Friday, June 28, 2013

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. 

No comments:

Post a Comment