Orlando Woolridge died today at 52

About 20 years ago, I somehow got involved in a full court 4 on 4 game at LA Valley JC in Van Nuys.  Normal type pick-up game, nobody too great. 

However, working out in the gym at the same time was Orlando and another NBA guy -- my memory it was Otis Thorpe.  One of our group asked Orlando and Otis if they wanted to make our game 5 on 5, and surprisingly they said they would.  It was one of those good days where I happened to be shooting pretty well.  After the first game, Orlando pulled me aside and said that he would do all he could to get me shots    -- ball screens for me, or whenever he was doubled.  He said everyone would be so worried about him that if I moved around he would get me plenty of shots.  He said "you just keep shooting and we will wipe them out".   That is exactly what happened.  He kept getting me shots, I (luckily) kept making them, and we wiped them out.  He was so excited when his plan worked, and had this big smile each time we won another game.  

I never saw him in that gym again -- next time I saw him he was probably wearing number "0' for the Lakers and throwing down great dunks.  Needless to say, I always rooted for him.  I am sorry to see that he struggled after his career was over, but I will always remember this bigger than life NBA guy high fiving me as we went back on D after he kicked the ball out of a double team and I did what he had suggested.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-la-exlaker-orlando-woolridge-dies-from-chronic-heart-condition-20120601,0,4221178.story

U-S-A, U-S-A

Basketball is one of only three real sports invented in the USA.  The other two are volleyball and lacrosse.  (There is also some sport called Team Handball they play in the Olympics, but it is a weird combination of soccer and basketball that no one actually plays other than in high school P.E. classes when it is raining outside.) 

The best team in the National Basketball Association at the moment starts only two players born in the USA.  One of the USA starters is Danny Green, recently cut by the woeful Cleveland Cavaliers.  Green is the first one subbed out in every game, by my man Manu, who was born in Argentina and starred in the Italian pro league before getting picked in the second round by the Spurs about a decade ago.  Three starters are non-USA born -- Timmy Duncan (Virgin Islands), Tony Parker and Boris Diaw (both France -- Diaw was picked up after being cut by the even more woeful Charlotte Bobcats).  The Spurs back-up big man Tiaggo Splitter is from Brazil. End of the bench back-up point guard Patty Mills is from Australia. (A good argument can also be made that back-up small forward Stephen Jackson, picked up from the woeful Golden State Warriors, is from Mars.)  The majority of the Spurs top players are foreigners living in the city recently cited for having the worst weather in the county. 

Coincidentally or not, last night while they were showing the arena from the aerial blimp, the announcer informed us that the 7 p.m. temperature in San Antonio was a muggy 91 degrees.  Yikes.

Poor Nick Collison.  He went to Kansas to play college ball, and then was picked by the Seattle Supersonics.  He got to live in the one of the most beautiful big cities in the country for five years, a place much better than Kansas.  The team then moved to Oklahoma, a place not better than Kansas. 

I feel terribly for the Supersonic fans who had their team plucked away from them just as the team was getting good -- but the fans didn't have to move out of Seattle. (I do wonder if they root for the Zombie Sonics.) Collison, who was surely thrilled to escape Kansas five years earlier, had to leave to go back to a place as bad as where he left. 

As great as it would be to be a pro athlete, it is one profession that you don't have much choice as to where you live.  It is as if the top students from the top law schools in the country were, upon graduation, assigned to law firms around the county -- and the worst firms got the top picks.  Congratulations, you were No. 1 in your class at Stanford -- you have been selected by a personal injury firm in Kansas City!

Speaking of bad choices of where to live -- in the article about the Clippers deciding to extend coach Vinny Del Negro's contract for one more year, they mentioned that Vinny lives in Phoenix during the off-season.  Does he not know that the basketball off-season is during the summer?  Who chooses to live in Phoenix during the summer?  That fact alone would have caused me to fire the guy.

Other thoughts about Spurs - OKC:

1. Watching last night's game, you would think that the Spurs were on fire from three.  Actually, they went 11 for 26 -- 42%.  For the entire season, they shot 41% from the three point line.  They weren't hot last night -- this is just what they do. (Laker note -- the Lakers didn't have one player who shot as well as the entire Spur team shot from the three point line.)

2. The Spurs pick and roll with Parker and Ginobili constantly.  What they do differently than other teams involves the screener.  The screener often stays high to screen a second or third time, and when he rolls, he is looking to catch and pass, not shoot.  The screener rolls for two steps, knows there will be help coming, stops and immediately kicks it to one corner or the other to a shooter.  You know, one of those guys who shot 41% for the season. I am sure Spurs big men practice doing that 20-30 times every practice, which is why it looks so seamless.  (That play also explains why Parker had "only" 8 assists last night, and his assist numbers are often lower than other elite point guards. Many of his assists are "hockey assists" in which his pass leads to another pass which leads to the hoop.)

3. From super-broker and all around good guy Corey Spound:

"Watching San Antonio tonight was stupefying.  What an astounding performance.  I mean, the intelligence and movement by every player, the whole game, is so impressive.  And then being able to deliver on all that great coaching by hitting the 3’s and the back-door drives to the hoop is the other part of the spectacle."

Other than being a perfect summary, Corey also wins the award for best use of the word "stupefying".

4.  From J.A. Adande at ESPN: 

"In many ways Game 2 was an optimal game for the Thunder. Oklahoma City coach Scott Brooks had plenty of good things to say about his team afterward. Their big three of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden went off. They turned the ball over only 10 times. They made 47 percent of their 3-point shots. They grabbed 16 offensive rebounds. They extracted 36 free throws from a Spurs team that makes a point of not fouling.

And the Thunder never had a shot -- as in one shot that could have tied the game or given them the lead during the final 35½ minutes of the game. The best they could do was cut a Spurs lead that was 22 points in the third quarter down to six points in the fourth."

What he didn't say was that the Thunder defense was pretty terrible, and their bench and non-big 3 was fairly non-productive.  The non-big 3 was Laker bench-like, shooting an astounding 11 for 34 from the field.  One problem is the Thunder non-big 3 players include several non-scorers (Perkins, Collison, Sefalosha, and last night DFish, who went 2 for 11).  The other problem is that other than DFish, who decided he was Allen Iverson and shot every time he touched it, none of the other Thunder non-stars wants to shoot -- or even expects to get the ball in a place to shoot it.  Because the Thunder offense revolves around their wonderfully talented big 3 creating their own shot, the other players wind up being spectators, with a pass going to them as the last option, not the first. (Sounds a bit like the Lakers offense at various times.)  Contrast that with the other team playing in this series...

5.  OK, that other team is the Spurs.  As noted in a prior fake blog, the Spurs non-big 3 are not only allowed to shoot, they areexpected to do so when the right shot is there.  In some ways, these Spurs are like the 2001 Laker team.  The "non-stars" like DFish, Horry, BShaw and Rick Fox knew they were getting the ball and had no hesitation in shooting the ball at the right time.  And while the triangle never had as much player and ball movement as this Spurs team, it did require constant movement of ball and players.  That Lakers team had a pretty good coach too.

6. OKC's Hack-a-Shaq on Splitter may have changed the momentum, and since the Spurs were scoring virtually every time down when the Thunder went to it, it may have even been good statistically.  However, fouling like that takes away any chance of a fast break off a rebound or a steal.  When OKC was fouling on every play, they were forcing themselves into a half-court game offensively, which is where the Spurs defend the best, and the Thunder struggles. The Thunder comeback in the 4th quarter was after they stopped fouling and were able to get out and run.

From a fan's standpoint, the Hack-a-Splitter broke up the best stretch of offensive basketball many of us have ever witnessed.  When Manu completed that stretch in the third quarter by flipping the ball behind his back to Parker in the corner, who of course drilled the 3, leading to a time out by the Thunder, it was like the end of a great book, song, or movie -- you know you had just witnessed something great, and wanted it to go on and on.

7.  Were the Spurs "lucky" to win the first two games?  In Game One, they came from 9 down in the fourth to beat a very good OKC team.  Yes, the Spurs played well to do so, but to come back from that big a deficit in the fourth against a good team requires some good breaks. 

Last night, they won with Tony Parker shooting 16 for 21, which is 76%.  Very few were lay-ups -- almost all long jumpers.  His shooting percentage for the season was 47% -- which would translate into 10 for 21.  Six less hoops would have been twelve less points -- and possibly a different outcome 

I would not be surprised if the Thunder win a game or two in OKC.  Who would be surprised?  The Spurs.  They don't expect to lose to anyone.

Ebony and Ivory

Whenever a new player comes in the League, people want to compare him to previous players.  Kobe was the last of the guys people seriously compared to Michael Jordan.  Traditionally, these comparisons had a racial component -- black players were compared to previous black players, white players to white players.  All the MJ comparison players were black -- Vince Carter, Harold Miner, Kobe.  Any white forward who could shoot was compared to Larry Bird -- including most laughably, Adam Morrison.  Young white point guards are compared to Steve Nash.

In the upcoming NBA Finals between OKC and San Antonio (officially known as the Western Conference Finals), we have two players who break the tradition.  OKC's outstanding young off-guard is James Harden

-- and his game is a spitting image of my man Manu Ginobili's.  Both players are left-handed, attack the rim with abandon, comfortably step back to shoot the three, and are such good passers that they often play point guard when the All-Star point guard on the team is out of the game.  Amazingly, despite their talents, neither Harden nor Ginobili start -- which is why both have won Sixth Man of the Year.  The only real difference in their games is that Ginobili has not been brutally elbowed in the head by Metta World Peace.  If he had been, even Ginobili would not have needed to flop.  In a series of great match-ups, including the one between those All-Star point guards, the match-up between Ginobili (my favorite Spur) and Harden (Ginobili 2.0) may be the most fascinating.  I am rooting for the original.

Other thoughts:

1.  As you all know by now, I love looking at box scores.  You can learn a lot from them.  I remember one game I played in where I went something like 3 for 11 from three, but I made 2 long ones near the end of the game.  After the game, the guy covering me said "man, you were on fire out there".  That happens a lot -- it feels like a player had a good game because our memory is selective.  The box score is not.  The box score from the final Laker game is very instructive. Look at the similarity of these key stats: 

Lakers shot 45.3%, OKC 46.7.  Lakers 2-11 from 3, OKC 3-13.  Lakers 20-26 from the line, OKC 19-25. Lakers 6 steals, OKC 7.  Both teams 6 blocks.  Lakers 12 turnovers, OKC 11.  Lakers 24 fouls, OKC 22. 

Looking at those stats, you would assume a down to the wire thriller.  Anybody notice the "missing stat"?  The missing stat is the one I pointed to in my first fake blog two weeks ago:  Offensive rebounds.  The Lakers, the best offensive rebounding team in the league during the regular season got THREE for the entire game, on 41 missed shots.  I said that anything below 20% is bad -- the Lakers were at 7%.  OKC got 14 on 48 misses, about 30%.  Decent percentage, not great -- but a hell of a lot better than 3 for 41.  14 to 3 means 11 extra possessions, which for a team shooting 46.7% means about 11 extra points.  OKC won by 16 (the difference largely attributable to the terrible Flagrant Foul and ensuing two techs at the end of the first half).  For the curious, here is the box score:  http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=320521025

2.  The Spurs led the league in offensive efficiency, field goal percentage, and 3-point percentage.  They did it with a team constructed completely the opposite of OKC.  OKC's best three players were very high draft choices -- Durant the second pick in the draft after Portland disastrously picked Greg Oden instead.  Westbrook and Harden were top-five picks.  In contrast, since the Spurs picked Duncan number one all those years ago, they have not had a SINGLE PICK IN THE TOP 20 OF ANY DRAFT.  I have long believed that the key to building a great team was not necessarily the top picks, which are often no-brainers, but the scrap heap guys.  These are the guys that everyone had a shot at, and passed on, but the good teams find.  Future hall-of-famer Ginobili -- a second round pick.  Future hall-of-famer Tony Parker -- 22nd pick in the first round.  Key Spur Gary Neal, out of mighty Towson State (Baltimore, in case you are wondering), undrafted, picked up out of European league.  Starting 2-guard Danny Green, let go by Cleveland, played more games in the D-League last year than the NBA. 

Though back-up forward Matt Bonner is a  good shooter -- and therefore must henceforth be referred to as a red-haired Larry Bird clone.

3. How are the Spurs so good?  Watch their shot selection.  They move the ball extremely well, they move their offensive players extremely well (watch how many times a screen comes from an odd angle or seals a defender in the paint and a guy finds himself open as a result), At the end of that movement, they rarely take a bad shot.  The converse of this is that they rarely pass up a good shot.  Everyone on the team is empowered to take a shot that is in their range, and because they are free to do so, they shoot it well and with confidence.  Taking good shots, and avoiding bad ones.  Simple basketball.  That is why when Popovich was asked how much of what he learned coaching Division 3 Pomona Pitzer translated to the NBA, he looked at the questioner with annoyance and said: "All of it."

Go Spurs.

Comebacks are always described as "thrilling"

Comebacks are always described as "thrilling" -- and for Laker fans, they traditionally have been.  The first Kobe-Shaq championship was triggered by an epic and thrilling 4th quarter, Game 7 comeback against a powerful Trailblazer team.  The Lakers' latest championship happened because they made a thrilling 4th quarter, Game 7 comeback against the hated Celtics.  Countless other times over the last decade, Laker fans enjoyed comebacks punctuated by Robert Horry 3s, DFish's 0.4s, Pao tip-ins, and Kobe theatrics -- all of which were thrilling. 

We learned this past week that being on the wrong side of a comeback is anything but thrilling. 

Laker fans have been spoiled -- when the Lakers have lost in the past decade, they have gotten blown out.  Suns in Game 7, Celtics in Game 6 in Boston, Dallas last year.  While those were humiliating and embarrassing, they were not devastating or heart-breaking.  Nothing is as bad as having the win in hand, thinking "we about to win the series", "we are about to take home-court advantage", "we are about to even the series" -- and then blowing the big lead, every player blaming himself for that one play -- the missed free throw, the turnover, the brick, and every fan knowing they jinxed the team by having those "what we will do when we win" thoughts too soon.  To all of you Celtics, Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Kings fans who have been on the wrong side of Laker comebacks:  I feel your pain. 

On second thought, strike the reference to any sympathy to Celtics fans --  you deserve all you get.  See, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fySp51bhsQ

Other thoughts:

1.  We were all wrong.  We thought the Lakers couldn't beat the Thunder.  These comeback losses are so painful because the Lakers looked like they were equal to, if not better than, the Thunder.  The Game 3 win was obviously fluky -- no team should be able to shoot 98% or whatever from the free throw line like the Lakers did.  And why wasn't the headline the next day "Charity Begins at Home"?  (You know, the "charity stripe").  Even with that, and tossing out Game 1 because of the rested young team against the tired older team, the Lakers out-played the Thunder in the two they lost, and played them even in the Charity Stripe game.  And no one predicted that.

2.  Unlike the Spurs - Clips theory, where someone (me) predicted a sweep (correctly).  Even last night, when the Spurs didn't play that well, they wound up shooting 53% from the floor and 40% from 3, and now get to rest.

3.  Speaking of predictions, Lebron predicted 6 titles for the Heat.  Yesterday, they were down at halftime, on the road, in danger of going down 3 - 1, which would have likely meant going 0 for 2 on crowns since Lebron took his talents to South Beach.  Instead, a thrilling/devastating comeback.  Think about how good a game Lebron had -- 40 points, 18 boards and 9 assists.  The 9 assists amazes because other than DWade, the guys he passes to aren't good enough to score.  Other than the Big Two, the Heat went 11 for 30.  Lebron and DWade combined for 15 assists -- the rest of the team had only 11 BASKETS for the entire game.  As a statistician may say, that is not sustainable.  Luckily for the Heat, they are in the Leastern Conference, with their main threat (the Bulls) gone.

4. In coaching parlance, the Lakers' fourth quarter offense continues to "suck" and the "suckiness" increases as the time diminishes in the quarter.  They do nothing.  They run no plays.  They do not move.  And because they do not move, they do not make shots, and when they miss, they do not get offensive boards:  It is easy for the defender to block out his man when that man has just stood there watching Kobe for the last five or ten seconds.  Even if Mike Brown has decided that the best offense is Kobe going one on one, he should have the other guys moving around and screening for each other, so that the defenders have to worry about getting screened and one of the Lakers just might have a chance to be inside his man and tip in the miss.  And if Kobe decides to pass it, the player will be engaged enough to do the right thing with the ball.  Unlike Gasol's terrible pass. (Even with everything else, Lakers are likely up 3-1 or tied 2-2 if their two best players hadn't thrown two of the worst passes ever.)  Damn, it is frustrating to watch.  (And it is not all Kobe's fault -- Brown ran the same 4th quarter offense with Lebron in Cleveland.)  Watch the Spurs.  Everyone moves, everyone is a threat, everyone is looking to set a screen and free a teammate, and everyone is fully engaged.  Perhaps Pop is a better coach than Mike Brown.

5.  Continuing the rant.  Durant and Westbrook generally did not cover Kobe in the 4th quarter.  That meant that while Kobe was using all that energy trying to score, Durant and Westbrook were resting.  Anyone else think that the ability to rest on D might have been part of the explanation for their ability to make shots down the stretch?

6.  Why did the Lakers-Thunder have to play back-to-back Friday and Saturday? That may partially explain the Lakers running out of gas the last 6 minutes on Saturday.  The explanation given by the NBA was that because the Lakers - Denver went 7 games, this series had to be squeezed into less days.  Riddle me this Batman -- how does that explanation comport with the fact that Lakers - Thunder Game 6 is scheduled for Wednesday, with Game 7 scheduled for Sunday, with three full days off between Game 6 and 7, and no games anywhere set for Friday night?

7.  Laker fans have been spoiled in another way.  Since 2000, Lakers have won about half the championships.  The Spurs won most of the others.  In each of the those years, every other team has lost its last game.  Everyone except the champion cries in the locker room at the end of the last game.  (March Madness may be worse -- 63 of the 64 teams lose their last game, and for many players, it is the last meaningful game they will ever play.)  In this way, sports is like life -- no one gets out alive.

Though in sports, that one winning team gets its own version of immortality.  Kind of like this moment (just so the Kings fans know I haven't forgotten them)  --  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZYtHvy19n4

Pain and Double Jeopardy

When I was coaching at Claremont McKenna, I always wanted to have a 1 or 2 point victory very early in the season.  After the game, I would ask the team who made the game winning shot, and they would always name the player who made the last shot.  In fact, it was each player who made a shot or a free throw during the game.  It was also each player who got a key rebound, or prevented the other team from making a basket.  This was something I learned in college -- my senior year, first game, we beat Susquehanna 81-79, and had the grand total of 2 points.  I made the winning basket (sometime in the first half).  Unlike the game show Jeopardy, where the stakes double in the second half, that first half basket counted just as much as if I had made it in the second half -- or at the buzzer.

Last night, the Lakers had one of the more painful losses I can remember.  If they had won that game, they go back to Staples with a legitimate chance to win the series, especially if they win Game 3.  Everyone is focusing on (1) Kobe's terrible turnover to Durant with 2 minutes left that led to a dunk. reduced the lead to 3, and clearly changed the momentum and (2) the missed last shot by Steve Blake.  While those were clearly important, what frustrated me was the numerous times the Lakers either had a shot clock violation or were forced to take a terrible shot because the 24 second clock was about to expire.  The Lakers seemed unable or unwilling to flow into their offense smoothly and early such that they were not bumping against the shot clock.  Its one thing to want to slow the game down, its quite another to not be able to run an offense to get a good shot.  And from the lesson above, each one of those shot clock violations cost the Lakers the game.  Other points:

1.  Blake:  I had absolutely no problem with Metta passing the ball to Blake or Blake shooting the shot -- other than it didn't go in.  Lakers had burned their final time out, and needed to get the ball in-bounds and shot.  A fairly open 3 in that situation is better than the Lakers' normal strategy of hoping Kobe makes one of his hero shots -- if they can even get him the ball.  On the replay, it is obvious that Kobe was NOT getting open.  My only criticism was the play call.  After being unable to enter directly to Kobe before the burning of the time-out, they went back to a play that again required the in-bounds pass to go to Kobe.  Why not release Bynum or Pao to the ball at the top of the key, and let Kobe take a hand-ff if they really wanted him to take the last shot?  Even better, let Pao catch the ball, fake the handoff (everyone would follow Kobe) and attack the rim himself. 

Of course, the irony of Blake taking the shot was that the Lakers' second choice to take that shot was wearing a Thunder jersey with number 37 on it. jersey.

2. Some wise pundit earlier wrote that Ibaka is one of the best shot blockers in the league for this decade.  Last night he blocked 7 (!).  If you do the math, that is a lot.

3.  Lakers shot 2 - 15 from three, including some good looks.  As Stu Lantz would say -- that does not get it done.  If they go 3 - 15, they win, and the extra one didn't need to be Blake's at the end.

4. Since I talked about rebounding stats last time, I note them here.  Thunder got only 6 offensive boards on 40 misses, well less than 20%.  Lakers had 11 offensive boards on 48 misses, well less than 25%.  Since the Lakers rely on offensive boards more than the Thunder, essentially a wash.

5. I read recently that studies show that playoff experience for the players in a game is an overrated factor.  Instead, the more important factor is the coach's playoff experience.  Kobe's playoff experience certainly didn't help him in those dreadful last 2 minutes.  And could Brown's lack of playoff experience, and in particular his lack of playoff experience with this team explain the Lakers inability to get a good look in those last two minutes?  While Brown deserves much credit for making between game adjustments that put the Lakers in a position to win, I think it is a fair question to ask.

6.  Another study I read is that these painful losses generally do not carry over to the next game.  The Lakers may have found a way to beat this team.  The problem is that they are now forced to beat them five times -- last night's game which was all but won, and now four more times, including at least once in OKC.  Don't bet on it.  Instead, look forward to an outstanding Western Conference Finals between the Spurs and Thunder -- the winner will likely be this year's NBA champs.  I will continue to root for the Lakers for as long as they are alive, but will not get my hopes up -- at least until and unless they win Game 3 when Blake's shot goes in or Pao tips it in at the buzzer.

NBA Playoffs Blog revisited

Actually, this is not a blog -- it is a group email.  I wouldn't know how to do a "blog" -- would I have to open a Tweeter account or something?

Some of you have asked about why I haven't yet sent around my comments about the NBA playoffs as I have in years past.  I assume those of you who have not asked either (a) remembered that I only comment on a game by game basis for the Finals, or (b) forgot I did this at all.  In either instance, here is Comment One, focused on the two LA teams who survived round one, and especially focused on the Lakers, since I am fairly indifferent to the Clippers.  Because it is my first one for these playoffs, don't expect me to be at full speed, either in quality or humor -- just getting warmed up.

For those of you new to the fake blog, my goal is to comment on what the commentators have not.  This blog largely grew out of frustration from listening to the "analysts" who miss or fail to mention what I see as fairly important stuff which I notice while watching the game.  For instance, people talked about the Nuggets being the highest scoring team in the league, ignoring the fact that points per game is a misleading stat.  The important stat is the Most Efficient scoring team, which is defined by points per possession.  The Nuggets play fast, which mean they score, and give up, a lot of points.  But as shown by the Laker series, the Nuggets don't have the best offense.  (Army used to lead the NCAA in "defense" every year because their offense was so damn slow, teams would only score in the 50s against them.)  The Spurs and Thunder play fast and efficiently, which means they maximize their scoring opportunities, which (after all) is the goal of having the ball.

Similarly, which team out-rebounds the other doesn't tell you much.  The important stat is the percentage of your own missed shots you get back -- or the percentage of their missed shots the other team does.  Since most teams get the majority of the other team's misses as rebounds, total rebounds normally recognizes quality of the defense (or how badly the other team shot), not how well either team rebounded in that game.  All else being equal, the team with the higher shooting percentage shouldout-rebound the other team -- the other team had fewer opportunities to get the easier defensive rebounds.  So,  I don't look at total rebounds -- I look at the percentage of offensive rebounds per missed shots.  A team which missed 50 shots and gets 20 offensive rebounds has done a great job on the offensive glass.  A team that forces 50 missed shots and gives up only 10 offensive rebounds did a great job on the defensive glass.  The "over-under" on the good job/bad job line is below 25% and above 33% --  if you hold the other team below 25% of offensive boards, or get more than 33% of your misses back, that is a good job.  (Between those numbers means the rebound numbers aren't that significant in determining winning and losing -- something else was probably decisive.)

1.  The last paragraph flows directly into the analysis of the Laker Nugget Game 7.  Putting a "glass half full" spin on it, both teams did a great job of offensive rebounding.  Remarkably, both teams shot an identical 35 for 89 for the floor, meaning there were 54 misses "available" for each team to rebound.  The Nuggets got 23 offensive rebounds, the Lakers 24 -- both well over 40%.  When a shot went up, it was almost a coin flip as to which team got it.  Very unusual for any game -- if the Lakers don't do a better job on the defensive glass against a team as efficient as OKC, they won't win.  OKC already makes a high percentage of field goal attempts and free throws, and is a better 3 point shooting team than Denver.  If the Thunder do their normal thing in shooting the ball AND retrieve a good percentage of their misses, the Lakers' offense is nowhere good enough to overcome that (i.e, the Lakers' offensive efficiency is unlikely to be higher than OKC's).

2. Something that Marv Albert and Steve Kerr barely mentioned, and the LA Times game stories didn't mention at all, was Kobe's remarkable play in the 4th quarter of Game 7.  Remarkable in two ways -- first, on defense, he shifted to covering Nuggets point guard Ty Lawson, who had been torching the Laker point guards in the Nuggets wins. Kobe essentially took Lawson out of the game in the 4th quarter.  The flip side is that Kobe was essentially passive on offense.  Virtually each time he got the ball, he barely looked at the rim, waited for the double team, and then sent the ball back to the weak side, where thankfully the other Lakers made some shots -- or tipped in the misses.  When he finally shot, the contested 3 dagger from the wing with a minute left doubled the lead from 3 to 6 and ended the game and the series.

3.  George Karl is an excellent coach -- BUT he failed to adjust to Kobe's passive persona by adjusting the double teaming strategy.   If I notice at home with 6 minutes left that Kobe, coming off an illness, is resting on offense to focus on defense, shouldn't George, or one of his assistants, notice the same thing?  George didn't, and the Nuggets continued to double Kobe even though he was not looking to score anyway.  That being said, I felt bad for George when they showed him looking up at the scoreboard with 30 seconds left and the game essentially over.  I am sure he was thinking about playing an entire season, all the hard work and travel, and coming back from 3 - 1, just to see it slip away (again).  Another long summer -- but at least he gets to spend it in Denver instead of Memphis.

4.  Clippers did the opposite of Denver -- went on the road and won a Game 7.  While each LA team series involved an essentially even match-up in team quality, my view is that neither the Clips or the Grizzlies were that good.  Too many guys on each team can't score unless it is a dunk or lay-up.  Hell, the Grizzlies made ZERO three pointers in their biggest game of the year.  The Clips went 4 - 17 from 3, less than 25%, but those 12 points were essentially the 10 point margin of victory. Other than Griffin, who has his own offensive issues, the Clippers bigs (Jordan, Martin, and Jordan) can't make a shot, and are bad free throw shooters to boot.  

5. While people say that the the playoffs are "all about defense", in fact the playoffs are "all about" scoring more points than the other team, however you do it.  Also, don't assume these are the "old" Spurs who win with defense and playing methodically on offense.  They aren't old -- and they push the ball and fire up 3s.  On offense, they do more than any other team -- player movement, screens, ball movement -- and Parker orchestrating it all. Other than Duncan and Ginobili, who are playing younger than they are, this Spurs team has a bunch of young talent and great coaching -- and that talent and coaching allowed the Spurs best players to minimize their minutes all year.  First prediction -- Clips can't outscore the Spurs, one of the best offensive teams of this century. 

6.  Can the Lakers score more than the Thunder?  Probably not.  Remarkably, even though the Thunder starting line-up includes two total non-scorers (Perkins and Sefolosha), the Thunder is the second most efficient scoring team in the league. The two scorers they have in Durant and Westbrook are exceptional, they have the best bench scorer in the game in Harden, and they make free throws at a high rate -- numbers and percentage.  The good news for the Lakers is that with Kobe and Bynum, they force the Thunder to keep Perkins and Sefolosha on the floor longer than average, in order to try to defend the Lakers' Big Two.  And with Pao, they may keep Ibaka occupied enough to keep him from swatting too many shots.  (Ibaka and McGee from Denver are two of the best shot blockers the league has seen in a while.)

7. The Lakers will likely match Kobe on Westbrook for long stretches. When Sefolosha is on the floor, the Lakers can hide Blake or Sessions on him since he won't score anyway.  Watch whether OKC goes small with Durant at the 4 -- he can't match up with either Laker big, and vice versa.  When that happens, it will be interesting to see what the Lakers do on D -- Metta will likely stay on Durant, with Pao possibly covering (or more accurately ignoring) Sefolosha.  If the Lakers go small in response, it will let Durant off the hook from having to cover a big. It would also mean taking one of the Lakers' best 3 guys off the floor -- never a recipe for success.

8.  The previous paragraph addresses one of the issues that will come up in any series.  One thing to watch is the adjustments between quarters and between games when teams do something slightly different.   How does a team react to double teaming the post, cross-matching defensive assignments, lane closures on ball reversals, going small, etc.  What works, and what doesn't, in those adjustments, often make the difference between winning and losing.  People say, probably correctly, that Phil Jackson was the best at these adjustments.  Popovich is considered his equal, or a close second.  At the end of this series, we may be able to see if Mike Brown is in the top 100. 

The Corman Outcome Theory and Game 5

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a
concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and
immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be
grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no
longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy
to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had
to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he
didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply
by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed."

-----------------

I really liked law school, for several reasons.  First, although UCLA
Law was one of the 15 or so Top Ten law schools in the country (and much
better than USC Law), it was not nearly as academically challenging as
Haverford College.  As a result, I had plenty of time to play in
basketball and softball leagues.  We had some pretty good teams in each
sport, and won both lawyer leagues and city leagues in each.  When I
wasn't multi-tasking with hoops and competitive softball (realize that
"multi-tasking" wasn't even a word then), the excess time was filled
with a Thursday night poker game.

And this was real poker, largely 7 card stud, high-low, not Texas Hold
'Em.  For those of you who have not played both, 7 card stud is to Texas
Hold 'Em as Chess is to Checkers.

Anyway, in those Thursday night games, I was introduced to the very
powerful Corman Outcome Theory, brought to the game by eminent poker
philosopher, and all around good guy, Marc Corman.  His theory is that
one can always determine what choice was proper after the hand is
completed.  If you decided to stay in the hand, and challenged what
seemed on its face to be a stronger hand, the Corman Outcome Theory
taught that whether you won or lost determines whether it was the right
choice.  The theory was both simple and elegant.  More importantly, it
allowed absolutely certainty, since its clever use of hindsight meant it
was always right.  In some ways, the Corman Outcome Theory is as
powerful as Catch-22.

Just as with the Corman Outcome Theory, the narrative of Game 5 of the
Finals, and in fact, of the entire series, has been remarkably driven by
the outcome.  This series has been seen as a referendum on The Decision
-- Lebron's choice to leave a city that had nurtured him for the siren
song of South Beach.  Since most of America didn't like either The
Decision itself, or how it was handled, most of America (including
Democrats) roots for a team from Texas owned by Mark Cuban whose best
player is from Germany.

Because the Heat lost Game 5, Lebron's performance in Game 5 has been
highly criticized -- even though the Heat lost for a reason largely out
of Lebron's control.  When I was coaching at Claremont in the early
90's, one of our really good teams (I think we went 22 - 7 for the
season), went to league rival Redlands and got smoked by about 10
points.  Checking the stats after the game, we learned that Redlands had
gone 18 for 25 from 3.  That is essentially equivalent to 108% from 2.
You know what?  We were not winning that game.  If Redlands had instead
gone 13 for 25, still an incredible over 50% from  3, we would have won
by 5.  If they had gone 10 for 25, a very good 40%, we would have won by
14.  How does this relate to Game 5?  The Mavs went 13 for 19 from 3 --
the equivalent of shooting over 100% from the field.  For those of you
who watched the game, you may remember at least 4 3s from Dallas that
were total prayers.  Two from Terry, including the dagger with 33
seconds left, the other a one hand just-beat-the-shot-clock heave over
Mike Miller.  Also one from Dirk that was a total moon shot to the
ceiling and back like something from The Earth to the Moon by HG Wells.
And a similar shot from little Hey Whey, who after missing all his 3s
since the Laker series ended, went 4 for 5 from 3.  He must have dreamed
Steve Blake was covering him.  All four prayers answered, nothing but
net.

The outcome drives the narrative.  If those shots don't go, the Heat
wins.  If the Heat had won, the narrative would have been about Lebron's
maturity and all around game.  The narrative would have been that
despite all the pundits' predictions that the Heat could not win without
Lebron scoring 30, he knew that his best skill, for all his physical
skills, is his court vision and passing skills -- which led to his 10
assists even though, other than D Wade, the guys he is passing to just
aren't that good. The narrative would have been Lebron's recognition, in
spite of all the criticism, that the Heat needed his all-around game
more than just scoring, and Lebron was right.

One advantage of taping the game is that I have now watched the 4th
quarter twice.  Lebron took only 2 shots, a missed 18 footer, and a
missed 3 late.  But he didn't pass up any shots that he should have
taken, and virtually every time he attacked the rim, he was doubled --
and made the right pass every time.  Also remember that Spoelstra had
him play point guard for the entire quarter, so that he often was
assigned the job of bringing the ball up against pressure, getting the
ball to D Wade. D Wade, not Lebron, then ran the pick and roll play
called by the coaching staff.

The one time when Lebron attacked the rim and didn't make the right pass
was when he was called for a charge coming down the baseline against
Tyson Chandler.  That was a bang-bang play, close to an "and one",
especially since Chandler was not outside the restricted area.  Any
other official than Joey Crawford would have likely called it the other
way -- but Crawford was the ref making the call, the basket was waved
off, and the Mavs got the ball and went on to win.  The score when that
call was made?  102 - 100 Mavs. If the call goes Lebron's way, and he
makes the free throw, the Heat retake the lead with 2 minutes left --
and we may have listened to a different narrative the last two days.
Other thoughts:

1. Worst Call of the Finals:  I think the officials have generally done
a good job.  However, the play where D Wade absolutely ran over a
stationary Brian Cardinal, and the blocking foul was called on Cardinal,
was brutal.  It was so bad that the Basketball Gods had to step in to
correct the injustice.  After some deliberation, they imposed a hip
injury onto D Wade, thereby balancing the scales.

2. Mario Chalmers:  Has any one ever made the same impossible shot twice
in the space of 3 games like Chalmers?  Each time, it looks like the
Heat designed the play to get Chalmers the ball at a full sprint so he
could shot a 40 footer as the buzzer went off.  Maybe it is the Best
Coaching Ever to know that this heave is Chalmers' specialty.

3. Offensive Rebounding:  Speaking of good coaching, after the Mavs
killed the Heat on the O Boards in Game 3, the Heat clearly have a new
emphasis on blocking out.  In Game 5, the Mavs only got 4 offensive
rebounds (on 30 missed shots).  Chandler had twice that many, on his
own, in Game 3.  In Game 5, he had only two.  Good coaching and good
execution by the Miami Bigs keeping Chandler off the boards --
especially since the guys covering Chandler essentially ignore him
during the offense, at least until the shot goes up.  The guys you
ignore on offense are absolutely the most difficult to box out.

4.  Chandler:  He is a free agent at the end of this season -- and has
made a lot of money with his play.  His ability to hedge on pick and
rolls by Lebron, and prevent him from shooting OR driving off the pick,
has essentially removed that play from the Heat's arsenal.

5.  Bibby and Miller:  A big question before the series was whether
Dallas would be able to play its little guards (Terry and Hey Whey)
against the Heat.  Who would they cover?  Well, it turns out you can put
one of them on Bibby, who barely needs to be covered at all -- and the
other on 6'8'' Mike Miller.  Amazingly, the Heat can have both hobbits
on the floor -- and then have Kidd try to cover either D Wade or even
Lebron.  The Mavs' ability to play all 3 guards at the same time allowed
them to finally start scoring some damn points.  They broke 100 -- and
there was much rejoicing.

6.  Lebron on D.  Because Dallas has been able to play small, Lebron has
been covering guards.  And while he was effective early in the Finals on
Terry, possibly because Terry was a bit freaked out to have a freak of
nature covering him, Terry has adjusted by simply attacking.  And that
attacking style meant that when Terry needed to shoot that dagger with
33 seconds left, Lebron was playing just enough off of him, with hands
down, for Terry to get that clean look.  Interestingly, they have yet to
put Lebron on Dirk.  Since Dirk has continued to dominate 4th quarters,
we still might see that match-up in Game 6.  I think that is what I
would do if the game is once again tied in the 4th.

7.  Game 6.  All of us who picked the Heat in 6 made the wrong choice,
as proven by the Corman Outcome Theory.  I assume D Wade will be fine by
Sunday -- the extra day off will surely help him.  It should also help
the others with the various nicks, bruises and illnesses like Marion and
Dirk.  As noted in an earlier post, Miami and Dallas were tied for the
best road record on the year at 28 - 13.  Dallas has already won once in
Miami, which helps.  My gut tells me they will do it again.  If they
don't win either game in Miami, and Lebron has some huge 28/12/10 type
games, under all that scrutiny, he could still be series MVP.  Or we
could have the first MVP from the losing team since Jerry West in the
60s.  For a guy who barely plays defense, Dirk has still been the best
player of the Finals thus far.  Dirk's story is just not as compelling
as the Story of Lebron, which awaits the results of the Corman Outcome
Theory for its conclusion.