20 Second Timeout

Team USA's FIBA World Cup Loss to Lithuania is Deja Vu All Over Again

Team USA's 110-104 loss to Lithuania yesterday in the final game of pool play in the 2023 FIBA World Cup very much resembled other upset losses that Team USA has suffered in previous FIBA events. Lithuania shot 14-25 (.560) from three point range and 24-47 (.511) from inside the arc while dominating Team USA 43-27 on the boards. It did not matter that Team USA shot a solid .379 (11-29) from three point range or a blistering .636 (28-44) from inside the arc, because Lithuania's lethal combination of deadly three point shooting and paint domination were too much to overcome. Lithuania led by as many as 21 points (33-12, 52-31, and 54-33) in the first half before Team USA finally played some second half defense to mount a comeback. 

NBA fans are probably only familiar with one name from Lithuania's roster: Jonas Valanciunas has averaged a double double in each of the past four seasons--two with Memphis followed by two with New Orleans--but he has never been selected as an All-Star or an All-NBA Team member. Valanciunas had a solid performance versus Team USA (12 points, seven rebounds), but he was just one of seven double figure scorers for a balanced Lithuanian attack that both fired away from the perimeter and attacked the hoop aggressively. Anthony Edwards led Team USA with a game-high 35 points on 14-26 field goal shooting and he had a +4 plus/minus number, but only three of his teammates scored at least 10 points. Eight of the 12 Team USA players had negative plus/minus numbers, so the squad lost ground almost no matter what combination Coach Steve Kerr put on the court.

In general, FIBA basketball is lightly covered and poorly understood in America. The FIBA World Cup (known as the FIBA World Championship until 2010) has been held since 1950 at intervals of between three to five years. Team USA won the event in 1954, 1986, 1994, 2010, and 2014. Team USA did not use NBA players in this event until 1994, which explains why Team USA won only twice in the first 11 FIBA World Championships held between 1950 and 1990; other countries regularly sent their professional players, who were generally bigger/stronger and always more experienced than American college players. Team USA did not use NBA players in 1998 because of the NBA lockout, resulting in a bronze medal finish. In 2002, Team USA's NBA players suffered a humiliating sixth place finish, and in 2006 Team USA's NBA players settled for the bronze medal after losing to Greece in the semifinals. In 2010, Kevin Durant led Team USA to the gold medal, while Kyrie Irving won the FIBA World Cup MVP as Team USA took the gold medal again in 2014. Team USA's NBA players finished seventh in 2019, the worst result ever for an American team in any major FIBA event.

Reporters covering Team USA regurgitate the same flawed commentary either out of laziness or because they just don't understand what they are watching. We are told that Team USA needs bigger players to battle on the boards, and that Team USA needs more shooters. In a September 4, 2007 article titled "The Real Story Behind Team USA's Losses in Previous FIBA Events," I provided analysis about the FIBA game that is still relevant and timely today: 

In my game recaps from the FIBA Americas tournament, I frequently mentioned that, contrary to popular belief, the biggest problem that Team USA has had in recent FIBA events has come at the defensive end of the court. That is why I did a post before the tournament titled "Team USA Needs Bruce Bowen More than it Needs Michael Redd." The way things turned out this time around, Team USA did not need either player, going 10-0 without Bowen and with Redd getting the vast majority of his minutes and points after Team USA had built commanding leads. The fact that Team USA won without Redd making a meaningful contribution when the games were close essentially proves my point but, looking forward, it is important to understand the challenge that Team USA is likely to face in the 2008 Olympics. The FIBA Americas tournament did not feature the top FIBA teams; Argentina, the strongest squad that participated other than Team USA, essentially sent its "B" team and did not have the services of Manu Ginobili, Andres Nocioni, Fabricio Oberto and Walter Herrmann. When Team USA faces a fully loaded Argentina team plus the top teams from Europe it will be necessary to play defense with intensity and intelligence in order to win the gold medal. Fortunately, Team USA made great strides in that department in the FIBA Americas tournament, spearheaded by the backcourt defensive wizardry of Kobe Bryant and Jason Kidd. Shutting down opponents' three point shooting while also denying dribble penetration leads to rebounds and steals that get converted into open court scoring opportunities. As Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant just proved with their exceptional shooting and their tremendous per minute scoring rates in the FIBA Americas tournament, when Team USA plays this way the addition of designated outside shooters to the roster is a luxury, not a necessity...

It is mystifying that anyone could believe that Team USA could have turned any of these recent FIBA losses into wins simply by adding three point shooting specialists to the roster; those kind of players would have done nothing to improve the team's shoddy defense and the lack of transition scoring opportunities would have meant that they would not have gotten many great open looks at the hoop. Three point specialists do not generally create their own shots and the half court offense that Team USA was running would hardly have provided them the time and space that they need to shoot accurately.

It is true that in general size matters in the NBA, but the reality is that the best American NBA players at the moment are not big players, and a properly constructed/well-coached Team USA can win FIBA events despite being undersized; further, Team USA's three point shooting defense is much more important that Team USA's own three point shooting. Team USA's current roster has four players listed as 6-10 or taller: Jaren Jackson Jr., Paolo Banchero, Bobby Portis Jr.,and Walker Kessler. Jackson leads that quartet in mpg (17.2) but ranks just sixth on the team in minutes, and he is averaging only 2.8 rpg. Banchero is averaging 3.4 rpg in 15.9 mpg, while Portis is the best rebounder of the bunch at 4.0 rpg (third on the team) in 11.6 mpg. Kessler is not part of the rotation, averaging 6.1 mpg.

What matters most for Team USA in FIBA play is creating tremendous defensive pressure against opposing guards; this limits both open three point shots and the ability to easily feed post players in prime scoring position, while also creating turnovers and rebounding opportunities that can be turned into transition offense.

Team USA lost to France in the first game of the 2020 Olympics (played in 2021) because of defensive breakdowns, not because of lack of size or lack of three point shooting. Team USA corrected those defensive breakdowns, and defeated France in the gold medal game. Team USA shot just 9-32 (.281) from three point range in the gold medal game, but Team USA held France to 10-31 (.323) three point shooting without conceding ground in the paint, and that has consistently been the recipe for success in FIBA play: shut down the three point shooters without compromising the interior defense. If Team USA makes three pointers that is a nice bonus, but it is not necessary for victory; in contrast to Team USA--which can use athleticism to create transition scoring opportunities--most FIBA teams rely on their three point shooting, and if that weapon is neutralized then Team USA has a big advantage.

Despite the loss to Lithuania, Team USA will advance out of pool play to the quarterfinals, and has already qualified for the 2024 Olympics. However, Team USA must improve defensively to win the 2023 FIBA World Cup and to win Olympic gold in 2024.

Labels: Anthony Edwards, FIBA World Cup, Jonas Valanciunas, Lithuania, Steve Kerr, Team USA

posted by David Friedman @ 10:20 PM

0 comments

NBA Gives Ja Morant A Path Away From Oblivion

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver suspended Memphis Grizzlies All-Star Ja Morant 25 games without pay for "conduct detrimental to the league." The NBA issued an official statement about why Commissioner Silver suspended Morant; here is the pertinent portion of that official statement:

Morant posed with a firearm in a car during a live-streamed video on May 13, less than two months after he was suspended eight games without pay for the live streaming of a video on March 4 in which he displayed a firearm while in an intoxicated state at a Denver area nightclub.

The league office found that, on May 13, Morant intentionally and prominently displayed a gun while in a car with several other individuals as they were leaving a social gathering in Memphis. Morant wielded the firearm while knowing that he was being recorded and that the recording was being live streamed on Instagram Live, despite having made commitments to the NBA and public statements that he would not repeat the conduct for which he was previously disciplined.

Regardless of whether or not Morant's conduct broke any laws, it is incorrect to suggest that Morant's Constitutional or legal rights are violated by this suspension. Morant's suspension is not a Second Amendment issue because the NBA is not challenging Morant's right to legally own a firearm; the NBA, like most corporate organizations, has its own internal rules and codes of conduct, and it has the legal right to enforce those rules and codes. The NBA has every right to make it clear to Morant that he must choose between two paths: he can be a highly paid NBA superstar who abides by the NBA's employment rules and guidelines, or he can be a guy who rides around in a car wielding a handgun in live social media videos. 

Far from punishing Morant, Commissioner Silver is providing Morant a path away from oblivion: if Morant proceeds down his current path, he will be out of the league and he will have thrown away hundreds of millions of dollars--but Morant now has an opportunity to seek counseling, make smarter and more mature decisions, and return to a path filled with riches, praise, and likely basketball immortality. 

Morant's suspension is far from the longest or most severe suspension in NBA history. Not including several players who received lifetime bans after repeatedly violating the league's anti-drug policies, here is a list of just a few of the players who have received longer suspensions from the NBA:

1) O.J. Mayo was suspended 164 games (two full seasons) in 2016 for violating the league's performance enhancing drug protocol.

2) Ron Artest was suspended 86 games in 2004 for his role in the infamous "Malice at the Palace."

3) Latrell Sprewell was suspended 68 games in 1997 for choking his then-coach, P.J. Carlesimo.

4) Gilbert Arenas was suspended 50 games in 2010 for bringing guns into the locker room during a dispute with teammate Javaris Crittenton (who was suspended 38 games for the same incident).

5) Stephen Jackson was suspended 30 games in 2004 for his role in the "Malice at the Palace."

The Arenas/Crittenton incident is perhaps most relevant to Morant's situation. By age 30, Gilbert Arenas--a three-time All-Star and three-time member of the All-NBA Team--was playing for the Shanghai Sharks. Arenas, who never seemed to understand the gravity of what he did, should consider himself lucky to be alive; he thought everything was a joke, but Crittenton was recently released from prison after serving 10 years for homicide, so if Arenas had pushed his luck a little further with Crittenton then Arenas may no longer be with us to offer weird NBA takes on his podcast. 

Hopefully, Morant will use his time off without pay to change his thought process and improve his behavior. It would be a shame if he threw away his promising career the same way that Arenas squandered his talent, and it would be a tragedy if Morant ended up like Crittenton.

NBA coaches Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich have been silent about Morant's public embrace of gun culture, and Morant's alleged involvement in multiple incidents during which he engaged in violence or threatened to engage in violence. I mention Kerr and Popovich by name because both men have not hesitated to loudly and repeatedly state their opinions about national gun laws and about politicians who they accuse of not taking gun violence seriously enough. Do Kerr and Popovich approve of Morant's conduct? Do they think that the suspension is long enough, too long, or not long enough? Once you open your mouth and assert that you have an opinion worth hearing on national policy issues, you accept the responsibility of speaking out about those issues moving forward. I am not naive enough to think that Kerr and Popovich will say anything about Morant other than "This is a league issue and I trust Adam Silver" or "I will not comment about discipline involving a player from another team," but those are cowardly responses. If you feel strongly about gun violence, gun laws, and the behavior of certain citizens, then let us know how you feel when a member of your corporate organization steps out of line. 

One would think that anyone who protests about systemic racism and lack of economic opportunities for various ethnic groups would be at the forefront of encouraging Morant to not squander the chance to obtain generational wealth that could be used not only to benefit himself and his family but also underserved communities, many of which are filled with young people who idolize Morant. In that regard, the critical response of the NBA Players Association to the 25 game suspension is as unsurprising as it is disappointing. The NBA Players Association presents itself as an organization that promotes social justice, but in fact it is an organization that primarily conducts public relations campaigns on behalf of players while remaining silent, at best, when players conduct themselves inappropriately; we saw this when Kyrie Irving exposed himself as an unrepentant antisemite.

Like the Commissioner, several coaches, and other members of the NBA community (including media members who work for companies with huge NBA contracts), the Players Association (and individual players) often makes statements about social justice and public safety. Does Morant's behavior fulfill their expectations? If a fan showed up at an NBA game or event behaving around NBA players as Morant behaved in public, would the Players Association defend the fan's Second Amendment rights and emphasize that the fan did nothing illegal? Or would the Players Association demand that the league and the police protect the players? Again, once you open your mouth about public policy issues, you accept the responsibility of speaking out about those issues moving forward.

It could be argued that the NBAPA is a union whose main task is to support its members no matter what, but if the NBAPA does not have a higher calling then it should be honest about that instead of purporting to be an organization filled with social justice warriors: an organization that is silent about antisemitism and complicit with Morant's reckless behavior is hardly an organization that is taking the lead to improve society.

One last point to consider is that some people suggest that Morant is being led astray by his friends and associates--but the reality is that Morant has been front and center leading the way in each incident involving him, so at some point we have to consider the possibility that Morant is the one leading the way as opposed to someone who is being led astray. Regardless of whether Morant is the leader or the follower, this may be his last chance to correct his course; hopefully, Morant will follow the path away from oblivion that Commissioner Silver has provided.

Labels: Adam Silver, Gregg Popovich, Ja Morant, Memphis Grizzlies, NBA, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 10:36 AM

4 comments

NBA Selects 15 Greatest Coaches as Part of 75th Anniversary Celebration

The NBA's 75th Anniversary Team included all 50 players selected in 1996 to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List, so it is surprising that the just-released list of 15 Greatest NBA coaches does not include all 10 of the coaches selected in 1996 to the NBA's 10 Greatest Coaches List. Here are the 10 coaches from the 1996 list (in alphabetical order):

Red Auerbach

Chuck Daly

Bill Fitch

Red Holzman

Phil Jackson

John Kundla

Don Nelson

Jack Ramsay

Pat Riley

Lenny Wilkens

A 43 member panel of current and former NBA coaches selected the just-released list of 15 Greatest Coaches. Here is that list (in alphabetical order):

Red Auerbach

Larry Brown 

Chuck Daly 

Red Holzman

Phil Jackson 

K.C. Jones

Steve Kerr 

Don Nelson

Gregg Popovich

Jack Ramsay

Pat Riley

Doc Rivers

Jerry Sloan

Erik Spoelstra

Lenny Wilkens

Thus, Larry Brown,  K.C. Jones, Steve Kerr, Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, Jerry Sloan, and Erik Spoelstra are new members of the list, while Bill Fitch and John Kundla missed the cut this time after appearing on the 1996 list. 

If the NBA is taking the position that players should not be removed from All-Time Greatest Lists, then why remove coaches? Not only is this inconsistent in a general sense, but the exclusion of Kundla and Fitch is bizarre. Kundla led the Lakers to five championships, tied with Popovich and Riley for third in the all-time rankings behind only Jackson's 11 and Auerbach's nine. Taking out Kundla is a slap in the face not only to his great teams and great players, but to that entire era. Regarding Fitch, he ranks 11th all-time in regular season wins, he led the Celtics to the 1981 title, he coached the Rockets to the 1986 Finals, and he improved each team that he coached, from the expansion Cavaliers to the Celtics to the Rockets to the Nets to the Clippers. Fitch was legitimately ranked as a top 10 coach in 1996, and it is difficult to understand how he is not a top 15 coach now.

Larry Brown is considered one of the greatest basketball tacticians and teachers ever. He had not won an NBA title or reached the NBA Finals in 1996, but since that time he led his teams to three NBA Finals and he guided the Pistons to the 2004 championship. He clearly belongs on the list, and I have no problem with him being given one of the five new slots.

K.C. Jones may be one of the most underrated coaches of all-time. He won two titles (1984, 1986), and he ranks sixth all-time in regular season winning percentage. It makes sense to give him one of the five new slots.

Steve Kerr ranks sixth all-time with three titles (2015, 2017-18). He owns the best playoff winning percentage of all-time (.733), and he ranks third in regular season winning percentage (.694). He belongs on the list.

Gregg Popovich ranks third on the career regular season wins list, but he is just six wins away from passing Nelson and taking the number one spot. Popovich's regular season winning percentage has dropped to .659 (12th all-time) and will continue to drop because his current team is lousy, but--as mentioned above--he is tied for third all-time with five championships won (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014). He belongs on the list.

Doc Rivers ranks 10th in career wins but 37th in career winning percentage. Like Fitch, Rivers proved that he could take over bad teams and help them improve, a skill set that is valuable but also damages one's career winning percentage. Rivers led the Celtics to the 2008 title and the 2010 Finals. Rivers is an exceptional coach, and I have stood up for him many times when he received unjust criticism, including a lot of nonsense that Bill Simmons wrote about Rivers (part of a broader trend of arrogant media members assuming that they know a lot more about NBA coaching than they do). Rivers' 1993 book Those Who Love The Game is packed with insights and is a great read for anyone who wants to understand more about the NBA from the perspective of a savvy player (Rivers was still an active player when he co-wrote the book). However, Rivers also holds the coaching record for blowing 3-1 playoff series leads (three). Again, he is a very good coach and he has received unjust criticism in the past, but I would not rank him as one of the NBA's 15 greatest coaches. For sure, he is not a better coach than Kundla or Fitch. 

Jerry Sloan and Nelson are the only coaches on either list who did not win a championship as a coach. Sloan led the Utah Jazz to two NBA Finals appearances (1997, 1998). Sloan ranks fourth in career regular season wins and 23rd in career regular season winning percentage. Sloan was a very good coach, but how can he be ranked ahead of five-time champion Kundla or one-time champion Fitch? 

Erik Spoelstra ranks 24th in career regular season wins and 31st in career regular season winning percentage. He has led the Heat to two championships (2012-13) and five NBA Finals appearances (2011-14, 2020). Spoelstra has already established himself without question as a Hall of Fame coach, but is he really one of the 15 greatest NBA coaches of all-time? 

There are several coaches who did not make either list who I would take over Rivers, Sloan, and Spoelstra. Alex Hannum won two NBA titles (1958, 1967) plus one ABA title (1969). He coached the only two teams to beat Bill Russell's Celtics in a playoff series. Bill Sharman's Lakers broke the regular season wins record set by Hannum's 76ers, and then they won the 1972 title. Tommy Heinsohn won two championships (1974, 1976) in a nine year coaching career, including a seven game triumph in 1974 against peak Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when Abdul-Jabbar was playing alongside Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson and Bobby Dandridge with the Milwaukee Bucks. Billy Cunningham led the 76ers to the 1983 championship with the greatest playoff record in NBA history up to that time (12-1; the 2001 Lakers went 15-1 in an expanded playoff format, and the 2017 Warriors went 16-1 after the playoff format was expanded again). Cunningham's 76ers had the best regular season record in the NBA for a six year span, and he ranks second in career regular season winning percentage (.698, just behind Jackson's .704). Cunningham ranks ninth in career playoff winning percentage.

Think of it this way: Who do you have to mention if you tell the story of the NBA decade by decade through the lens of coaching? John Kundla was the dominant coach in NBA history prior to Red Auerbach. Then Auerbach's Celtics dominated the late 1950s/early 1960s. Those Bill Russell-led Celtics--coached first by Auerbach and then by player-coach Russell--only lost two playoff series, both times to teams coached by Alex Hannum. Bill Sharman led the Lakers to their first title since moving to L.A. from Minneapolis. Red Holzman and Tommy Heinsohn were the only NBA coaches to win two titles in the 1970s. Lenny Wilkens led the Sonics to two Finals and one championship en route to setting the career regular season wins record (since broken, but he still ranks second).

Pat Riley, K.C. Jones, Chuck Daly, Bill Fitch, and Billy Cunningham were the championship coaches in the 1980s, which might have been the greatest decade in NBA history, featuring the Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, and the amazing talents of the young Michael Jordan. Phil Jackson was obviously the coach of the 1990s and the 2000s, leading dynasties in Chicago and then L.A. Popovich won five titles in a 15 year period. Larry Brown sustained excellence for decades, and won a title versus a Phil Jackson-coached team. Steve Kerr helmed the NBA's most recent dynasty, winning three titles in a four year span.

That adds up to 16 coaches. I am not sure how the league settled on 15 coaches for the 75th Anniversary Team, but if the NBA can have 76 players on its 75th Anniversary Team then it can have 16 coaches. With all due respect to the coaches who I left off--each of whom I greatly respect--I feel good about that list of 16; some teams and some eras are more defined by coaches than others, and the coaches I listed are the seminal coaches in NBA history. Perhaps the most difficult cut for me is Spoelstra, but we have seen LeBron James win four titles with three different coaches, so I am more comfortable picturing the Heat winning with a different coach than I am picturing some of these other teams winning with a different coach; I am pretty sure that Riley could have left the front office and coached those teams to titles had that been necessary. I think that Spoelstra is a great, Hall of Fame coach, and he is possibly even a top 20 coach, but he falls just outside of my top 16.

Earlier I said that I am puzzled by the NBA removing coaches from the 1996 list, but if we are keeping the new list to 15 (or 16) and removing coaches then Nelson and Ramsay--not Kundla and Fitch--have to go. Nelson was an innovator and he is the all-time regular season wins leader (until Popovich passes him soon) but he ranks 54th in career regular season winning percentage and he never reached the NBA Finals despite coaching a lot of very talented teams. Ramsay won one title in a 21 year coaching career, never reached another Finals, and had a losing playoff record; he was a great TV/radio commentator and a respected tactician, but in my estimation he is not one of the top 15 or 16 NBA coaches of all-time.

Labels: All-Time NBA Team, Gregg Popovich, John Kundla, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 1:15 AM

10 comments

The Evolution of the Usage of the Three Point Shot, Part III

Here is a quote from 16 years ago about the three point shot: "It was a great weapon when the players shot eight or nine times a game. Now it's way overused." Care to guess which former player turned TV commentator made that remark? The answer is none other than Steve Kerr, owner of the highest career regular season career three point shooting percentage in ABA/NBA history (.454), and the current coach of the Golden State Warriors--one of the teams most identified with the recent vast increase in the usage of the three point shot.

I first wrote about the evolution of the usage of the three point shot for NBCSports.com in March 2007, and then I posted an updated version of that article at 20 Second Timeout a few months later. The American Basketball Association (ABA) is associated with the three point shot and deserves credit for popularizing it, but it should be noted that the ABA did not invent the three pointer; it had been used in the American Basketball League (ABL) in the early 1960s, and there are reports that the three point shot was used experimentally in a college game (Columbia versus Fordham) in 1945. Some ABA teams incorporated the three point shot into their regular offense, but not all ABA teams did so, and overall the ABA teams did not shoot nearly as many three pointers as NBA teams currently shoot.

The three point shot disappeared from the professional basketball landscape for three seasons after the ABA/NBA merger in 1976, but then the NBA brought it back for the 1979-80 season. For the first part of the decade, most NBA teams only shot three pointers to beat the shot clock, or to beat the buzzer at the end of a quarter, or when they were down by three points with little time remaining in the game. By the end of the 1980s, many teams began to use the three pointer as part of their offense. The NBA shortened the three point arc to a uniform 22 feet (instead of 23 feet nine inches everywhere but the baseline corners) for the 1995-97 seasons, which led to a spike in three point usage that continued even after the league restored the original three point line in 1997-98.

In December 2016, I revisited the evolution of the usage of the three point shot. The growing acceptance of "advanced basketball statistics" had resulted in a significant increase in the usage of the three point shot, and that trend has continued in the past several seasons. NBA teams averaged a then-record 9.7 three point field goals made per game during the 2016-17 season, and that number increased to 12.1 three point field goals made per game during the suspended (but hopefully not concluded) 2019-20 season, so now is a good time to examine how the usage of the three point shot has continued to evolve.

As discussed in the two previous articles in this series, the three point shot has evolved from a rarely used novelty, to an occasionally used weapon, to a minor part of the offensive game plan, to a major part of the offensive game plan, to a central part of the offensive game plan. To understand the distinction between the latter two concepts, think back to the Houston Rockets with Hakeem Olajuwon, or the Orlando Magic with Shaquille O'Neal; the three point shot was a major part of the offensive game plan, but the primary focus was to first get the ball to the big man, and then shoot three pointers if the opponent double-teamed the big man. In contrast, now many teams are actively hunting three point shots while openly disdaining even wide open two point shots.

One might assume that adding a point per shot for long field goal attempts would increase overall scoring, particularly as the three point shot gained greater acceptance, but history shows otherwise. NBA teams averaged 110.3 ppg in 1978-79, the year before the league added the three point shot. Scoring held steady during the 1980s, and then declined throughout the 1990s. By 1995-96, scoring had fallen under 100 ppg (99.5 ppg) for the first time since 1956-57. NBA scoring reached its modern nadir in the lockout-shortened 1999 season (91.6 ppg), and did not recover to the 100 ppg level until the 2008-09 season, by which time the league had passed rules restricting defensive contact on the perimeter; these rules opened up the game, made it much more difficult to guard players on the perimeter, and--among other things--played a major role in helping Steve Nash to become a two-time regular season MVP. Scoring regressed slightly in the early part of the next decade, but has been on an upward progression for several years, peaking at 111.4 ppg in the 2019-20 season.

Having a three point shot rule does not, in and of itself, increase or decrease team scoring; scoring is impacted by many different factors, including other rules changes, new coaching philosophies, and skill set evolution (or decline, depending on your perspective).

There is also not a direct correlation between shooting a lot of three pointers and winning championships. The Golden State Warriors made five straight Finals appearances from 2015-19, winning titles in 2015 and 2017-18, but during that time they only once led the league in three pointers made--2016, the year that they lost to Cleveland in the Finals. The Warriors ranked second in three pointers made in 2015, fourth in 2017, eighth in 2018, and third in 2019. Here are the rankings for three point shots made by NBA championship teams since I wrote my first article about the evolution of the usage of the three point shot:

2008: Boston (eighth)
2009: L.A. Lakers (17th)
2010: L.A. Lakers (13th)
2011: Dallas (eighth)
2012: Miami (20th)
2013: Miami (third)
2014: San Antonio (12th)
2015: Golden State (second)
2016: Cleveland (second)
2017: Golden State (fourth)
2018: Golden State (eighth)
2019: Toronto (eighth)

During the 2019-20 season, the Milwaukee Bucks rank fourth in three pointers made, while the Toronto Raptors rank fifth, the Boston Celtics rank 13th, the L.A. Clippers rank 18th, the Denver Nuggets rank 24th, and the L.A. Lakers rank 25th. The three teams that have made the most three pointers--Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans--are unlikely to win the 2020 championship (assuming that the season is completed), and most of the rest of the top 10 teams are championship long shots at best (Miami, Minnesota, Utah, Portland, Brooklyn).

Even the championship winners/championship contenders that shoot a lot of three pointers are not teams that are built around three point shooting the way that the current Rockets are. The Golden State Warriors utilized the three point shot as a very effective offensive weapon, but the foundation for their championship success was their tremendous defense: the Warriors ranked first in defensive field goal percentage in 2015 and 2017 before slipping just slightly to third in 2018. Their 73-9 team in 2016 that lost in the NBA Finals ranked third in defensive field goal percentage.

In order to win games during which their shooting touch deserts them, a legitimate championship contender must be able to rely on consistently great defense.

While there is not much correlation between the three point shot rule and team scoring, or shooting a lot of three pointers and winning a championship, the increase in the usage of the three point shot has dramatically changed the shot charts for the league's most prolific individual scorers. During the first decade that the NBA used the three point shot, even the top scorers did not shoot a high volume of three pointers. Alex English, the NBA's leading scorer of the 1980s, scored 21,018 points during that decade while making just 16 three pointers. The next two players on that list made even fewer three pointers; Moses Malone scored 19,082 points in the 1980s while making three three pointers, and Adrian Dantley scored 18,157 points in the 1980s while making six three pointers. Only four of the decade's top 10 scorers made at least 100 three pointers during the 1980s, headlined by Larry Bird and Mark Aguirre; Bird ranked fourth in scoring (17,899 points) while making 455 three pointers, and Aguirre ranked eighth in scoring (14,488 points) while making 255 three pointers. Bird ranked second in the 1980s in three pointers made, trailing only Dale Ellis (472).

Only 11 players made at least 200 three pointers during the 1980s--but 12 players made at least 200 three pointers during the 2018-19 season! Each of the league's top 10 scorers during the 2019-20 season is averaging at least one three pointer made per game, and seven of those 10 players are averaging at least two three pointers made per game. Four of the top five scorers are averaging at least three three pointers made per game, led by James Harden, who ranks first in both scoring (34.4 ppg) and three point field goals made (271). Harden's Rockets have gone all-in with small ball, relying on volume three point shooting to overcome their lack of size/lack of rebounding, but after experiencing initial success the Rockets sputtered recently.

Was Kerr's assessment 16 years ago correct? Since there are no live NBA games now or for the foreseeable future, there is plenty of time to watch classic games from the 1980s and 1990s, and then compare those games--in terms of quality of play, and in terms of entertainment value--with the games that we have been watching recently. I am not opposed to the three point shot--I love the ABA, and I love shooting three pointers when I play pickup or rec league ball--but I prefer to watch basketball players and teams that utilize all areas of the court on offense, as opposed to basketball players and teams that jack up three pointers regardless of time, score, matchups or momentum because the "stat gurus" made the supposedly revolutionary discovery that three is more than two. I cannot say that there is a "right" number of three pointers per game (even though the "stat gurus" think that they can), but both in terms of winning championships and in terms of entertainment value I do not think that 30, 40, or 50 three point shot attempts per team per game--numbers that we are seeing on a regular basis in today's game--is optimal.

Evolution of the Usage of the Three Point Shot

Most Three Pointers Made

Year/League..Team..3 FGM..Player (team)..3 FGM

1967-68/ABA..Pittsburgh..243..Les Selvage (Anaheim)..147
1968-69/ABA..Kentucky..335..Louie Dampier (Kentucky)..199
1969-70/ABA..Kentucky..330..Louie Dampier (Kentucky)..198
1970-71/ABA..Indiana..306..George Lehmann (Carolina)..154
1971-72/ABA..Indiana..220..Glen Combs (Utah)..103
1972-73/ABA..Indiana..172..Bill Keller (Indiana)..71
1973-74/ABA..San Diego..216..Bo Lamar (San Diego)..69
1974-75/ABA..Indiana..224..Bill Keller (Indiana)..80
1975-76/ABA..Indiana..250..Bill Keller (Indiana)..123

1979-80/NBA..San Diego..177..Brian Taylor (San Diego)..90
1980-81/NBA..San Diego..132..Mike Bratz (Cleveland)..57
1981-82/NBA..Indiana..103..Don Buse (Indiana)..73
1982-83/NBA..San Antonio..94..Mike Dunleavy (San Antonio)..67
1983-84/NBA..Utah..101..Darrell Griffith (Utah)..91
1984-85/NBA..Dallas..152..Darrell Griffith (Utah)..92
1985-86/NBA..Dallas..141..Larry Bird (Boston)..82
1986-87/NBA..Dallas..231..Larry Bird (Boston)..90
1987-88/NBA..Boston..271..Danny Ainge (Boston)..148
1988-89/NBA..New York..386..Michael Adams (Denver)..166
1989-90/NBA..Cleveland...346..Michael Adams (Denver)..158
1990-91/NBA..Portland..341..Vernon Maxwell (Houston)..172
1991-92/NBA..Milwaukee..371..Vernon Maxwell (Houston)..162
1992-93/NBA..Phoenix..398..Dan Majerle (Phoenix)/Reggie Miller (Indiana)..167
1993-94/NBA..Houston..429..Dan Majerle (Phoenix)..192
1994-95/NBA*..Houston..646..John Starks (New York)..217
1995-96/NBA*..Dallas..735..Dennis Scott (Orlando)..267
1996-97/NBA*..Miami..678..Reggie Miller (Indiana)..229
1997-98/NBA..Seattle..621..Wesley Person (Cleveland)..192
1998-99/NBA^..Houston..336..Dee Brown (Toronto)..135
1999-00/NBA..Indiana..583..Gary Payton (Seattle)..177
2000-01/NBA..Boston..592..Antoine Walker (Boston)..221
2001-02/NBA..Boston..699..Ray Allen (Milwaukee)..229
2002-03/NBA..Boston..719..Ray Allen (Milwaukee-Seattle)..201
2003-04/NBA..Seattle..723..Peja Stojakovic (Sacramento)..240
2004-05/NBA..Phoenix..796..Kyle Korver (Philadelphia)/Jason Richardson (Phoenix)..226
2005-06/NBA..Phoenix..837..Ray Allen (Seattle)..269
2006-07/NBA..Phoenix..785..Arenas (Washington)/Bell (Phoenix)..205
2007-08/NBA..Orlando..801..Jason Richardson (Charlotte)..243
2008-09/NBA..New York..823..Rashard Lewis (Orlando)..220
2009-10/NBA..Orlando..841..Aaron Brooks (Houston)..209
2010-11/NBA..Orlando..770..Dorell Wright (Golden State)..194
2011-12/NBA^^..Orlando..670..Ryan Anderson (Orlando)..166
2012-13/NBA..New York..891..Stephen Curry (Golden State)..272
2013-14/NBA..Houston..779..Stephen Curry (Golden State)..261
2014-15/NBA..Houston..933..Stephen Curry (Golden State)..286
2015-16/NBA..Golden State..1077...Stephen Curry (Golden State)..402
2016-17/NBA..Houston..1181..Stephen Curry (Golden State)..324
2017-18/NBA..Houston..1256..James Harden (Houston)..265
2018-19/NBA..Houston..1323..James Harden (Houston)..378

* The NBA shortened the three point arc to a uniform 22 feet (prior to and subsequent to these three seasons the three point arc was 22 feet in the corners and 23 feet nine inches elsewhere).

^ Season shortened to 50 games by a lockout.

^^ Season shortened to 66 games by a lockout.

Bold indicates an ABA/NBA record.

Labels: "stat gurus", Alex English, Golden State Warriors, Houston Rockets, James Harden, Larry Bird, Mike D'Antoni, Stephen Curry, Steve Kerr, three point shot

posted by David Friedman @ 1:05 AM

10 comments

NBA Cares About Profits

"NBA Cares" is a clever marketing slogan, but some people are just now figuring out what all of us should have always understood: the NBA is a multi-billion dollar business that "cares" first and foremost about profits. Any public stance that the NBA and/or its players or coaches have taken on a social or political issue has rarely involved sacrifice of money or freedom for a larger principle (see below for one notable exception, involving Enes Kanter).

In 1967, when Muhammad Ali refused to participate in the military draft, he sacrificed his heavyweight world championship title, a significant amount of money and the prime years of his boxing career. Whether or not you agreed then or agree now with the stance that he took, there is no denying that Ali placed his beliefs and his principles above profit. In marked contrast, the NBA with its slogans, and its individual players sporting t-shirts and spouting comments, have rarely displayed the kind of courage that Ali did.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has a fiduciary responsibility to his bosses--the owners of the league's 30 franchises--to maximize the NBA's profitability. That is Silver's primary job, and the owners can fire him if he does that job poorly, or if they determine that someone else could do a better job. Understand that, and you understand why Silver is doing everything in his power to appease a totalitarian Chinese regime that does not approve of Daryl Morey's tweet regarding Hong Kong.

On October 4, 2019, Darryl Morey, the Houston Rockets' General Manager, tweeted "Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong." After a major backlash from China's Communist government--including economic reprisals against the NBA--Morey deleted his Hong Kong tweet. Hong Kong dealt with many anti-government demonstrations this past summer regarding a proposed bill that would have allowed criminal suspects to be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China, whose judicial system's fairness is questionable, to say the least. China's long, awful history of oppression and government-sanctioned violence is well-documented--including the ongoing persecution of Uighur Muslims--so it is understandable why Hong Kong 's citizens would prefer to maintain as much autonomy as possible.

On Sirius XM Radio's NBA channel, former NBA player Brendan Haywood summarized the NBA's policy considerations succinctly and accurately. Haywood said that the NBA is primarily focused on profits, which explains why the NBA took a pro-LGBT position regarding the All-Star Game in North Carolina, and also explains why the NBA will continue to bow to Chinese pressure regarding Morey's tweet: the LGBT community and the Chinese government both represent constituencies that are significant income sources for the league. Haywood concluded that if the LGBT community did not have purchasing and lobbying power, and if China did not provide a significant portion of the league's Basketball Related Income (BRI) then the NBA would have had different policies in both situations.

The NBA's policies are not based on "caring" or being "woke" or any other high-sounding principles. The NBA's policies are based on generating income and increasing profits--period.

One could argue whether or not that is the way the NBA should run its business, but there is no disputing how the NBA is running its business, and therefore the NBA should stop publicly emphasizing how socially conscious the league is. The NBA should admit that it does not want to lose billions of dollars of revenue from the Chinese market, and therefore the league is willing to turn a blind eye to the Chinese government's oppressive policies, even though some of those policies adversely affect the very same groups and people who the NBA purportedly "cares" about in other circumstances.

Regarding NBA coaches like Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich who have been very outspoken about selected topics but are following the company line regarding China, we understand that China is paying a significant portion of their salaries and thus they may find it imprudent to offend their master, but it is disingenuous for them to act like they take high-minded, thoughtful positions on social and political issues if they are unwilling to speak out about China. Think back to any previous public policy pronouncement made by Kerr or Popovich; have they ever risked or sacrificed their money or freedom to uphold a principled belief the way that Muhammad Ali did?

Kerr's specific statement that he does not feel well informed enough about China to comment does not pass muster; Kerr, Popovich and other world famous NBA figures have made numerous personal appearances in China, and those appearances lend comfort and support to that country's regime. When you do that, and when China is paying part of your salary, you have an obligation to be informed. Further, Kerr's comment that all countries, including the United States, have issues to address is, to put it mildly, an ignorant comparison/moral equivalency. China is a dictatorship whose citizens do not have the most basic rights: no right to vote, no right to due process, no right to free speech. Chinese citizens can be arrested or even killed without consequence.

In the United States, citizens have the right to elect government officials, the right to due process and the right to publicly speak out--including the right to criticize government officials, a right that Kerr and Popovich regularly exercise. The American Experiment--the American Dream--of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious community living together in peace and freedom is not perfect, but it is unprecedented in human history and it is a beacon of hope for many people around the world; that is why people tend to flee China and countries like China, and why people flock to America. If you cannot understand the differences between the challenges of holding together a fragile, free and open multicultural society versus the systematic evils committed by a totalitarian regime then you are a fool. If you understand those differences but decline to speak truth to power because it might cost you money, then you are something far worse than a fool. I respect Kerr and Popovich as coaches, as leaders, and as generally intelligent individuals, and that is why I expect a lot more from them on this issue than they have provided thus far.

This is not meant to suggest that players should "shut up and dribble" or that coaches should "shut up and coach." The point is that there is a vast difference between speaking out publicly only when it benefits you financially--or, at the very least, is unlikely to cause you any financial harm--as opposed to speaking out publicly in a way that could potentially cause you financial harm. Many years ago, Michael Jordan was heavily criticized for allegedly saying, "Republicans buy sneakers, too" to justify not endorsing a Democrat, but at least Jordan was honest and not hypocritical: he did not want to make any political statements that might cost him money.

LeBron James' recent comments criticizing Morey's tweet are the height of hypocrisy; however you think or feel about Jordan, he was honest: he was not trying to be Muhammad Ali or Curt Flood or Oscar Robertson. James strives to be perceived as "woke," but chides Morey for a tweet because "so many people could have been harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually." Translation: "Shut up and be a GM, Mr. Morey, because you are potentially costing me a lot of Chinese money."

James added, "I believe he wasn't educated on the situation at hand and he spoke," and James later tweeted about Morey, "Could have waited a week to send it." So, was Morey truly not "educated" or should he have just "waited a week" to save the NBA's money?  How would James respond if someone suggested that he is not "educated" about the issues that he addresses publicly, or that James should wait before commenting because his comments might affect others on his team or in the league? Has James ever considered how anyone but himself is affected by his statements and actions? Let's take a poll of his teammates from last season--or his Cleveland teammates circa 2010--on that point.

In contrast to James, Enes Kanter has publicly spoken out against the repressive policies of Turkey, Kanter's native land. Responding to James' reaction to Morey, Kanter tweeted the consequences of his public statements about Turkey:

"-Haven't seen or talked to my family 5 years
-Jailed my dad
-My siblings can't find jobs
-Revoked my passport
-International arrest warrant
-My family can't leave the country
-Got Death Threats everyday
-Got attacked, harassed
-Tried to kidnap me in Indonesia

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE"

Kanter has made many sacrifices as a result of his public stance. If he wants to call himself "woke," he has earned that right (but most, if not all, people who are truly "woke" would never describe themselves that way). Most of the other members of the NBA community are more interested in counting dollars than making sense.
 
In today's globally interconnected economy, it is probably difficult it not impossible for most of us to have no economic connection to China or Chinese products (It could also be debated whether it is better to boycott, or to engage with the hope of changing policies over time; a detailed discussion of that topic is beyond the scope of this article, but as a starting point to that conversation I would suggest boycotting authoritarian regimes, while working with countries that have free elections and free speech even if we disagree with some policy decisions made by those countries). However, the NBA has chosen to actively participate in China's economy to a significant extent, and to reap billions of dollars in income from that participation. The NBA could decide to participate to a much lesser extent, or to make any participation at all contingent on policy changes that enhance personal freedom for China's citizens. The NBA has chosen otherwise, and it is weak for Kerr, Popovich or anyone else to ignore that choice or to plead ignorance about it. To put it in the vernacular phrasing, regarding China, I would suggest, "If you don't know, ask somebody"--and ask somebody outside of the NBA cocoon, somebody who understands the issues. To borrow a phrase, this is more than a game--this is a life and death situation for the Chinese people.

It would be unfortunate if Daryl Morey loses his job as a result of his tweet, but Haywood made a good point about this as well: the Constitutional right to free speech means that the U.S. government cannot prevent you from voicing your opinion, but it does not protect you from being fired by your private employer. It is interesting that, for all of Morey's self-professed analytical acumen, he could not figure out that tweaking the totalitarian source of billions of NBA dollars would not go over well with the league. However if Morey is fired, it should not be because of his tweet, but because he is a flawed talent evaluator who ranks James Harden ahead of Michael Jordan as a scorer and because the advantages that he self-promotes as a "stat guru" have failed to translate into a single NBA Finals appearance after more than a decade of wheeling and dealing.

Labels: Adam Silver, Brendan Haywood, China, Daryl Morey, Enes Kanter, Gregg Popovich, Hong Kong, LeBron James, NBA, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 6:25 PM

10 comments

The NBA Shamefully Devalues Its Product

The San Antonio-Golden State game last Saturday night should have created memories to last for decades but instead it was a travesty and a disgrace. It is unfortunate but understandable that legitimate health issues prevented Kawhi Leonard, LaMarcus Aldridge and Kevin Durant from playing but the decisions by San Antonio Coach Gregg Popovich and Golden State Coach Steve Kerr to sit out the rest of their healthy starters with the number one seed in the Western Conference on the line is one of the most disappointing things that I have had the misfortune to witness in the decades that I have religiously followed the NBA. I was looking forward to that game all week--and, indeed, for the whole season, as were many other diehard NBA fans. When I was a kid, Philadelphia-Boston, Philadelphia-L.A. and Boston-L.A. were matchups to be anticipated and savored; those games foreshadowed the Eastern Conference Finals and/or the NBA Finals for every year from 1980-85. The big-time stars rarely missed those games and when they did sit out they had real injuries; no one was "resting."

Why should anyone take the NBA regular season seriously anymore? Clearly, the two best teams in the league do not think that the regular season matters, nor do they believe that homecourt advantage in the Western Conference Finals matters.

The NBA is walking on treacherous ground here. A game between bench players to potentially decide who will have the best chance to represent the Western Conference in the NBA Finals is even more damaging to the league than the farce known as the NBA All-Star Game.

Some people are just throwing their hands up and acting like there is no solution to this but that is the Bud Selig approach, made most famous when he shrugged his shoulders as the 2002 MLB All-Star Game ended in a tie. If David Stern were still the NBA Commissioner, Saturday's nonsense would have never happened--or it only would have happened once. When Popovich tried a similar stunt on Stern's watch in November 2012 (sitting out four of his top players during the Spurs' only visit to Miami), Stern immediately announced, "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming." Stern was not bluffing. He hit the Spurs with a $250,000 fine and this verbal broadside: "The result here is dictated by the totality of the facts in this case. The Spurs decided to make four of their top players unavailable for an early-season game that was the team's only regular-season visit to Miami. The team also did this without informing the Heat, the media, or the league office in a timely way. Under these circumstances, I have concluded that the Spurs did a disservice to the league and our fans."

Worth noting is that Adam Silver--then Stern's right hand man--had publicly stated in April 2012, "The strategic resting of particular players on particular nights is within the discretion of the teams. And Gregg Popovich in particular is probably the last coach that I would second-guess."

Stern was a strong-willed Commissioner and he could be condescending to the media at times, so it is not surprising that when Stern retired many media members piped up about how Silver would supposedly be a breath of fresh air. Silver is not the type to challenge a media member's question or a media member's command of the facts. I am not going to say that Silver has been a bad Commissioner but it is ridiculous to even put him in the same conversation with Stern, who is on the short list of greatest sports commissioners ever.

Commissioner Silver needs to step in immediately and decisively to make sure that Saturday night's fiasco never happens again on his watch:

1) All ticket buyers for Saturday's game should receive a full refund from the league, with the cost split evenly among the Warriors and the Spurs.

2) The NBA should refund whatever portion of TV money it received for selling the rights to the game to ABC, with that cost again split among the Warriors and the Spurs.

3) None of the healthy players who sat out should receive a game check; if they want to rest on company time, then they can do it on their own dime--and if they object to being unemployed for a day, then their union should file a grievance against the teams and/or the league for artificially manipulating the sport's competitive balance. The forfeited game checks should be pooled together and donated to help out people who are truly involuntarily unemployed.

4) Both teams should be fined at least $250,000 each, with the specter of larger fines looming if this offense is repeated.

Some will say that the Warriors and Spurs are acting intelligently to preserve the health of their players. If that is really the case, then the owners and players must immediately agree to shorten the season to however many games they deem to be safe and they must construct a schedule that eliminates "unhealthy" back to back or four game in five night scenarios. If health is truly at stake, then the schedule must be changed. Of course, that would mean less revenue for the owners and players but that is a small price to pay for the sake of players' health.

I think that health is just an excuse being used by these coaches to justify tweaking the league for its scheduling and/or to avoid having a showdown between the top teams until absolutely necessary. Players used to thrive on competition but, as we saw during the All-Star Game, that is clearly not the case now. It almost seems like these teams were afraid to put their best foot forward and possibly lose, so instead they made the game so farcical that no one can derive any meaning from the outcome.

Durability used to be a mark of pride for the sport's greatest players. Wilt Chamberlain once averaged more than 48 mpg for an entire season, meaning that he played every minute of regulation plus every minute of overtime (I think that he actually was ejected from one game and thus missed a few random minutes but he played enough overtime sessions to keep his average above 48 mpg). Michael Jordan played in all 82 games nine times, including in his final season as a 39 year old Wizard with at least one decrepit knee. He played more than 3000 minutes in 12 different seasons; the only times he missed that mark were when he broke his foot during his second season, when he played 17 games during his first comeback in 1994-95 and when he played 60 games as a 38 year old during the first season of his second comeback. My basketball hero Julius Erving played in all 84 games in four of his five ABA seasons and in his 11 year NBA career he played 82 games twice, 81 games once and at least 77 games four other times. Until his final season as a 37 year old (when he played a career-low 60 games), Erving's lowest total was 71 games in his second season, when he missed a few games due to a contract dispute that eventually wound its way through the court system--and he proceeded to average a career-high 41.2 mpg the rest of the way in that campaign.

There are many other examples of great players from bygone eras playing almost every game and averaging a high number of minutes while doing so. How is it possible that modern players who have the best possible diets, chartered flights and state of the art treatment/recovery options cannot play most if not all 82 games?

Labels: Adam Silver, Golden State Warriors, Gregg Popovich, NBA, San Antonio Spurs, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 2:11 AM

12 comments

Why the Warriors Won the NBA Championship

It is fun to watch Golden State but it will not be much fun to listen to all of the nonsense and revisionist history that will likely be spewed in the wake of the Warriors' 4-2 victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2015 NBA Finals.

My newest article at The Roar explains that Golden State's triumph is in no way a vindication of the style of play employed by Mike D'Antoni's Phoenix Suns:

Why the Warriors Won the NBA Championship

Labels: Golden State Warriors, Mike D'Antoni, Phoenix Suns, Steve Kerr, Steve Nash

posted by David Friedman @ 3:20 PM

21 comments

Warriors Demonstrate Folly of Trying to Play Small Ball Against Them, Take 3-2 Finals Lead Over Cavaliers

Stephen Curry scored 37 points--including 17 in the fourth quarter--as his Golden State Warriors defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 104-91 to take a 3-2 lead in the NBA Finals. Curry shot 13-23 from the field, including 7-13 from three point range. He also had seven rebounds and four assists. Curry is one of five players to score 17 points in the fourth quarter of an NBA Finals game in the past 40 years, a list that includes Shaquille O’Neal (2000 Lakers), Dwyane Wade (2006 Heat), Russell Westbrook (2012 Thunder) and Kevin Durant (2012 Thunder).

LeBron James had another huge game for the Cavaliers, compiling 40 points, 14 rebounds and 11 assists with just two turnovers in 45 minutes. James shot 15-34 from the field, including 1-4 in the final five minutes of the fourth quarter after the Cavaliers had trimmed the Warriors' lead to 85-84.

The big story--literally and figuratively--is Cleveland's starting center Timofey Mozgov, who played a scoreless nine minutes after scoring 28 points in game four and helping to keep the Cavaliers close with his inside presence at both ends of the court. Cleveland Coach David Blatt pulled Mozgov from game five after just five minutes with Golden State leading 8-2; Blatt did not give Mozgov a chance to go to work against Golden State's undersized lineup, a markedly different approach to coaching and matchups from the one that Golden State Coach Steve Kerr took in game four when he stuck with his small lineup despite trailing 7-0 early in the first quarter.

Any player--but particularly a big man whose size and length can wear down opponents over the course of a game--would struggle to find his rhythm if he is used to playing regular minutes but then is suddenly relegated to just four or five minutes per half.

Mozgov averaged 16.8 ppg on .550 field goal shooting plus 8.3 rpg in the first four games of the series, yet after Blatt benched Mozgov early in game five he did not put Mozgov back in the game until late in the third quarter. The Cavaliers cut a 71-67 Golden State lead to 78-77 during Mozgov's cameo second half appearance and then were outscored 26-14 the rest of the way after Blatt yanked Mozgov again. Essentially, Blatt iced his second best player and failed to exploit the only matchup advantage that the Cavaliers have other than James versus whoever tries to guard him one on one.

The minutes that Mozgov would have and should have played went to a combination of perimeter players J.R. Smith (14 points on 5-15 field goal shooting in 36 minutes), James Jones (0 points in 18 minutes) and Mike Miller (3 points in 14 minutes).

The bottom line is that Kerr has outcoached Blatt. Yes, Kerr has more cards to play but Blatt has the biggest card (LeBron James) plus the edge inside with Mozgov but Blatt has not taken full advantage of those trumps. On offense, the Cavaliers should be running a steady diet of James-Mozgov screen/roll plays, forcing the Warriors to either trap James and leave Mozgov open at the rim or else single cover James and pray for salvation. On defense, the idea that Mozgov could not guard any of the Warriors is wrong; Mozgov should be assigned to stand two feet away from Andre Iguodala, who is struggling to make uncontested and wide open 15 foot shots (Iguodala shot 2-11 from the free throw line in game five). The Cavaliers could then pack the paint, stay close to Golden State's three point shooters and dare Iguodala to beat them with two point jump shots. If that strategy sounds familiar that is because it is the strategy that Kerr used to beat Memphis in the playoffs, assigning Bogut to guard Tony Allen--and by "guard" I mean give Allen the space to shoot open jumpers to his heart's content. Iguodala is a very good all-around player but the Warriors are not going to win a championship with Iguodala shooting 15-18 foot jumpers while James and/or Mozgov are getting dunks and free throws.

What did Kerr think of Blatt's quick hook of Mozgov? Here is what Kerr said after game five: "I thought from the very beginning when they went small, had their shooters out there, I thought this is Steph's night. This is going to be a big one for him because he has all that room. He took over the game down the stretch and was fantastic." Translation: "If I had known that all I had to do was bench Bogut and Blatt would respond by taking out his second best player then I would have done it in game one and this series would have been over in four games. I will match our five best perimeter players against Cleveland's five best perimeter players any day of the week. Cleveland then has one matchup advantage with LeBron James but we have four matchup advantages and we do not have to worry about foul trouble or our guys getting worn down by banging around in the paint against a true big man."

While Golden State is deeper on paper than Cleveland, it is interesting to look at who is actually seeing action in this series. In game five, three Golden State starters played at least 40 minutes and seven Golden State players played at least 17 minutes; three Cleveland starters played at least 40 minutes and seven Cleveland players played at least 18 minutes. For all of the talk about fatigue and depth, the reality is that both teams are using seven man rotations. Yes, LeBron James is carrying a heavy individual workload but that is at least partially because Blatt refuses to take advantage of his second best weapon. Is James really more tired than Michael Jordan was in 1998 at the end of the Bulls' second three-peat or than Kobe Bryant was in 2010 after battling Boston's historically good defense for seven games or than most other great players were when they fought to win championships against worthy opposition? James is putting up great numbers but he is also consistently fading down the stretch while being offered (and accepting) a fatigue excuse that is rarely if ever granted to any other person who has held the greatest player in the world title.

Let's stop pretending that the Cavaliers are nothing more than LeBron James and a bunch of guys he rounded up at the YMCA. Timofey Mozgov is the best big man on either roster. Tristan Thompson is the leading rebounder in the series (and James is second). Iman Shumpert and Matthew Dellavedova are credible perimeter defenders. J.R. Smith is a talented, if erratic, player. The main difference in this series since Cleveland took a 2-1 lead is that Kerr convinced Blatt to bench Mozgov in exchange for Kerr benching Bogut, who is averaging 2.5 ppg in the Finals.

Maybe the Cavaliers would have lost game four even if Mozgov had played 35 or 40 minutes. Maybe the Cavaliers would have lost game five even if Mozgov had played more than nine minutes. However, it is a near certainty that if Blatt insists using some combination of Smith, Miller and Jones to match up with Golden State's skilled perimeter players while Mozgov languishes on the bench then Cleveland will lose every time.

As bizarre as this may sound, Cleveland could still win this series if Blatt makes the right moves and if James figures out how to play as hard and well in the final five minutes as he does the rest of the game. A Cleveland victory is by no means probable but it sure would be interesting to see what would happen if Blatt came up with a strategy other than expecting James to play point guard and center the rest of the way while Mozgov watches the action. Magic Johnson won his first NBA championship while doing the point guard/center routine in one game of the 1980 NBA Finals due to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's ankle injury--and Johnson's Lakers already enjoyed a 3-2 lead over Philadelphia, while James' Cavaliers trail 3-2. No one expected Johnson to do that for an entire Finals.

Labels: Andre Iguodala, Cleveland Cavaliers, David Blatt, Golden State Warriors, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Steve Kerr, Timofey Mozgov

posted by David Friedman @ 3:36 AM

9 comments

Adjustments for Cleveland Heading Into Game Five

Basketball is a game of matchups and adjustments but sometimes the best adjustment is no adjustment at all. The favored 67-15 Golden State Warriors had to do something after falling behind 2-1 to the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals because it was clear that the slow down style of play that predominated in the first three games favored Cleveland. Golden State Coach Steve Kerr elected to try to speed up the tempo by going with a small lineup, replacing starting center Andrew Bogut with Andre Iguodala. The Cavaliers promptly took a 7-0 lead in game four by taking advantage of their size inside but the Warriors took control after the Cavaliers went small to match up with Golden State's small lineup; Golden State won 103-82 to even up the series.

In my newest article at The Roar, I explain why Cleveland's best adjustment now is no adjustment at all, but rather sticking with the team's strengths and forcing the Warriors to match up with them or get pounded in the paint:

Cleveland Needs LeBron--and Timofey Mozgov's Height--to Win the Title

Labels: Cleveland Cavaliers, David Blatt, Golden State Warriors, LeBron James, Steve Kerr, Timofey Mozgov

posted by David Friedman @ 6:23 PM

6 comments

Warriors Regain Homecourt Advantage with 103-82 Game Four Win

Golden State defeated Cleveland 103-82 to tie the NBA Finals at 2-2 and regain homecourt advantage. Stephen Curry and Andre Iguodala led Golden State with 22 points apiece. Timofey Mozgov scored a game-high 28 points for Cleveland while pulling down 10 rebounds. LeBron James finished with 20 points on 7-22 field goal shooting plus 12 rebounds and eight assists.

This game is yet another reminder of how quickly things can turn in a seven game series and how foolish it is to make too much of just one game. Prior to game four, everyone was talking about the Cavaliers being on the verge of pulling off a huge upset as James authored possibly the greatest performance in NBA Finals history. Then in game four the Cavaliers suffered the fourth worst home loss in Finals history. The same people who were writing off Golden State after game three will probably write off Cleveland after game four. The reality is that, except for an occasional mismatch, most NBA Finals are seesaw affairs in which each game is both its own individual story and also one chapter in a larger story that cannot be completely understood until after the fact. It could very well be that the most important moment of the 2015 NBA Finals has not happened yet--or it may have already happened and we do not realize it because we do not know the final outcome.

Most of the analysis of game four will probably focus on Golden State Coach Steve Kerr's decision to go small by inserting Andre Iguodala in the starting lineup over Andrew Bogut. Iguodala, a former All-Star, had started every game of his career prior to this season but had yet to start a single game for Kerr's Warriors. Kerr's move had such an immediate impact that Golden State promptly fell behind 7-0. You can bet that this part of the story will be left out or glossed over in most accounts of the game.

Kerr's decision to go small did not spark the Warriors--but what happened shortly after the game started did. To understand that part of the story we need to look at the plus/minus numbers from this game. Every Cleveland player who played significant minutes had a plus/minus number of -12 or worse except for Mozgov (-5). Kerr went small for two reasons: to accelerate the pace of the game (which favors the Warriors because they are deeper and because their perimeter players are better than Cleveland's) and to entice the Cavaliers to take the bait and also go small--and Blatt fell for the banana in the tailpipe, giving J.R. Smith 28 minutes even though Smith was a one man disaster area. Smith's plus/minus number of -27 (12 points worse than any other player who appeared in the game) only hints at how poorly he played and how negative his impact was. Smith shot 2-12 from the field (including 0-8 from three point range) and finished with as many fouls as points (four).

The Warriors made a 10-4 run to take a 22-20 lead after J.R. Smith replaced Matthew Dellavedova in Cleveland's lineup. Matters really went south for Cleveland after Blatt took out Mozgov at that point to go small with James Jones; Golden State pushed the lead to 31-24 before Blatt put Mozgov back in the game.

There is a natural tendency to focus on the fourth quarter in general and the final minutes/final plays in particular but students of the NBA understand that games are often decided early, even if there are subsequent runs by both teams. Cleveland made a late run in game four but the Cavaliers could not overcome the double digit lead that Golden State built by halftime. Golden State did a lot of damage in the first half with Mozgov on the bench; the Cavs played too fast during that stretch and Smith was awful. Instead of going small, Blatt should have stayed true to his team's strength and exploited his team's advantage inside.

When the Cavaliers went small they also started to play faster and they started firing up three pointers. Cleveland shot 4-27 from three point range. The problem is not just the number of misses or even the number of attempts but rather the quality and nature of the shots. Cleveland won games two and three by pounding the ball inside with James posting or driving, Mozgov cutting through the lane and Tristan Thompson pounding the offensive boards. Most of the Cavaliers' three pointers in those games came as a result of penetration and good ball movement. In game four, James did not attack as much, the Cavaliers settled for low percentage three pointers and the Cavaliers paid the price for Blatt's substitution patterns.

I understand that Blatt has limited options due to injuries but in order for Cleveland to win this series Mozgov's minutes need to go up, Smith's minutes need to go down and James cannot sit out the first two minutes of the fourth quarter because every time that happens Golden State goes on a run; this almost cost Cleveland in game three and it thwarted a potential Cleveland comeback in game four.

James may have to play 42 or 43 minutes per game the rest of the way, including all 12 in the final stanza. That work load is not the cruel and unusual punishment that the media portrays it to be. In the 1993 Finals, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen--en route to winning their third straight championship--averaged 45.7 mpg and 44.3 mpg. In the 1996 Finals, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen--en route to completing their second three-peat--each averaged more than 41 mpg (and Gary Payton averaged almost 46 mpg for Seattle in a losing cause that year). Superstar players should not only expect heavy minutes in the Finals but they should demand heavy minutes.

Hall of Famer Jerry West, a consultant for the Warriors, has said that in the NBA when you don't have talent coaching can only do so much but when you do have talent coaching is everything. While it is true that Golden State has more talent and more depth than Cleveland, for all intents and purposes both teams are using a seven man rotation now and both teams are talented or they would not be in the Finals; in game four, seven Cleveland players played at least 18 minutes (and three players received three garbage time minutes apiece) and seven Golden State players played at least 15 minutes (and five other players received between one and seven minutes, with four of those players playing three minutes or less). Kerr may have more chess pieces to move around the board than Blatt does but Blatt has the ultimate chess piece (James) and he has a chess piece who is a matchup nightmare for Golden State (Mozgov) so within the options that Blatt has he needs to make the best possible choices to maximize the damage done by his two best pieces.

In addition to Kerr outcoaching Blatt (or Blatt outcoaching himself), the other big factor in game four is that LeBron James was not nearly as aggressive as he had been in the first three games of the series when he averaged 41 ppg. James scored 10 points on 4-12 field goal shooting in the first half and if he had reached his normal level of production in this series then Cleveland would not have trailed by 12 at halftime. Yes, that is a lot to ask of one player but when James is aggressive he not only creates scoring opportunities for himself but he also creates scoring opportunities for his teammates.

James suffered a large gash late in the first half when he hit his head on a courtside camera lens after receiving a hard foul from Andrew Bogut. It is unclear how much that injury affected James but he had been passive and the Cavaliers had been trailing even before that happened.

As a longtime advocate for the ABA, I cannot neglect to mention that even though James' 123 points through the first three games of the Finals is an NBA record it is not a pro basketball record; in the 1976 ABA Finals, Julius Erving scored 124 points in the first three games as his underdog New York Nets took a 2-1 lead over the powerful Denver Nuggets. James now has 143 points after four games but Erving scored 158 points in the first four games in the 1976 ABA Finals and for the series he led both teams in scoring (37.7 ppg), rebounding (14.2 rpg), assists (6.0 apg), steals (3.0 spg) and blocked shots (2.2 bpg) as the Nets won 4-2 over a squad that featured two Hall of Famers (David Thompson and Dan Issel) plus the best defensive forward in pro basketball (Bobby Jones) and a Hall of Fame coach (Larry Brown). Erving shot .590 from the field against the Nuggets. Considering the quality of the opponent, the all-around statistical dominance and the efficiency, a good case can be made that this is the greatest single series performance in pro basketball history. Just keep that historical perspective in mind when placing James' numbers in proper context. James has played great overall in the first four games but basketball history did not begin with Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan and basketball history includes (or should include) the ABA, though you might not realize this if you depend on the mainstream media outlets for basketball commentary.

OK, enough with the historical interlude for now. What will happen next in the 2015 NBA Finals? The only honest answer is, "I don't know." What I do know is that Golden State has the better team but Cleveland has the best player. Cleveland is capable of winning by employing the right strategy and playing really hard but Golden State has a larger margin for error. If Cleveland wins this series it would clearly be an upset but I am not sure it would be the biggest upset ever, as some people have suggested; let's wait and see if Cleveland prevails before trying to figure out how big of an upset it would be.

Labels: Andre Iguodala, Cleveland Cavaliers, David Blatt, Golden State Warriors, Julius Erving, LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Steve Kerr, Timofey Mozgov

posted by David Friedman @ 3:14 AM

9 comments

NBA Finals Focus: The Coaching Matchup

Unless you remember the Truman administration, you do not remember the last time that two rookie head coaches squared off in the NBA Finals. In 1947, Eddie Gottlieb's Philadelphia Warriors defeated Harold Olsen's Chicago Stags 4-1 in the Basketball Association of America (BAA) Finals. In 1949, four teams from the National Basketball League (NBL) joined the BAA to form the National Basketball Association (NBA). The NBA traces its history back to the 1946-47 season, so the 1947 Philadelphia-Chicago series is considered to be the first official NBA Finals.

This year's NBA Finals features a coaching matchup of rookie David Blatt of the Cleveland Cavaliers and rookie Steve Kerr of the Golden State Warriors (the same franchise that won the first NBA title).

My newest article for The Roar looks at the Blatt-Kerr chess match that will not receive as much hype as the LeBron James-Stephen Curry duel but that could ultimately decide which team wins the series:

NBA Finals Focus: The Coaching Matchup

Labels: Cleveland Cavaliers, David Blatt, Golden State Warriors, NBA Finals, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 3:05 PM

6 comments

Sunset in Phoenix

Less than one year ago, the Phoenix Suns led the San Antonio Spurs by 16 points in game one of their first round playoff series in San Antonio. The Suns were on the verge of swiping home court advantage from the reigning NBA champions. Then Tim Duncan--who had not made a three pointer all season--drained a huge trey to force a second overtime, the Spurs eventually prevailed and they went on to wipe out the Suns in five games. Fast forward to this year and it is Groundhog Day in San Antonio--the Spurs are on pace for yet another 55-plus win season--but the Suns are careening toward the Draft Lottery.

Here is a look at the sudden demise of what was once one of the NBA's elite teams:

The dramatic decline of the Phoenix Suns has not received the attention nor analysis that it deserves. The Suns won at least 54 games in each season between 2005 and 2008, advancing to the Western Conference Finals twice (2006 and 2007). Last season, the Suns acquired Shaquille O'Neal to match up with San Antonio's Tim Duncan and they went 15-5 down the stretch, including two wins against the Spurs, their hated rivals.

The Suns faced San Antonio in the first round and led by as many as 16 points in Game One but Duncan -- who shot 0-4 from three-point range during the regular season -- drilled a trey to tie the score at 104 to force a second overtime. The Spurs eventually won the game and then took the series in five.

The Suns had shown that they had enough talent to go toe to toe with the defending NBA champions -- yet just one year later the Spurs are on pace for yet another 55-plus win season while the Suns are headed for the draft lottery. How did the Suns descend in less than 12 months from being on the brink of seizing home-court advantage from the reigning NBA champions to being an also-ran?

General Manager Steve Kerr will probably be the scapegoat for the Suns' demise. Kerr certainly should be held accountable for his decisions but the real problem in Phoenix is that it is hard to figure out owner Robert Sarver's master plan, assuming that he has one.

Sarver repeatedly dealt away first round picks -- including Luol Deng, Rajon Rondo and Nate Robinson -- to save money, got rid of quality veteran big man Kurt Thomas -- the team's best post defender -- to cut costs and then after those economizing actions he reversed field and picked up the high-priced Shaquille O'Neal. The Suns have neither committed fully to doing everything necessary to win a title nor have they committed fully to tearing the team down and rebuilding.

They discarded coach Mike D'Antoni's "seven seconds or less" philosophy in favor of Terry Porter's defensive-minded approach but then they canned Porter barely halfway into this season. Interim Coach Alvin Gentry has employed the so-called "seven seconds or Shaq" game plan, a modified version of "seven seconds or less." The Suns scored at least 140 points in each of their first three games under Gentry, rolling to wins over the lowly Clippers (twice) and Thunder, but they have only gone 4-8 since then.

The Suns have made so many personnel changes in the past year that it is difficult to determine the exact impact of any one particular move. They traded Shawn Marion and Marcus Banks for O'Neal last year and this season they swapped Raja Bell, Boris Diaw and Sean Singletary for Jason Richardson and Jared Dudley. However, three things have been consistently true of all of the various iterations of this team:

* The Suns have a lot of individual talent.

* The Suns have never been committed to playing good defense on a consistent basis.

* As a group, the Suns have not demonstrated mental toughness.

It is embarrassing for a team with as much talent as Phoenix has to miss the playoffs. Two-time MVP (2005-06) Steve Nash is still productive, 2000 MVP -- and 2009 All-Star Game co-MVP -- Shaquille O'Neal seemingly has been drinking from the Fountain of Youth, Jason Richardson averaged at least 21.7 ppg in three of the previous four seasons, and 2007 Sixth Man Award winner Leandro Barbosa provides scoring punch off of the bench. Also, seven-time All-Star Grant Hill is still a solid player who is good enough defensively that he often defends point guards while Nash is assigned to slower-footed players. An eye injury has sidelined four-time All-Star Amare Stoudemire for the rest of the season but the Suns were hardly tearing up the league in the 53 games he played before he got hurt.

During ABC's telecast of Boston's 128-108 win in Phoenix, Jeff Van Gundy hammered home points two and three, declaring that Nash, Hill and Stoudemire's refusal to buy into Porter's defensive-oriented approach and give their new coach a reasonable chance to succeed will forever be a "blight" on their resumes. You can add O'Neal's name to that "blight" list, too, if you believe the report by ESPN's Marc Stein that when Porter was talking to the team, the Big Cactus gloated that things will be a lot different once Gentry takes Porter's job.

Stein also said that one of O'Neal's Miami teammates insists that when former Heat Coach Stan Van Gundy would instruct the team O'Neal would hold three fingers up, apparently referring to the fact that O'Neal then owned three championship rings compared to none for Van Gundy.

The idea that O'Neal respects authority and listens to his coaches is a crock and it is not a coincidence that bad locker room chemistry has been a defining characteristic of O'Neal's teams in Orlando, L.A., Miami and now Phoenix.

Van Gundy contrasted the Suns with their nemesis, the Spurs, by declaring that the Spurs are a "more balanced team" that "takes offense seriously, takes defense seriously and takes rebounding seriously -- and they would never run a coup on their coach." Later in the game, Van Gundy noted, "The Suns are basically complaining on every call right now and that mental weakness has been one of the reasons that they have struggled in big games."

The teams that have made it to the Finals in recent years are all significantly better than Phoenix defensively. Some of that undoubtedly has to do with coaching but the players have to be held accountable, too. Hall of Fame Coaches John Wooden and John Thompson have both said that the same basic athletic skills are required to be a good offensive player and to be a good defensive player, so the reason that some players are only proficient at the offensive end of the court has more to do with desire than anything else. That lack of desire and mental toughness are the defining characteristics of this era of Suns basketball.

Labels: Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix Suns, Shaquille O'Neal, Steve Kerr, Steve Nash

posted by David Friedman @ 2:41 AM

0 comments

Mark Price Shot, Passed and "Split" His Way Into the NBA's Elite

Here are the 12 year regular season NBA career statistics for two point guards. See if you can guess who they are:

Point Guard #1:

15.2 ppg, 6.7 apg, .472 FG%, .402 3Pt FG%, .904 FT%

Point Guard #2:

14.3 ppg, 7.9 apg, .485 FG%, .431 3Pt FG%, .897 FT%

If you are surprised to find out that point guard #1 is Mark Price and point guard #2 is Steve Nash, then you definitely should check out my CavsNews.com article about the very underrated Price, who developed the "split" move on the pick and roll play into a deadly weapon that many guards who followed him have copied. Johnny Bach, the de facto "defensive coordinator" for the Chicago Bulls during their first three-peat, says that the Mark Price-Brad Daugherty pick and roll play was "the best in the business" during that era (6/17/15 edit: the link to CavsNews.com no longer works, so I have posted the original article below):

Labels: Brad Daugherty, Cleveland Cavaliers, Johnny Bach, Mark Price, Phoenix Suns, Steve Kerr, Steve Nash

posted by David Friedman @ 5:22 PM

13 comments