McDyess at the start of the season and then trying to bring him back into the fold while all of the other things you mentioned were going on?"

Curry answered, "We just didn't play good. Our record is how we played; we didn't play good enough. I just think when you talk about the biggest things we went through during the year, I'm saying that having McDyess (the whole time) could have helped the transition or with the trade that was made but I'm not using that as an excuse. Our record is what it is because that is how we played."

Curry commendably is not looking for any excuses for his team's performance but anyone who understands basketball realizes that when a team is without its leading rebounder for more than a fifth of the season that is a critical blow, particularly with so much other turmoil also happening. McDyess is also valuable offensively because of his shooting touch, plus he is probably the most respected voice in the locker room among the players.

Just like Utah Coach Jerry Sloan is frustrated that his team does not mirror the aggressive mindset that he had as a player, Curry is disappointed that his Pistons do not play the way that he did: "One thing that I've realized as a coach is--some of the things I did as a player, I'm proud of how I played the game, but trying to mold the team into performing the way that I did takes a little longer than I expected. I think that you have to have more players who play that way. Maybe over time we will add players to the mix and defend that way...I gave my body up more as a player...I took more charges, I dove for more loose balls, I gave more hard fouls. Those are things that as I continue to mold my team going forward that I want to be our signature."

***

Before the game, Coach Brown said that LeBron James has always played with effort on defense but that unlike Michael Jordan--who played at North Carolina for three years under the tutelage of the legendary Dean Smith--James had to make the transition from high school straight to the NBA and that was a steep learning curve for the young Cavs star.

Brown also explained how Cleveland's previous playoff experience is helpful during this postseason: "Having patience but playing with a sense of urgency is something that we have developed over the past few years."

During his pregame standup, someone asked James if his initial adjustment to the NBA was tougher on offense or on defense and he replied without hesitation, "Defense. You can get away with cheating plays and not playing defense in high school sometimes because the guys physically or athletically are not better than you, so you can get away with it. Here there are guys who are equally fast and equally strong." He later added that defense "means more to me now at this point in my career than it did to me in the past. Not to say that I just didn't care about defense but now I care as much about defense as I do about offense." He dismissed the idea that playing for Team USA spurred that change in his thought process--though Doug Collins and other observers believe that playing alongside veterans like Kobe Bryant and Jason Kidd helped James become more focused on defense--instead crediting Coach Mike Brown's schemes plus his own intrinsic desire to improve. James said that each offseason he focuses on a specific goal and that his goal prior to his season was to win the Defensive Player of the Year award; earlier on Tuesday it was announced that Dwight Howard had become the youngest winner in the history of that award, with James finishing second. James did not receive a single DPoY vote last year.

***

Before the game I spoke briefly with Pistons broadcaster Greg Kelser, who won an NCAA title at Michigan State with Magic Johnson before averaging 9.7 ppg in a six season NBA career that was shortened by injuries. When I interviewed Kelser a while ago for an article about him that first ran in the May 2007 issue of Basketball Times, he told me that he thought he could still get 10 rebounds in a game. When I reminded him about that statement, he laughed and said since he is a few years older now he probably could only get eight rebounds.

Labels: Antonio McDyess, Cleveland Cavaliers, Danny Ferry, Delonte West, Detroit Pistons, LeBron James, Mike Brown, Mo Williams, Richard Hamilton

posted by David Friedman @ 9:32 AM

8 comments

Rejuvenated Pistons Beat Celtics

Detroit's 105-95 victory at Boston was rich in subplots. The Celtics were without the services of Kevin Garnett for the fourth game in a row and the seventh time this season; this is the first time that they lost sans "The Big Ticket" in 2008-09 and they were 9-2 without him last season: the fact that they have gone 15-3 without Garnett during the past two seasons indicates just how talented the Celtics really are and how committed they are to playing solid defense even without their best defensive player.

The Pistons were also playing without a former league MVP: Allen Iverson missed his second consecutive game and the once floundering Pistons have now won two in a row on the road against two of the three best teams in the East (they beat Orlando on Friday). This season has been heaven on Earth for anyone who dislikes Iverson and/or wants to "prove" that Iverson is overrated. The Pistons have been in disarray all season long, so the simple minded look at the trade that sent Iverson to Detroit for Chauncey Billups and Antonio McDyess and conclude that Detroit's problems are all because of Iverson. Part of the problem is that these people do not even describe the trade correctly, let alone understand its impact; note that Iverson was swapped not straight up for Billups but also for McDyess. The Nuggets released McDyess but by league rule the Pistons had to wait a month to re-sign him and they went 9-8 while McDyess--their leading rebounder last season and again this season--was out of action.

In 2007-08, the Pistons went 59-23 using nine different starting lineups--but their main starting lineup (which included McDyess) went 46-17; this season, the Pistons have already used 12 different starting lineups, with no single grouping playing together for more than 13 games. The Pistons also fired Coach Flip Saunders in the offseason and replaced him with Michael Curry, who had never been a head coach in the NBA.

Any objective person with a reasonable amount of intelligence can look at the information in the preceding two paragraphs and understand that there are a variety of reasons that the Pistons are not as good as they were last year--but that has not stopped less objective/intelligent people from declaring that Iverson is the main villain in the Detroit drama.

Early in the game, ABC's Hubie Brown, perhaps the best NBA color commentator, offered this trenchant analysis of the Pistons' season, completely refuting the people who foolishly try to blame Iverson alone for all of the Pistons' woes:

Everything in basketball comes down to chemistry. This team--whether you say it's the lack of Chauncey Billups to take the big shots at the end of games and make the big free throws and three point plays--whatever the problem is, it is a team problem. It's not just Allen Iverson and it's not just Rip Hamilton. Let's look at the lack of production by the frontcourt people. They tried the young players here and it didn't work out. Now they have McDyess back in the lineup. But let's look at Rasheed Wallace; his numbers are down. Whatever the problem is, the offensive creativity by the coaching staff is not there. You can't be one of the best (point) differential teams in this league and win 59 games and then all of a sudden this year you're 29th in scoring and you have a minus (point) differential. There is more to this than just one player.

Also, during the Lakers-Suns telecast, Jeff Van Gundy completely rejected the notion that Iverson is solely to blame for Detroit's poor record and he sounded a cautionary note about the supposed culture change in Denver:

There have been a lot of changes there (in Detroit). There have been coaching changes and changes in rotations. Who is to blame for putting Rip Hamilton on the bench if he's better as a starter? That's not Allen Iverson's decision. That's a coaching decision.

Let's wait to coronate the Nuggets until they do something in the playoffs. They've had good seasons in the past and they've lost in the first round. To me, this idea of bashing Allen Iverson is way out of bounds, as if he is singularly the reason that the Pistons have struggled.

Shifting our focus to players who actually played in the game, Richard Hamilton was the best player on the court. As Van Gundy mentioned, Coach Curry had recently turned Hamiliton into a sixth man and the Pistons only went 4-12 with Hamilton coming off of the bench. Curry is apparently determined to keep starting Rodney Stuckey no matter how badly Stuckey plays--he was solid against Boston but played poorly in the 16 game slide--but with Iverson out of action Hamilton returned to the starting lineup and produced 25 points, a game-high nine assists and six rebounds. All five Detroit starters scored in double figures. Paul Pierce led Boston with 26 points on 11-20 shooting but Ray Allen (10 points on 2-10 shooting) and Rajon Rondo (eight points on 2-7 shooting) were MIA.

Stephon Marbury made his second appearance in a Boston uniform, finishing with 0 points on 0-3 shooting, three assists, two turnovers and four personal fouls in 12 minutes. He had a plus/minus number of +6 after posting a -7 plus/minus number in 13 minutes in Boston's 104-99 win over Indiana on Friday night. Let's take a closer look at Marbury's performance versus Detroit:

Marbury first entered the game at the start of the second quarter, with Boston leading 22-20. On his first possession, Hamilton shot a jumper right in Marbury's eye. The Celtics inbounded the ball to Marbury, but Will Bynum picked his pocket and cruised in for a layup. On the next possession, Marbury got an assist by feeding a cutting Pierce for a layup.

Marbury got his first foul trying to chase Hamilton around a screen. Then, less than two minutes after Bynum stripped Marbury one on one in the backcourt, Bynum stole the ball from him again. This time, Marbury fouled him and Bynum split a pair of free throws.

Marbury fed Powe for a layup/three point play to tie the score at 29. Later, Marbury took a low percentage, fadeaway jumper with plenty of time on the shot clock but Powe bailed him out by rebounding the miss and converting the putback.

Marbury struggled on defense no matter who he was assigned to guard, leading to open shots for a variety of Pistons and a high foul total for such limited minutes. The Pistons repeatedly isolated seldom used reserve Walter Herrmann on Marbury, leading to two easy baskets plus a foul by Mikki Moore when Moore came over to double team Herrmann. Herrmann made both of the resulting free throws, so when Marbury went back to the bench the Celtics trailed 39-37. He had made a couple decent passes but they were both plays that other guards on the roster could also have converted; meanwhile, Marbury missed both of his field goal attempts, committed two backcourt turnovers that led to three easy points and he was a defensive sieve. All of that added up to a -4 plus/minus number for Marbury in the first half. The Pistons expanded their lead to 55-47 by halftime.

The Celtics used suffocating defense to open the third quarter with a 12-0 run but the Pistons battled back to take a 77-70 lead by the time Marbury checked back in with just :25.7 remaining in the third quarter. The final possession of the quarter was an isolation play for Pierce, who was not able to score.

Marbury stayed in the game to start the fourth quarter but the Celtics made a significant adjustment; Eddie House handled the ball instead of Marbury, who simply spotted up in the corner. While that -4 plus/minus number is a pretty accurate indicator of Marbury's second quarter "contributions," his +6 plus/minus number in the fourth quarter is very deceptive. Marbury was involved in many plays in the second quarter and most of them were negative: as noted above, he lost the ball twice, took a bad shot and was ineffective defensively. On the other hand, he was largely an on court bystander when the Celtics rallied early in the fourth quarter. House not only took care of the ballhandling responsibilities but he drained two big three pointers as the Celtics used an 11-2 run to take an 81-79 lead. The Celtics were up 87-84 when Marbury went back to the bench for good with 6:03 remaining; in the fourth quarter he shot 0-1, had one assist and committed two fouls. Pierce and House did most of the heavy lifting, while Marbury was not involved in the offensive action and continued to struggle to keep up defensively.

I understand that Marbury may be rusty after having so much time off--but there is a good reason why he has been inactive all season: he has proven on many occasions to be such a bad teammate that the Knicks decided that they were better off paying him not to play even though he is a more talented athlete than any of their point guards. That says a lot. The Marbury-House backcourt pairing is odd; both are shoot first players but House is a much better shooter, someone who should be paired with a player who is willing and able to distribute the ball. If the Celtics are simply going to have House or Pierce handle the ball when Marbury is in the game--as they did in the fourth quarter--then what is the point of having Marbury out there at all when he is clearly a defensive liability? The Celtics are shorthanded for the moment because Garnett and reserve guard Tony Allen are sidelined but whose minutes is Marbury going to take when the Celtics are once again at full strength? Marbury's offensive contributions will probably increase as he gets acclimated to his new team but he is highly unlikely to improve much defensively. Since he is in a contract year, Marbury may very well exercise enough good judgment to not be a negative presence in the locker room--but that does not mean that he will actually make a positive on court contribution.

Labels: Allen Iverson, Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Stephon Marbury

posted by David Friedman @ 1:51 AM

0 comments

Requiem for the Detroit Pistons

The Detroit Pistons' championship contending window slid open six years ago when Rick Carlisle coached them to their first Eastern Conference Finals appearance since the Bad Boys' era and that window probably slammed shut on Friday when the Boston Celtics overcame a 70-60 fourth quarter deficit to beat the Pistons 89-81 in game six of the Eastern Conference Finals. Next year, the Boston Celtics figure to again be a serious contender, Cleveland’s revamped team will have had a full training camp together, the young Orlando Magic and Toronto Raptors will likely be even better than they were this season and rising squads in Philadelphia and Atlanta may be ready to make some postseason noise.

The path back to the Eastern Conference Finals will be more treacherous than ever for Detroit—and after three straight losses in that round of the playoffs it is likely that if the Pistons make it that far in 2009 they will do so with a roster and/or coaching staff that has been altered by team President Joe Dumars. Now is a good time to look back on what these Pistons have accomplished and talk a little bit about why they never quite became the dynasty that they acted like they were.

Before the 2002-03 season, the Pistons signed free agent point guard Chauncey Billups and traded for shooting guard Richard Hamilton, building the All-Star backcourt that would play such an integral role in the team’s success in the next half dozen seasons. Two seasons earlier, the Pistons acquired defensive stalwart/rebounding phenomenon Ben Wallace by trading Grant Hill to Orlando. Those three players were the cornerstones as Carlisle’s 2002-03 squad posted the best record in the Eastern Conference (50-32) and made it to the Eastern Conference Finals before being swept by the defending conference champion New Jersey Nets.

After that season, the Pistons replaced Carlisle with Larry Brown. Under his tutelage, The Pistons improved from 13th to third in the league in defensive field goal percentage. With the midseason acquisition of Rasheed Wallace and the emergence of second year forward Tayshaun Prince, the Pistons now had a starting lineup of five excellent defensive players who played unselfishly on offense. Former Sixth Man of the Year Corliss Williamson and future All-Star Mehmet Okur provided good depth. The Pistons improved to 54-28 and although that was only good enough for the second best record in the East they beat top seeded Indiana 4-2 in the Eastern Conference Finals to earn the right to play the star-studded but injury depleted L.A. Lakers in the NBA Finals. With Karl Malone hobbling, Gary Payton unable to stay in front of Billups or Hamilton on defense and looking completely lost in the Triangle Offense and Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant nearing the end of their partnership, the Pistons beat the Lakers in what was termed a "five game sweep."

Detroit’s top five players were 29 or younger, so it seemed like the Pistons could make a run at winning multiple titles. In 2004-05 the Pistons again won 54 games, finishing five games behind the East-leading Miami Heat, who they beat in seven games in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Pistons led the San Antonio Spurs 95-93 near the end of overtime in game five of the NBA Finals and were about to take a 3-2 series lead when Rasheed Wallace committed a terrible error, leaving Robert Horry wide open for the game-winning three pointer. The Pistons won game six but lost game seven. Coach Brown departed after that season and the Pistons let Ben Wallace sign with the Bulls as a free agent, believing that they could make up for his defensive presence and would be a better offensive team without him, particularly now that new Coach Flip Saunders would run a looser ship than Coach Brown did, implementing what some would later term the "liberation offense."

At first, these changes looked good as the Pistons raced to the best record in the NBA in 2005-06 (64-18). However, serious chinks in the Pistons’ armor became evident during the playoffs. After Detroit took a 2-0 lead in the Eastern Conference semifinals versus an inexperienced Cleveland team, the Cavaliers ripped off three straight wins and very nearly captured game six as well. The Cavs fell apart in a 79-61 game seven loss on the road but it was obvious that the Pistons were not the same team that had made it to the Finals for two consecutive years. Sure enough, the Miami Heat seized home court advantage with a 91-86 victory over Detroit in game one of the Eastern Conference Finals and the Heat eventually won the series in six games.

The mantra for the Pistons in 2006-07 was that they had worn themselves out by winning too many regular season games the previous year so this time they would simply use the regular season to get tuned up for the playoffs. Funny, but winning 72 and 69 games in back to back years did not tire out the Jordan/Pippen Chicago Bulls in 1996 and 1997 and the great Lakers and Celtics teams in the 1980s were able to win 60-plus games a year without flaming out in the postseason. The Pistons dropped to 53-29 but that was still good enough for the best record in the Eastern Conference. They once again took a 2-0 lead over the Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference Finals before losing three straight games. This time, the Cavaliers won game six to eliminate the Pistons.

The Pistons improved to 59-23 in 2007-08 but that was only good enough for second in the East behind the resurgent Celtics. Still, many people assumed that the experienced Pistons would be able to beat the Celtics in a seven games series, an impression that was only reinforced by Boston’s road woes in the first two rounds and the fact that both Atlanta and Cleveland extended the Celtics to seventh games. Frankly, I thought that such a superficial “analysis” ignored several technical reasons that Boston would win—rebounding, points in the paint and the tendency of the "liberation offense" to bog down in crucial moments: I predicted that Boston would eliminate Detroit in six games and that is of course exactly what happened, for the very reasons that I listed.

It is impressive that the Pistons have made it to the Eastern Conference Finals for six straight years but a resume of one championship, one other NBA Finals appearance and four losses in that round suggests "Atlanta Braves" more than it does dynasty. Keeping together a stable corps of outstanding veteran players is supposed to be a significant advantage come playoff time but in each of the past three seasons the Pistons have lost to teams that had much less collective playoff experience together than they did. What enabled the Pistons to have their initial championship level success and why have they not been able to duplicate it since then?

Great teams have an identity. The San Antonio Spurs are anchored around Tim Duncan’s presence in the paint at both ends of the court, stingy field goal percentage defense and the dribble penetration capabilities of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. The Phil Jackson Lakers run the Triangle Offense, play better defense than people think and of course they have Kobe Bryant—as Charles Barkley says, it is nice to be able to detonate a nuclear weapon in the fourth quarter of a close game. The Mike Brown Cleveland Cavaliers rely on rebounding, team defense and the brilliance of LeBron James. The Boston Celtics play suffocating team defense and have three All-Star players who share the offensive load.

The Larry Brown Pistons were known as "The Defenders," as the cover of their 2005 playoff media guide declared. Brown is one of the greatest coaches in basketball history and, except for his brief and unfortunate tenure in New York, his teams have always been known for playing to their maximum potential. What are Flip Saunders’ Pistons most known for doing? Lacking focus, not playing up to their potential and taking off quarters, halves and sometimes complete games.

For a few years now, the Pistons have been living off of the defensive reputation that they built during Brown’s regime--and don’t tell me about their regular season statistics: as we saw in last year’s Eastern Conference Finals when LeBron James drove to the hoop at will—most notably in his epic game five performance--and in this year’s Eastern Conference Finals when the Celtics outscored the Pistons 206-130 in the paint, the Pistons do a poor job of defending the paint against elite playoff teams.

While James ran wild in the Eastern Conference Finals against the 2007 Pistons, truly elite defensive teams San Antonio and Boston held him down in the 2007 NBA Finals (.356 field goal shooting, 5.8 turnovers per game) and 2008 Eastern Conference Finals (.355 field goal shooting, 5.3 turnovers per game) respectively. Coach Brown instilled a defensive mindset in the Pistons and he made sure that there was no slippage in that department. Also, Ben Wallace’s presence as a shotblocker alongside Rasheed Wallace made it very, very difficult for teams to score in the paint against Detroit. Until the Suns lost to the Spurs in this year’s playoffs, the last three times that Shaquille O’Neal-led teams lost in the playoffs Ben Wallace anchored the opposing team’s defense (the 2004 Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals, the 2005 Pistons beat the Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals and the 2007 Bulls swept the Heat in the first round of the playoffs). Ben Wallace’s game did not markedly drop off until this year and the Pistons have never adequately replaced him, so it certainly looks like the Pistons let him walk at least two years too soon.

Labels: Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups, Detroit Pistons, Larry Brown, Richard Hamilton

posted by David Friedman @ 5:15 AM

8 comments