The NBA Playoffs Are About Matchups, Not Momentum
It is fascinating, though at times frustrating, to listen to analysis and commentary about the NBA in general, and the frustration increases during the NBA playoffs. Any competent student of basketball history understands that playoff series are decided by matchup advantages. While there are temporary momentum swings based on factors such as a player hitting a few shots in a row or a key player getting into foul trouble, the outcome of a best of seven series is determined by which team best exploits its matchup advantages.
Generally, both teams have some matchup advantages, and usually the team that has more matchup advantages will prevail; if one team has no matchup advantages, then that team will likely be swept, but there are not that many sweeps precisely because most playoff teams have at least one matchup advantage that is significant enough to get at least one win. Injuries, foul trouble, and ejections/suspensions can alter the balance, but those factors tend to even out unless they involve a superstar caliber player. Also, as Danny Ainge pointed out decades ago, this is not the Tour de France: a team that wins a game by 30 points does not start the next game with a 30 point lead.
Anyone who understands the playoffs does not overreact to the outcome of one game. If you listen to former players and former coaches who have become analysts on radio or TV, they tend to not fall into the trap of saying things like, "Team A won by 30 points and will carry that momentum into the next game." There are a few former players who seem to be more interested in attracting attention with hot takes than in producing logical analysis, but most former players understand the nature of competition. It is quite instructive to listen to the bleatings of "Screamin' A" Smith and Mike Wilbon (an excellent feature columnist who is miscast as a basketball expert) and then contrast what they say with the analysis provided by former General Manager Bob Myers, former Coach Hubie Brown, and former players like Tim Legler, Sam Mitchell, and Brendan Haywood, who had the guts to point out when Wilbon made no sense (which probably explains why Haywood works for NBA TV now instead of ESPN).
Analysts who have playing, coaching, or basketball management experience know that each playoff game is a distinct entity, as Indiana Coach Rick Carlisle said yesterday after his Pacers blew out the New York Knicks, 121-89; that series is heading back to New York for game five, and the Knicks have the advantage of playing game five and game seven (if necessary) at home. Perhaps injuries and being undermanned will wear down the Knicks, but the reality is that the Knicks have homecourt advantage because over the course of the 82 game regular season they were better than the Pacers in terms of physicality, defense, and energy level. Those are New York's advantages, and despite Indiana's game four win--during which the Pacers exploited their advantages in depth and open court quickness--it is likely that the Knicks will win a grind it out game five at home.
"Screamin' A" Smith confuses decibel levels with IQ points, but loud nonsense is still nonsense; it is foolish to act as if every loss by a favored team should lead to a referendum on that team's mental toughness, because if that were true then Michael Jordan's teams would not have lost playoff games by 26 points and by 21 points, nor would they have fallen behind 0-2 in the 1993 Eastern Conference Finals. That is not to suggest that some games do not matter or that teams should not try to win every game. Any competitor will tell you that every game matters. The point is that the nature of high level competition is such that it is not possible to win every game, nor is it possible to avoid ever being blown out.
That is why I did not overreact after Minnesota took a 2-0 lead over Denver, who I picked to win that series in six games. I understood that a team that is up 2-0 is in great position to win the series, but I also believed that the Nuggets have matchup advantages that will come to the forefront more often than not over the course of a long series. The Nuggets have now won two straight games to set up a pivotal game five at home. Minnesota could still win the series, but during a race to four wins the better team will demonstrate its superiority more often than not, and Denver is the better team.
Blame and credit are often apportioned in ways that make no sense; some players are given a free pass no matter how poorly they perform and no matter how many excuses they make for their poor performances, while other players are blamed for outcomes that are clearly not their fault or within their control. For example, many media members are either "stat gurus" or have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the "advanced basketball statistics" gospel that asserts--among other things--that size is overrated, post play is obsolete, and spacing/range shooting are the most important factors for team success; these media members seek out any excuse to push their preferred narratives. I try to avoid listening to the screamers and the blithering idiots, but I caught second wind of enough foolishness today to realize that the narrative du jour is that Rudy Gobert should receive much of the blame for Minnesota's game four loss to Denver. Gobert is a favorite target for many media members because he plays in the paint and does not space the floor or make three pointers. It is true that Gobert committed a game-high five turnovers, and that he was whistled for five fouls--but he also had a game-high 14 rebounds, he drew enough fouls to earn a game-high nine free throw attempts, he grabbed a game-high five offensive rebounds, and he converted his easy opportunities at the hoop at a .600 clip (3-5 field goal shooting). Plus/minus numbers can be noisy, but he had a team-best +9 plus/minus number, which means that the Timberwolves outscored the Nuggets by nine points when he was in the game but were outscored by 17 points during the 13 minutes that he did not play. Gobert is a four-time Defensive Player of the Year whose job description is to protect the paint defensively, grab double digit rebounds, and convert high percentage opportunities in the paint--all of which he did during game four. In a perfect world, he would do those things without committing a single foul or turnover, but we do not live in a perfect world and there is no such thing as a perfect player.
If you watched game four with understanding, you noticed that Denver conceded open shots to Nickeil Alexander-Walker, who finished with two points on 1-7 field goal shooting. His plus/minus number was a game-worst -20 in 24 minutes, meaning that the Timberwolves fell behind by nearly a point a minute during his time on the court. Collectively, Minnesota's bench was -47 while Denver's bench was +24. Denver often struggles when Nikola Jokic rests, but that was not the case in game four--but praising Denver's reserves Reggie Jackson, Christian Braun, and Justin Holiday while critiquing Minnesota's performance when reserves Alexander-Walker, Naz Reid, and Kyle Anderson were on the court requires (1) paying attention to what happened during the game and (2) describing accurately what happened instead of shaping stories to fit predetermined preferred narratives about Gobert.
"Screamin' A" yells about how each game makes him feel and about which cities he prefers to visit, but why should anyone care about either of those things? His rooting preferences are not more important or more interesting than anyone else's, and he makes at least $10 million per year, so he can visit any city he wants any time that he wants. If he loves South Beach so much, he should just head there now and give more air time to Myers; fans who are basketball purists would prefer to hear the perspective of a person who built championship teams over the ravings of someone who is unwilling or incapable of objectively explaining why teams win and why teams lose.
In contrast, TNT's Kenny Smith brings the perspective of a point guard who starred in high school and college, played at a near All-Star level early in his NBA career, and then served as an excellent role player on two NBA championship teams. His studio show partners Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal joke around a lot and engage in a lot of high jinks, but when they break down a game or a team they speak with the insights of all-time great players. ESPN spent most of this season hyping up the L.A. Lakers, Golden State Warriors, and L.A. Clippers, but Barkley repeatedly insisted that the Lakers and Warriors are not any good, and he called out the "idiots" who suggested otherwise. O'Neal stated that he did not trust the Clippers in big moments because of the checkered playoff resumes of James Harden and Paul George, who disappeared on cue as the Clippers lost to the Dallas Mavericks.
If ESPN executives are trying to figure out why no matter how many times they change their studio lineup their show is killed in the ratings by TNT, they should look no further than this simple truth: Banter is not entertaining if it is all nonsense and no substance.
Labels: Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, New York Knicks, Nickeil Alexaner-Walker, Rudy Gobert
posted by David Friedman @ 10:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home