Friday, May 17, 2013

The Scott Brooks Problem (Again)

61412_Brooks

At RealGM, a look at how Oklahoma City's coach continues to cost them:
On Wednesday, as the Oklahoma City Thunder were knocked out of the playoffs, the Miami Heat moved on to their third consecutive Eastern Conference Finals. Russell Westbrook’s season-ending injury dramatically weakened Oklahoma City, but Miami did a far better job without Chris Bosh, their second most-important player, when he missed 10 playoff games last year. While the situations aren’t identical, the Heat are ultimately the measuring stick by which the Thunder should be judged. In that respect, Scott Brooks comes up woefully short in comparison to Erik Spoelstra.

Spoelstra, operating in the shadow of Pat Riley and LeBron James, has done an excellent job since losing to Dallas in the 2011 NBA Finals. Not only has he managed the egos of the Big Three, he hasn’t been afraid to alter his team’s identity in order to find the right mix. In contrast, Brooks has pounded square pegs into round holes for years, refusing to make the adjustments necessary to win a playoff series against an evenly matched team. To understand how poor a job Brooks has done in Oklahoma City recently, let’s imagine what he would have done in Spoelstra’s shoes. 
Of course, even if Brooks had been as flexible as Spoelstra, the Thunder might not have gone further in any of the last three years. A coach can only do so much; in a seven-game series, the best team almost always wins. The real concern isn’t that Oklahoma City lost to Dallas, Miami and Memphis in the last three years, but how they’ve done so. They were knocked out 4-1 all three times. That tells you the coaching staff isn’t having success making adjustments against a better opponent, probably because Brooks never makes any. When you’re down 3-1, why not alter your starting lineup? What do you have to lose?

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Myth Of The Closer

 photo mariano_rivera_zpsbdf6f8cd.jpg

At RealGM, a look at why the last few minutes of a game are overvalued by fans:
A friend once asked me to explain the point of watching an NBA game in its entirety. After all, he said, games are usually decided in the last five minutes. I told him that when you have a large sum of money on the line, every possession is important. Everyone remembers the final five minutes, but they aren’t always the most decisive stretch of a game, even if it goes down to the wire. In a long playoff series, as two teams begin to know each other in and out, every five minute stretch is important. A playoff game can be lost at the start of the first quarter as easily as it can at the end of the fourth.

In the regular season, coaches think long-term, not short-term. They get their best players rest and keep their rotation as stable as possible, in order for everyone on the roster to get comfortable with their roles. An 82-game season is a marathon, not a sprint; it’s more important to be consistent from Game 30-60 than it is to win Game 45. That dynamic changes in the playoffs, as every coach starts to act like Tom Thibodeau and manage games solely for the present, not the future. They shorten their rotation and play the match-up game, trying to create an edge on a possession-by-possession basis.

Nevertheless, the last few minutes have an outsized hold on our collective memories. We remember the most notable moments of a series, condensing hours of action into a few “decisive” seconds. We remember Michael Jordan’s shot in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, not the shots he hit in the first 47 minutes. Jordan had a 28.1 career playoff PER while playing 42 minutes a night. He was great not because he hit the big shot, but because he hit all of the little ones. Over the course of his NBA career, he missed 26 game-winning shots. There are no guarantees in the final moments, even with the greatest closer in basketball history.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Andrew Bogut Unchained

 photo AndrewBogutGoldenStateWarriorsvSanAntonio4FlhYM2Vzc3l_zps0558c77c.jpg

At RealGM, a look at how the suddenly healthy center has changed everything for the Warriors:
With a 100-91 victory over the San Antonio Spurs in Game 2, the Golden State Warriors remained undefeated (8-0) against the spread in the playoffs. They’ve been underrated by everyone -- fans, media and the oddsmakers -- because they aren’t the same team that went 47-35 in the regular season. Without David Lee, they’ve completely changed their identity, going from playing two traditional big men to spreading the floor with four perimeter players. Lee’s absence has also magnified the importance of Andrew Bogut, who has been an essential part of their postseason success after playing in only 32 regular season games. 
Over the last two weeks, Bogut has been as healthy as he’s been in years. As a result, he’s started to show the form that made him the No. 1 overall pick in the 2005 draft, selected ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams. At 7’0, 260 with a 7’3 wingspan, Bogut is one of the biggest and most physical players in the NBA. Just as important, he has a great feel for the game for a player his size. Bogut is one of the rare centers who can be a difference maker on both sides of the ball. If he can stay healthy, he changes the outlook for the Warriors not only for this season, but far into the future. 
Lee’s injury in Game 1 of their first round series against the Nuggets changed everything. Rather than trying to replace his team’s only All-Star, Mark Jackson rolled the dice on a four-out system that left the mammoth Australian as the only big man on the floor. All of a sudden, everything clicked. Bogut’s rebounding prowess and defensive savvy made up for Golden State’s lack of size while the increased amount of space on offense made the Warriors perimeter players nearly unguardable, especially coming off screens from a 7’0, 260 center who knew how to push the bounds of legality.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Nerlens Noel, Alex Len And Evaluating Centers

 photo 73248163_zpsa185bef6.jpg

At SB Nation, a look at why the pre-draft consensus about the top two centers is wrong:
Len (7'1, 255 pounds) will be one of the biggest centers in the NBA, while Noel (6'10, 230 pounds) will be one of the smallest. There's no position in the NBA where size is more important than center, since they spend so much time locked in wrestling matches for position in the paint. At least initially, Noel will have a difficult time dealing with the size of guys like Marc Gasol (7'1, 265 pounds), Roy Hibbert (7'2, 280 pounds) and Dwight Howard (6'11, 265 pounds). Even someone like Chris Kaman (7'0, 265 pounds) will be able to bulldoze him on the block fairly easily. 
Len is far more advanced offensively than Noel. Noel is fairly mechanical on the low block and wasn't much of a post-up threat in college. It takes size and skill to score with your back to the basket; at the NBA level, Noel will be lacking in both. Len is far from a finished product, but he's got a much better feel for playing with his back to the basket. At his size, all he needs to be a consistent post threat is a drop step and a face-up jumper, things he showed flashes of this season. Shooting 69 percent from the free throw line as a sophomore indicates the form is there. 
All that said, Noel is still an impressive prospect. He's a lottery talent with a rare combination of length (7'4 wingspan), athleticism and motor. At the very least, he will have a long and effective career as a rebounding and shot-blocking specialist. And with the NBA moving away from back-to-the-basket play, his lack of bulk might not be that big of an issue as his career progresses. Noel's ceiling is probably somewhere near Sanders, whose turned himself into an elite interior defender at 6'11 and 235 pounds. The difference is that Len's ceiling, as a two-way 7'1 250-plus-pound center, is closer to Gasol and a healthy Andrew Bogut.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Pacers, Grizzles And Goliath's Revenge

 photo 0122_MASP_griz_tue4_t607_zpsacb08499.jpg

At RealGM, a look at how the Grizzlies and Pacers have found success by staying big rather than going small:
With injuries to Russell Westbrook and Derrick Rose dramatically weakening two of their biggest challengers, there aren’t many obstacles left in the path of the Miami Heat. After a methodical sweep of the Milwaukee Bucks in the first round, their playoff record is now 26-7 with the Big Three in the starting line-up. In a league becoming more perimeter-oriented, the Heat have the ultimate small-ball frontcourt, with Chris Bosh and Shane Battier spacing the floor for LeBron James. You can’t defeat Miami by playing their game, which is why the massive front-lines of the Indiana Pacers and Memphis Grizzlies are the biggest threat to the NBA’s newest dynasty.

While most of the league zigged, the Pacers and Grizzlies zagged. Instead of moving towards a four-out offense that spaces the floor for pick-and-rolls and dribble penetration, they run their offense through two skilled big men in the post. As a result, they have remarkably similar rosters and styles of play. They prefer to operate in the halfcourt, pounding the ball inside and grinding out possessions defensively. Even more intriguingly, they both face a challenge in the second round that could prepare them for the Heat: a clash of styles against the second (Kevin Durant) and third (Carmelo Anthony) best small-ball 4’s in the NBA. 
A generation ago, most front-lines looked like Zach Randolph/Marc Gasol and David West/Roy Hibbert. Randolph (6’9 260) and West (6’9 250) are two of the toughest power forwards in the NBA, old school players who can brutalize smaller defenders on the block as well as step out and knock down a 15-foot jumper. Gasol (7’1 265) and Hibbert (7’2 280) are two of the league’s biggest centers, defensive anchors who can control the area around the rim and protect it at an elite level. While none of the four have three-point range, they know how to play off each other and create space while operating in the narrow confines of the paint.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Jason Collins, The Basketball Player

 photo jason-collins-blog_zpsa00c8edc.jpg

At RealGM, a look at why Jason Collins' career might be over, regardless of his sexuality:
Jason Collins made history this week, when he became the first active player in one of the four major North American sports leagues to announce his status as gay. A 7’0, 255 center built to win wrestling matches on the low block, Collins has carved out a 12-year career as a defensive specialist for six different teams. Before his announcement, he was known mostly for his stint with the New Jersey Nets, where he was the starting center on NBA Finals teams in 2002 and 2003. Now, at 34, he’s at the tail end of his career, with a 3.0 PER in 38 games for the Celtics and Wizards during the 12-13 season. 
After playing on a one-year contract for the veteran minimum last season, Collins will be the most discussed third-string center in the history of free agency this summer. A decade ago, a player with his skill-set wouldn’t have found much trouble staying in the NBA, as every team needed more size and experience on the low block. However, with the modern game becoming more perimeter-oriented, lumbering centers have become an endangered species. As a result, there’s a good chance Collins’ NBA career is over, not because of his sexuality, but because his job description is obsolete.  
That’s where the problem comes for Collins: he’s a defensive specialist, except the players he’s supposed to defend no longer exist. When President Barack Obama talked about him to reporters, he said that Collins “had the strength to bang with Shaq”. Unfortunately for Collins, Shaquille O'Neal has long since taken his “comedy” act to TNT. In his prime, Shaq was such a dominant player that teams were forced to keep massive defensive specialists on hand just to give him six fouls. Collins averaged five fouls a game in the 2002 Finals. Shaq, in every sense of the word, was a job creator.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Patrick Beverley's Path To The NBA

 photo 04272013_patrick_beverley_zpscf2eaf60.jpg

At RealGM, a look at how Beverley became the new face of European free agents:
Like Dahntay Jones before him, Patrick Beverley became a household name for all the wrong reasons this season. Unfortunately, his role in knocking Russell Westbrook out of the playoffs overshadowed his breakout performance over the last week. Six months ago, he was playing in Europe, a second round pick who had been unable to crack an NBA roster. Now, at the age of 24, he’s a key member of a playoff team. When the Houston Rockets went small and inserted him into the starting lineup before Game 2, it changed the dynamic of their first-round series with the Thunder.

They still might be swept, but Beverley’s emergence is why any playoff series is valuable for a young team. In the playoffs, the cream rises. Jeremy Lin, in contrast, has struggled to stay on the floor, even before his chest injury. Beverley is a far better fit with Harden in the backcourt, and when adjusted for minutes played, their regular season stats were fairly similar. He could be the Rockets' point guard of the future, a tremendous coup considering how they acquired him. He’s the new poster boy for the benefits of mining Europe for talent as well as a walking embarrassment for every point guard-hungry team in the league.

Any team in the NBA could have had him at the start of the season, but only the Rockets pulled the trigger. Beverley is one of 20 different players they’ve used, as they’ve churned the bottom of their roster to find the right pieces around Harden. It’s a credit to both Daryl Morey, who has left no stone unturned to find talent, and Kevin McHale, whose been uncommonly willing to give unknowns a chance. McHale is the rare coach who will play rookies, D-League players and European free agents. He’s running a legitimate meritocracy in Houston, as opposed to the tenure-system used by many.