Jason "Plumber" Kidd Outcoaches J.J. "Genius" Redick as Undermanned Mavericks Rout Star-Studded Lakers
"The Lakers stink."--Charles Barkley
On Tuesday night, the L.A. Lakers visited Dallas to face an injury-decimated Mavericks team that is without the services of MVP candidate Luka Doncic, eight-time All-Star Kyrie Irving, and key big man Daniel Gafford. Clearly, this game projected to be a rout--and it was, but in favor of the Mavericks, 118-97. The Mavericks had lost their previous 10 games played sans Doncic and Irving. TNT's Reggie Miller called it a "gritty win" for the Mavericks.
That is true, but this is also a humiliating and inexcusable loss for
the talent-laden Lakers featuring LeBron James and Anthony Davis, two members of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team.
Quentin Grimes scored a game-high 23 points while shooting 8-17 from the field (including 6-11 from three point range). P.J. Washington (22 points) also scored more points than James or Davis. Spencer Dinwiddie added 19 points. Dinwiddie was a Laker last season. It sure is great for the Lakers that
they did not retain his services, and kept a roster spot open for
LeBron's son Bronny, who has scored four points this season--to be clear,
Bronny is not averaging 4 ppg: he has scored four total points.
The Mavericks outrebounded the Lakers 44-33, and the Mavericks shot 45-86 (.523) from the field. The Lakers have tremendous advantages in size and skill that could/should be exploited in the paint--but the Mavericks outscored the Lakers 52-40 in the paint as the Lakers eschewed high percentage two points shots while shooting just 11-35 (.314) from three point range.
Anthony Davis led the Lakers with 21 points but he shot just 7-18 from the field, including 2-7 from three point range. Davis had a game-high 12 rebounds. James filled up the boxscore with empty numbers, amassing a near triple double with 18 points, 10 rebounds, and eight assists. Davis' plus/minus number was -19, and James' plus/minus number was -12.
One play from this game is a microcosm of why players
should not be evaluated just based on their individual statistics alone. With less than five seconds remaining in the third quarter, James grabbed a
defensive rebound, dribbled up court, stopped a few feet beyond the three point line, and passed the ball with less than
one second remaining; time ran out without the Lakers taking a shot,
and James managed to avoid both a missed shot and a turnover, so the
play was successful in terms of preserving his vaunted "efficiency"--but his team
trailed by 13 points, so the unselfish team-first play would be to take a three
pointer from the top of the key; maybe the shot goes in, maybe James is fouled, but there is no potential downside for the team even though James risked adding a missed field goal attempt to his personal statistics. Passing the ball when there is not enough time for the intended recipient to shoot just wastes the possession for the team (but not for a player who is obsessively focused on his personal statistics). That play did not decide the outcome of the game, but it speaks volumes about James' basketball values, and about the mentality of this Lakers team. When the team's best player cares more about his numbers than he does about winning, that attitude permeates the entire roster. It is not a mystery why the Lakers often look lackadaisical; the tone of not focusing on team success is set at the top of the roster, and then cascades through the rest of the roster.
How did the Mavericks win this game? Simple--Jason Kidd coached circles around J.J. Redick. Redick's team has the two best players, but Redick could not figure out how to exploit his team's obvious matchup advantages on offense, and his team's defense was awful, which highlights his limitations both as a motivator and as a strategist. After the first 22 games of the J.J. Redick era, I provided this assessment: "In short, Redick's Lakers have a mediocre offense and an atrocious
defense. They have terrible rebounding numbers, and they often don't
play hard. There is zero evidence that Redick is providing any kind of
strategic advantage or that he is effective at motivating players to
give maximum effort."
When Redick took this job, he declared that he signed up to coach a "championship caliber" team. If his assessment is that the Lakers are a championship caliber team then it is fair to ask why they are not playing at a championship level. Redick will never admit that his lack of NBA coaching experience and acumen is a problem, so it will be interesting to see when the Lakers figure this out (or admit it to themselves); I suspect that this will not happen until James retires or until James is no longer playing well enough to justify the top to bottom control he currently exercises over the franchise in terms of hiring/firing coaches and making personnel moves (including the drafting of his son Bronny, who is not an NBA caliber player and will not be an NBA caliber player for the foreseeable future).
There is still more than half the season left, but it does not seem likely that Redick will turn out to be the next Pat Riley.
When Redick worked as a TV commentator and as a podcaster, he made the ridiculous assertion that Bob Cousy's statistics are not impressive because Cousy played against "plumbers and firemen." Kidd's NBA playing career began in 1994, which is past the era during which NBA players regularly had other jobs during the offseason, but Redick--with his rampant recency bias and slavish devotion to promoting LeBron James while denigrating the great players of the past--has taken potshots at that era as well, dismissing it as watered down due to expansion.
It was fun watching Jason "Plumber" Kidd outcoach J.J. "Genius" Redick. Kidd played the game at a high level for a long time and, unlike Redick, Kidd played both ends of the court. Charles Barkley called Kidd's coaching in this game a "master class," and it goes without saying--but I'll say it anyway--that Redick's coaching was the opposite of a master class. Call it amateur hour, befitting of someone whose only prior coaching experience was coaching his son and other amateur kids. During his post-game press conference, Redick emphasized that during this game the Lakers played defensive coverages that he has never seen. Presumably, his intended point is that he knows defensive coverages but his players are clueless; however, Redick's statement is a self-indictment of his inept coaching, because there are only two reasons for the Lakers to play defensive coverages that he has never seen: one reason is that Redick is not good at teaching defense to NBA players, and the other reason is that the players do not respect Redick enough to do what he asks them to do.
The Lakers played so poorly that the poster child for NBA nepotism--Bronny James--made a rare appearance (just his ninth game played this season), logging one minute of garbage time and putting together a "trillionaire" boxscore number of one minute played followed by zeroes in all other categories (though, it should be noted, he managed to have a -4 plus/minus number during his cameo appearance).
This is one game in an 82 game season. I am not foolish enough to think that the legacies of players or coaches are defined by one game. The larger point is that the way that the Lakers played versus the Mavericks reflects issues and trends that have been apparent for several years--ever since the Lakers won the "bubble title" in 2020--and thus cannot properly be dismissed as an aberration. This is the sixth time in 36 games this season that the Lakers lost by at least 20 points. As Chris Berman loves to say (though the expression does not originate with him), "Once is an accident, twice is a trend, three times is a problem." This game is an indictment of a problem, and not just an "accident."
The two greatest things about Redick coaching the Lakers are (1) we don't have to hear his asinine takes about basketball history as an ESPN commentator and as a podcaster, and (2) he will be an endless source of unintentional comedy with his combination of inept coaching and arrogant refusal to take responsibility for his team's losses, much like James Harden provides comic relief with his "concert tour" playoff field goal percentages.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Bronny James, Dallas Mavericks, J.J. Redick, Jason Kidd, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, P.J. Washington, Quentin Grimes, Spencer Dinwiddie
posted by David Friedman @ 1:30 AM
Evaluating the Kyrie Irving Trade
The Dallas Mavericks acquired Kyrie Irving and Markieff Morris from the Brooklyn Nets in exchange for Spencer Dinwiddie, Dorian Finney-Smith, a 2029 first round draft pick, and multiple second round draft picks.
Conventional NBA wisdom is that if any team can be considered the winner of a trade it would be the team that received the best player, even if the other team received several very good players. In basketball, a team fields just five players at a time--compared to nine in baseball and 11 in football--so a star can affect the outcome of a basketball game much more than a star can affect the outcome of a baseball game or a football game.
Kyrie Irving is an eight time All-Star who has made the All-NBA Team three times, won the 2012 Rookie of the Year Award, and made significant contributions as the Cleveland Cavaliers won the 2016 NBA title. He is averaging 27.1 ppg this season, and he has averaged at least 26.9 ppg each season since joining the Brooklyn Nets prior to the 2019-20 campaign. There is no question that he is the best player involved in the Brooklyn-Dallas trade.
Irving is also the first player traded in the middle of a season during which he is averaging at least 27 ppg, at least 5 apg, and at least 5 rpg. That tells you that he is perhaps the greatest player involved in a midseason trade--or that there is more to Irving's story than what the above numbers and honors suggest.
Consider these numbers: 60, 67, 20, 54, 29. Those are Irving's total number of games played for the previous five seasons (he has played in 40 of 53 possible games so far this season). Irving played less than 70 games in eight of his first 11 NBA seasons. He has a track record for being unavailable, unpredictable, and unreliable.
Irving missed eight games this season after the Nets suspended him for his unrepentant antisemitism. Irving is portrayed as an intelligent, thoughtful person, but promoting antisemitism and entertaining the notion that the Earth is flat are signs of--at best--misguided thinking, not intelligence and thoughtfulness.
Nets players are unlikely to admit it publicly, but Irving's departure is likely a relief for them, because they no longer have to wonder and worry about if he will show up for games, nor will they have to explain/excuse his absences and his bizarre viewpoints.
Mavericks players may be excited about Irving's talent, but Irving has worn out his welcome with each of his three teams--Cleveland, Boston, Brooklyn--and it would be surprising if he does not wear out his welcome in Dallas.
Could Irving team with MVP candidate Luka Doncic to lead Dallas to the NBA Finals and maybe even an NBA championship? From a talent standpoint that may seem superficially plausible--Doncic and Irving could be a fearsome duo on offense--but from an overall standpoint that seems unlikely, in no small part because of the depth and defense that Dallas gave up to acquire Irving; Finney-Smith is an elite defender, and Dinwiddie is at least a solid defender who is also capable of being a big-time scorer. It is more likely that the Mavericks fail to repeat last year's run to the Western Conference Finals than that they vault from the fifth seed (their current spot in the standings) to the NBA Finals.
From a skill set standpoint, Irving is an elite three level scorer who is an above average playmaker and a good rebounder for a guard. His ballhandling is very good, though somewhat overrated by those who value flash over substance. Irving's defense is subpar in general, though in short spurts he has demonstrated the ability to be solid (which raises the question of why he is not more consistent at that end of the court). Irving is a small player who is frequently injured.
It is true that Irving's presence will make it difficult for opponents to trap Doncic without getting burned, but the Doncic-Irving backcourt will light up the scoreboard at both ends of the court as opponents will now have a tasty choice of which guard to "hunt" when chasing matchups during playoff series that are all about matchups.
The players who the Nets received are far from being chumps. Dinwiddie is a former Net who averaged 20.6 ppg for Brooklyn in 2019-20. For the past two seasons, he has been a solid second or third option for Dallas. He can replace most of the scoring that Irving provided for the Nets, if not the playmaking and shot creation (both for himself and for his teammates). Finney-Smith is a prototypical "3 and D" wing who was Dallas' best perimeter defender.
"Stat gurus" discount the importance of chemistry, but something can be real and significant even it is not easily quantified. In this trade, the Nets gave up talent to obtain dependability, depth, and players who are coachable. Dinwiddie and Finney-Smith will not be in the headlines for the wrong reasons, and they will not do or say things that their teammates will then be asked to explain. Until Kevin Durant returns to action, the Nets are going nowhere fast--but if Durant can regain (and keep) his health then this deal improves their chances by stabilizing the roster. The Nets still lack size--and that will be fatal during the playoffs--but Irving's departure will prove to be addition by subtraction (unless Durant whines his way out of town, in which case the Nets instantly become irrelevant).
Speaking of Durant, he fled Oklahoma City in 2016 after the Thunder pushed the Golden State Warriors to seven games in the Western Conference Finals. Instead of embracing the challenge of trying to beat the Warriors, he won two Finals MVPs while leading the Warriors to back to back titles, but then he decided to team up with Irving in Brooklyn--a decision that, by any objective analysis, turned out disastrously, as Durant and the Nets failed to advance past the second round of the playoffs with that duo on the roster. No one should feel sorry for Durant, because he could have contended for titles alongside Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City, and then he could have kept contending for titles in Golden State, but he chose to take a different path alongside a player who has fomented turmoil throughout his career. It would not be surprising if Durant now asks to be traded--something he did in the previous offseason before withdrawing the request--nor would it be surprising if Durant is as discontented with his new team as he became with each of his other teams.
By demanding a trade just before the trade deadline and making it clear that otherwise he would leave as a free agent, Irving did not give the Nets much leverage, so the Nets did quite well to obtain two starters, a first round draft pick, and multiple second round draft picks for a disgruntled and often unavailable star whose only sustained playoff success happened while playing alongside LeBron James. The Mavericks already reached the Western Conference Finals without Irving, so from their standpoint this trade is "NBA Finals or bust"--Irving may not stay with the team long term, and he almost certainly will become a distraction sooner rather than later, so we will find out in the 2023 playoffs if this was a good deal for them. On the other hand, the Nets still have enough pieces to do some damage in the playoffs while also acquiring enough assets to have some flexibility to make moves if Durant jumps ship. Each team received what it wanted, but I would be more nervous if I were a Mavericks fan than if I were a Nets fan; the Nets had a short championship window already given Durant's age and injury history, but the Mavericks are playing roulette with the roster surrounding a superstar entering his prime. The only time the Mavericks won a championship, they had one superstar surrounded by very good complementary players who defended well, as opposed to relying on two offensive juggernauts who are below average defensively. Dallas Coach Jason Kidd knows that very well, because he was the point guard for those 2011 championship Mavericks. It will be interesting to see if Irving respects Kidd enough to curb the behaviors that created such havoc in each of his previous stops.
Labels: Brooklyn Nets, Dallas Mavericks, Dorian Finney-Smith, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, Luka Doncic, Markieff Morris, Spencer Dinwiddie
posted by David Friedman @ 8:39 AM
Doncic Eclipses Suns as Mavericks Reach the Western Conference Finals for the First Time Since 2011
Stunning. Unprecedented. Humiliating.
I am disinclined to use hyberbole, but I am at a loss to describe what the Dallas Mavericks did to the 64-18 Phoenix Suns in Phoenix in a 123-90 game seven rout. By the time Chris Paul--supposedly the best leader in the NBA--made his first field goal his Suns trailed by 40; the Suns were so far behind they couldn't see the Mavericks with a telescope, a time machine, or a fortune teller.
I picked the Suns to win this series not because I have great faith in Paul, but because I thought that he had so much talent, depth, and versatility surrounding him that his predictable drop off in play would not prove fatal in this round. I was wrong about that.
Early in the second half, the score was 30-29--not the game score, but the Luka Doncic versus Phoenix score. That is Kobe Bryant-level domination; Bryant once outscored the Dallas Mavericks 62-61 for three quarters, but even Bryant did not do that in a playoff game, though it should be remembered that he did it against a Dallas team that reached the NBA Finals that season.
Doncic finished with 35 points on 12-19 field goal shooting. He played just 30 minutes and he sat out the entire fourth quarter, or else he could have scored 50 points. Doncic also led Dallas with 10 rebounds and four assists. Spencer Dinwiddie poured in 30 points off of the bench on 11-15 field goal shooting. Doncic and Dinwiddie are the first teammates to each score at least 30 points in a game seven since Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant did it a generation ago. Joel Embiid and James Harden are dreaming that someday they will play as well together in a game seven as Luka Doncic and Spencer Dinwiddie just did. Jalen Brunson added 24 points on 11-19 field goal shooting.
The Suns' statistics look like typographical errors. Cameron Johnson led them in scoring with 12 points. Devin Booker (11), Chris Paul (10), and Deandre Ayton (five) scored fewer combined points in 85 minutes than Doncic did. After the game, Suns Coach Monty Williams stated that Ayton's minutes were limited to 17 for "internal reasons," which is an interesting thing to say publicly after a game in which the minutes of many players--including Ayton--could have been limited due to poor performance. It sounds like something may be amiss in the Suns' locker room, which is a stunning development considering that the team's point guard is the best leader in the NBA.
Paul shot 4-8 from the field, Booker shot 3-14 from the field, and Ayton shot 2-5 from the field. That is 9-27 combined, which looks like a James Harden "concert tour" date, not the field goal percentages of an MVP candidate, the "Point God," and a player seeking a max contract. Those field goal made numbers and percentages sound like the punchline of a bad joke: what happened when an MVP candidate, a "Point God" and a player seeking a max contract showed up to play game seven at home? 4, 3, 2, and poof, they disappeared!
If anyone wondered who the best player in this series is, Doncic began loudly answering that question right after the opening tip, hitting a fadeaway jumper followed by two three pointers. Doncic led the Suns 8-3 and it was all downhill from there for the Suns. The Mavericks outscored the Suns 27-17 in the first quarter, but the second quarter was worse for the Suns: they were outscored 30-10. Paul played all 12 minutes in the second quarter, absorbing a -20 plus/minus number while "leading" the way with one point. There is a joke about the "Club Trillion" bench players who have a box score number of 1 minute played followed by a bunch of zeroes, as if they were trillionaires; Paul came perilously close to posting a second quarter boxscore number of 12 trillion, as his only non-zero numbers other than minutes were two missed field goals, 1-2 from the free throw line, and one foul. He had no rebounds, no assists, no steals, no blocked shots, and no turnovers.
Am I belaboring the point? Am I making too much of one game? If you think so, then consider how much grief Kobe Bryant was given about his supposedly bad performance in the 2004 NBA Finals, when his injury-riddled Lakers lost 4-1 to the Detroit Pistons. Now, imagine that Bryant--whether as a 17 year old, a 27 year old, or a 37 year old--went into the playoffs leading a 64 win team and then lost by 33 points at home while the other team's star outscored his entire team for more than a half, and while Bryant put up a second quarter boxscore consisting of one point, no rebounds, no assists, no steals, and no blocked shots.
What do you suppose might have been said about Bryant after such a game?
I say that players should be evaluated by the same standards. A player's legacy is not defined by one game, but by his overall resume. When I look at Bryant, I see a 5-2 Finals record, I see his team generally winning as the favorite and generally being competitive as the underdog. I see him putting up tremendous individual numbers on a consistent basis. For those reasons (and more), I put him in my pro basketball Pantheon.
When I look at Chris Paul, I see no championships despite playing for several excellent teams. I see his team losing more than once as the favorite. I see that no player in NBA history has blown more 2-0 playoff leads than Chris Paul, whose teams have squandered such an advantage five times: 2008 versus the Spurs, 2013 versus the Grizzlies, 2016 versus the Trail Blazers, 2021 versus the Bucks, and now 2022 versus the Mavericks. Paul's Clippers also blew a 3-1 lead versus the Houston Rockets in 2015; the Clippers split the first two games when Paul was out with an injury, but then after his return in game three they eventually lost three straight games. Paul is now 3-6 in game seven showdowns.
In light of that evidence, I try to understand why "stat gurus" and media members pump up Paul to be more than he is.
The harsh reality is that there is nowhere to hide in the playoffs. Players can inflate and manipulate their numbers to some extent in the regular season, and "stat gurus" team up with media members to craft agenda-based narratives advocating that those players receive various awards--but then the playoffs arrive, and every year we see Harden go on his "concert tour" and Paul cough up so many playoff leads his voice should sound like General Grievous in "Star Wars."
I've been saying this for well over a decade, but maybe people will pay attention now (I doubt it, but I'll keep trying anyway): Paul is an undersized player who consistently wears down and/or gets injured in the playoffs. He is a great player who has a lot of heart, but undersized players simply cannot be as valuable as players who are 6-6 and bigger who have comparable skills (let alone bigger players who also have superior skills). There is one player 6-3 or under in my pro basketball Pantheon: Jerry West, who would give the business to any other similarly-sized player in pro basketball history. Isiah Thomas did not quite reach Pantheon-level, but he led Detroit to back to back titles without having a teammate who made the NBA's 50th Anniversary Team, and he had a winning career record head to head against Bird, Magic, and Jordan. People who compare Paul favorably with Thomas have absolutely no idea how great Thomas was, and how durable he was until the very end of his career.
Before the beatdown in the Valley of the Sun, Charles Barkley said that it is not fair to expect 37 year old Paul to be dominant, and that it is time for Booker and Ayton to step up. I agree with the second part of what Barkley said, but regarding the first part I don't understand how Paul can be touted as an MVP candidate for a good part of this season but then be given an age-based excuse for disappearing in the last five games of this series; that reminds me of how every tournament that Roger Federer won in his 30s supposedly proved that he was the greatest tennis player of all-time, while his losses were excused away based on his age. I agree that an over the hill player's performances should not impact his legacy, but you can't deem a player great one week and then give him an age-based excuse the next week, and then deem him great the week after that: there is no such thing as being over the hill, then not over the hill, then over the hill again. Federer in his 30s was not declining as much as he was just not as good as Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic (which was also true before Federer hit his 30s, particularly regarding Nadal).
As for Paul, his teams gagged up leads in playoff series when he was young, they did it when he was in his prime, and they have done it the past two years. This pattern has nothing to do with age; this pattern has to do with size, and how size impacts both durability and matchups. Paul can be worn down physically because he is small, he can be abused by bigger players when he plays defense, and bigger players can smother him when he plays offense.
Sunday's meltdown is yet another example of why people need to stop reciting the fairy tale about how Houston was "one healthy Chris Paul hamstring" away from winning the championship in 2018.
Anyone who does not understand now that Paul always has worn down in
the playoffs and always will wear down in the playoffs will never
understand it. If Paul had stayed healthy, the Rockets would have either lost that series anyway, or they would have lost in the Finals, even if they took a 2-0 lead like Paul's Suns did last year.
Why do I blast Chris Paul and James Harden but praise Giannis Antetokounmpo, whose Milwaukee Bucks lost by almost the same margin in game seven as Paul's Suns did? Let's count the reasons, first focusing on Paul and Antetokounmpo:
1) The Bucks lost game seven on the road after playing the entire series without their second best player, Khris Middleton; the Suns lost at home despite being at full strength.
2) The Bucks did not get blown out from the start, but rather were competitive for most of the game until the Celtics' superior depth and three point shooting proved to be too much; the Suns trailed 57-27 at halftime, by which point Doncic had outscored Paul 27-1. With Paul leading the way, the Suns' starters posted these first half scoring totals: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I am not making that up. As I often say about Paul, if he is the best leader then I would hate to see what would happen with the worst leader; to me, leadership in a team sport is defined by team success, so the best leaders in the NBA in the post-Michael Jordan era are Tim Duncan (five championships) and Kobe Bryant (five championships). Steve Nash is a really nice guy, and Chris Paul is a really feisty guy, but the two players who media members most often call great leaders played a combined 35 seasons and produced one losing NBA Finals appearance (the 2-0 lead blown by Paul's Suns last year). Sorry, but that is not great leadership: that is two undersized guards who accomplished some wonderful things but were not able to beat teams led by bigger and better players.
3) Paul was a no show from start until garbage time, while Antetokounmpo had 25 points, 20 rebounds, and nine assists, a strong effort that was not enough to make up for Middleton's absence.
Regarding Harden, he fled Oklahoma City because he did not want to be the third option, he feuded with every star player with whom he has played, he whined his way out of Houston after quitting on the team, he whined his way out of Brooklyn after quitting on the team, and he has perhaps the worse elimination game track record of any player who has been so highly decorated and lavishly lauded.
Luka Doncic right now has still not reached his peak, but as a versatile 6-6, 240 pound multi-position threat he is already better than Chris Paul ever was or ever could be. That is not a knock on Paul so much as it is a statement of basketball reality: the great 6-6 player is better than the great 6-0 player every time, and even more so in game seven. The bigger concern for Suns' fans is to figure out if Booker's disappearing act in this game is just an aberration, or a sign that Doncic is just the superior player. Booker is big enough and talented enough to be a legit MVP candidate. Paul's disappearance does not surprise me, but Booker's disappearance is more troubling. Ayton may not have Booker's upside, but he has made it clear that he wants a max deal; his game seven performance and the "internal reasons" concerning his limited minutes should also concern Suns' fans.
Labels: Chris Paul, Dallas Mavericks, Devin Booker, Jalen Brunson, Luka Doncic, Phoenix Suns, Spencer Dinwiddie
posted by David Friedman @ 2:46 AM
