Happy Thanksgiving to Spurs fans

In last year's NBA Finals against the Heat, Game 4 was a rerun of Game 3 - a Spurs blow-out win.  And because it was a repeat (but without the suspense - Miami never made a run), I wrote a blog entry entitled "Reruns", with all the negative connotations.

In essence, Game 4 could be considered boring, even for those of us on the "winning side".  I closed out the Game 4 blog with the following:

I taped last night's game, so I could play in my own game from 7:30 - 9:30{PDT}. On the way to the gym, I stopped in a store to pick something up. Also in the store was Rudy Tomjanovich, former Houston Rocket and Los Angeles Laker coach (and great player). I said "Hi, Coach!" (Ex-coaches are still called ‘Coach' just like ex-heavyweight champions are always called ‘Champ'.)  As I walked out, not knowing the score of the game (I was taping it and in a self-imposed media blackout), I wondered why Rudy T, a basketball lifer, was not watching the game. Today I figured it out. He had probably watched the first quarter and could tell that the Spurs were going to win -- and decided to go to the store for something to eat for when he went back home to watch Gilligan Island reruns.

Fast forward to last month.  I went to the local driving range to hit a bucket of golf balls after work.  In the stall next to me?  Rudy T. Rudy was hitting the ball much further than I was.

When we both took a break from hitting, I asked if I could talk to him about something.  I told him he wouldn't remember me or our brief meeting during Game 4, but something bothered me.  I wondered after our meeting why the great Rudy T, a basketball lifer, was not even watching an NBA Finals game. Was he no longer interested in NBA basketball? He laughed about it,said that he still has all his passion for the game, and indeed still consults with the Lakers - but that he can't stand all the commercials during the game.  He was in the store during last year's Game 4 because he was doing what I was doing:  taping the game for later.

I asked if he had been rooting for the Spurs, and he said yes.  He also said that everything he has heard about the Spurs, including from Rudy T's former Rockets assistant Jim Boylen (now with the Spurs), was that the Spurs players and staff are really "good people".

Not all fans cheer for teams that are comprised of "good people".  Not that long ago, Patriot fans were rooting for Aaron Hernandez, Eagle fans were rooting for Michael Vick, Raven fans were rooting for Ray Rice.  Next baseball season, New York Yankee fans will have to decide whether to boo or applaud A-Rod who's returning from a drug ban. In the NBA, until this summer's events, Clipper fans knew their team was owned by Donald Sterling, and had to hold their nose knowing where their ticket money was going.  Laker fans previously had to deal with Kobe Bryant's rape allegation in Colorado - at times, he would fly back from court appearances in Denver in order to play in that night's playoff game.

These problems extend even into the colleges.  The best player on defending national champion Florida State is still the subject of an ongoing sexual assault inquiry, and was arrested on other charges over the summer.  University of North Carolina athletes have recently  been charged with skating on their classes for years.

Especially in light of everything going on in the sports world, I loved to hear Rudy T's comments about the team we all root for.  He used the words "good people".  Among all the things to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, the list includes the ability to cheer on a Spurs team that is a group of good people.  Not everyone can say that, but we can. Happy Thanksgiving, Spurs nation.

LeBron, the Spurs, and ruined homecomings

When Lebron James and his Super Friends embarked on their team-building exercise in Miami, they created the squad that everybody loved to hate. From the poorly planned "Decision" announcement to the arrogant prediction of multiple rings, non-Heat fans across the nation enjoyed cheering for whoever was playing the Heat. In the Heat's first Finals appearance they faced the Dallas Mavericks. Even though that team was owned by Mark Cuban, who was widely unpopular, and starred a big German, most of America wanted the Mavs to win.  This antipathy toward the Heat in general, and Lebron in particular, largely grew out of the idea that Lebron, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh had somehow "gamed the system" by conspiring to create the Big Three.

Fair or not (after all the Spurs have their own Big Three), this dislike of Lebron continued for many.  In the last two Finals, much of America rooted for a team many had found "boring" over the years - the Spurs.  Of course, the "boring old Spurs" reputation did not apply to this version of the Spurs. (Well, maybe the "old" part.)

In many ways,  it is somewhat sad that the transcendent talent in the league carries this burden.  Unlike other superstars who were considered difficult teammates (Michael Jordan and Kobe, for instance), players love to play with Lebron.  He plays hard and unselfishly, and enjoys hitting a teammate with a pass as much as scoring the basket himself.  Not only is he unselfish on the court, he is good at it.  He knows when to deliver the pass, and his strength and vision allow him to actually deliver the ball from virtually anywhere on the court.  For this reason, shooters flock to play with Lebron.

On defense, Lebron is willing to cover anyone on the other team.  And, like his passing, he does it extremely well.  He has shut down opposing point guards and power forwards, and everyone in between. As just one example, in both of the last Finals, he was the Heat's best defender on Tony Parker.  Further, Lebron's ability to chase down and block what looks like a break-away lay-up is unprecedented.  From a coaching standpoint, having your best player also be your hardest working player is a rare and wonderful gift.   From a fan's standpoint, Lebron is exactly the type of player you should be rooting for  -- supremely talented, extremely hard-working, unfailingly unselfish.  Yet we did not.  The hubris of the Big Three made it impossible for most of us to root for this wonderful player.

All of that seemingly changed with his "second" decision.  When Lebron announced this summer that he was opting out of his contract, and going home to Cleveland, even the Grinch's heart softened towards Lebron.   The decision was not announced in a fake "interview" like the first one.   It was an open and well-written letter announcing "I'm Coming Home." The letter talked about Lebron's desire to bring a championship to his home state, and mentoring Cleveland's young players while doing it.  He talked about the challenge and how nothing is given to you - you have to earn it.

Talk about "unselfish" - he gave up South Beach for Cleveland!  Yes, the same Cleveland whose river famously caught fire. Even long-time Lebron despisers could understand wanting long suffering Cleveland fans to finally win a championship, something denied them in every sport since 1964.  That is a long time ago - LBJ was president, we were five years from landing on the moon, and the Beatles were the hip new band.

However, something happened to change those good feelings towards Lebron.  People started to notice that the "I'm Coming Home" letter announcing his return - and promising to mentor the young Cavs -- failed to mention Andrew Wiggins, the first pick in the NBA draft.  It also failed to mention last year's number one pick Anthony Bennett. Something smelled fishy in Cleveland - and not just the river.

Then, it happened. The Cavs traded those two unmentioned number one picks for uber power forward Kevin Love.  Rumors abounded that this was all pre-arranged, and part of the decision to "come home" was instead a repeat of the prior decision.  The more people looked at it, they more they decided Lebron had made the selfish decision to simply create a new Big Three.  Instead of being saddled with an aging and overpaid Dwayne Wade, an overrated and overpaid Chris Bosh, and an aging Heat roster, Lebron looked around for the best situation for Lebron.

Lebron surely remembered Game Five of the Finals.  After being blown out by the Spurs in Games Three and Four, Eric Spoelstra shook up the starting lineup - by starting 38-year old Ray Allen. When the Heat changed their line-up to start the second half of Game Five, Spoelstra replaced Rashard Lewis (34) with Chris "Birdman" Anderson (35). And after the Heat's hot start, the Spurs out-scored the Heat 59-22 from 5:04 remaining in the first quarter until 5:01 left in the third.

Lebron has a brilliant basketball mind.  He saw what happened in the Finals, and must have known that Miami's roster was not getting younger or better. The Cavs roster was.  And while Lebron's letter talked about taking on the "challenge", that challenge was much easier knowing Kevin Love was on the way.

So he decided to walk away from his Miami Heat team, his Miami Heat teammates, and a Miami Heat fan base that had showered him with adoration when the rest of the country was treating him like a villain.  His escape from Miami happened to take him "home", which was convenient and made for a good story.  But it appeared to many, including this writer, that the driving force behind this second "decision" was his ability to re-create what was fading in South Beach - a new and younger Big Three, with Kyrie Irving already there, and Kevin Love on the way.

With his newly created Big Three, Lebron is trying to "go home again."  Unfortunately, the way he did it left the same sour taste as his first Big Three.  If "going home" includes the NBA fan base cheering for him, Lebron may never make it there.

San Antonio and Los Angeles: A Tale of Two Cities

A Tale of Two Cities

A major difference between professional and college sports is the need for college teams to constantly re-invent themselves. This is one reason many people believe John Wooden's string of NCAA championships is more impressive than the Celticsdynasty. Wooden won with the go-go teams of Goodrich and Hazzard, the Lew Alcindor centered teams, the powerful forward combo of Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe, the Bill Walton teams, and finally the Richard Washington and Marques Johnson team as Coach Wooden's swan song. The Celtics? They had Bill Russell throughout, and were coached by Red Auerbach for all except the last championship. Similarly, the Bulls 6 championships all had the same core - Jordan and Pippen, coached by Phil Jackson.

That does not mean that NBA dynasties are easy. Indeed, maintaining that core is exceedingly difficult - which brings us to the Lakers and Spurs, who meet tonight in Los Angeles. In Thursday's L.A. Times, Kobe Bryant talked about the Spurs, and how his contemporaries have had a different and more stable path:

"I am extremely jealous of that.  I don't know if I can express to you how jealous I am of the fact that Tim, Tony, Manu and Pop have been together all those years."

Unlike the Spurs, Kobe's Lakers have cycled through numerous cores, coaches, and owners.  Even the two Laker three-peats had different core groups - the first keyed by Kobe, Shaq, Rick Fox, and Robert Horry, the second keyed by Kobe, Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom.  Despite the success Kobe has enjoyed in his long career, he has good reason to be jealous of the Spurs' stability, especially with his present group of teammates -- the teammates he will likely finish his remarkable career with.

Compare that to the Spurs, who despite not having a pick in the top 20 since they got TD, have kept the same successful core together over the years (Kawhi Leonard was a top 20 pick, but technically came via trade).  Part of that is the type of personality that the Spurs core represents.  Dare I say that TD, Tony and Manu are easier to play with than Kobe?  Also crucial to the Spurs' stability is the acumen of the front office in filling the other 12 spots on the roster.

As a result, the Spurs' fan base are invested in monitoring the top of the standings:  Will the Spurs have the best record in the West?  Did the Cavs win last night?  Every loss by Cleveland helps when looking ahead to the potential of home court advantage in the Finals.

What do Laker fans look at now? If they are smart (and want the Lakers' top-5 protected pick to stay in L.A. instead of going to Phoenix) they watch the dregs of the league. Laker fans should cheer every time another lottery bound teams win a game. True Laker fans now root for the 76ers, the Magic, the Nuggets and theJazz. 

As Dickens said: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times". As a Laker fan at heart, and a converted Spurs fans in my soul, I'm sure that Dickens had it exactly right.

What I learned about the Spurs while watching the Clippers broadcast

My law firm handled last summer's sale of the Clippers to Steve Ballmer.  We also successfully handled the ensuing trial between Shelly and Donald Sterling, defeating Donald Sterling's attempt to invalidate that sale. That might have been the one case in which everyone was rooting for one side (Shelly) against the other (Donald).  We were happy to be on the good side of that one.

Even though I didn't work on the case (though much of my firm did), I was hoping I could score some firm tickets for last night's game.  I even promised not to wear my #20 Ginobili road jersey, since Manu would be wearing it already - wouldn't want any confusion about who was to play.  Alas, I struck out and didn't tickets for the game.

Instead, I went home, planning to watch the game on my new NBA League Pass. I hoped to watch the game on the Spurs network -- but I was foiled again.  Local blackout rules barred me from watching anything except the local Clipper feed.  Of course, this meant I was stuck with commentary focused on how the Clippers were doing in the game, not the Spurs.  Nonetheless, there was some interesting commentary about the Spurs which I though the PtR nation might find interesting.

First, the Clippers color man Mike Smith can't pronounce Manu's first name. According to Smith, the first syllable rhymes with the first syllable of Kansas.  Man - u, not Mahn - u.   Made me crazy.

Second, when the game turned into a defensive half-court slog, the Clippers announcers decided that played into the Spurs hands, since "the Spurs don't like to push the ball up court".  I don't know what Spurs team these guys have been watching the past few years, but the announcers were clearly living in the past.

Third, on a play down the stretch where Tony Parker was tackled by a Clipper defender, the Clipper announcers decided there was no contact at all - even after watching the replay.  From my view, I would have called the foul, and tacked on 15 yards for face-masking.

Finally, I never heard them address the most interesting match-up of the night -  Kawhi Leonard, the Spurs small forward, covering the consensus best point guard in the game, Chris Paul.  Of course, that match-up led to one of the key plays of the game when Kawhi stole the ball as CP3 attempted a cross-over dribble late in the game.

J.R. Wilco @jollyrogerwilco

Follow

Kawhi Leonard's steal: play of the game. #spurs #Clippers https://vine.co/v/OinU9hWrg2X 

12:06 AM - 11 Nov 2014

There were some insightful comments too.  The Clipper announcers were smart enough to discuss the fact that Tim Duncan's per minute production has remained remarkably consistent over the years.  Next, in discussing all the future hall of famers on the floor (including the two coaches), they asked whether they should start including Kawhi  in the discussion.  Good question.  In the same vein, they decided (correctly) that the Big Three has really become the Big Four, with Kawhi as the fourth Musketeer.  They followed that up with another good observation:  In the last two NBA Finals, the Big Four has become the Big Five, with Danny Green joining the fun.  Another good point.

So, all in all, a fascinating night watching the Spurs on the enemy network.  After the quick trip up the coast to play the Warriors tonight, I assume the Spurs will come back to L.A. to stay at the beach before Friday's game against the Lakers.  After all, L.A. temperatures will be in the 70s all week.  If things go well, I will get a ticket to the Spurs - Lakers game Friday night.  Sitting in Staples Center surrounded by the Laker championship banners, I will definitely be wearing my Spurs Five Banners shirt.

How a coach reads a box score

One of our very strong teams at Claremont opened league play at Redlands one season.  Redlands was running the old Loyola Marymount offense which involved firing up 3 point shots early in shot clock.  That night, those shots went in, and we lost by 10. 

When the coaches got back to locker room after the game, upset with how our team had played, we started examining the box score.  Redlands shot 18 for 25 from the beyond the 3 point line.  Put another way, they had scored 54 points on those 25 shots - the equivalent of shooting 108% from the field, even before factoring in lay-ups and other 2-pointers.  If they had shot 13 for 25 from the 3 point line, a still incredible 52%, we would have won the game by 5.  If they had shot a good but not incredible 10 for 25, 40%, we would have won by 14 - and we would have been much happier with the players.  Put another way, making 8 more threes than a "normal" 3 point shooting percentage of 40% meant 24 additional points for Redlands.

What the box score really told us was when the other team shoots 18 for 25 on their three-pointers, even a good team is unlikely to win that particular game.  The same rule applies to NBA games.  In Game 5 of the 2011 Finals, Mavericks vs. the Heat, the Mavs went 13 for 19 from 3 - the equivalent of shooting 103% on two-pointers. The Mavs won that game to take a 3 - 2 lead.

Since I stopped coaching, I have continued to closely examine box scores after games.  What I look for are not the fairly useless statistics that many national basketball announcers focus on.  Mark Twain famously referred to "lies, damned lies, and statistics" [Editor's note: Twain's put his list in order of increasing evil - jrw].  That applies to basketball too.

A good example of a useless statistic is "total rebounds".  Since the defensive team recovers most missed shots, total rebounds often just reflect which team shot and defended better.  It does not tell us very much about which team actually reboundedbetter.

A much more meaningful statistic to measure rebounding is the percentage of a team's missed shots it recovers through an offensive rebound. The team that rebounded better in that game will be the team that got a higher percentage of its own misses back.

The other side of that coin may even be more meaningful, since (I am told) it more often correlates with winning percentage: The percentage of the other team's misses a defensive team rebounds, thus preventing the other team from getting a second chance to score.

A normal NBA team will get between 25% and 33% of its own misses back as an offensive rebound. 

Watch for offensive rebounding percentages outside of this range.  If a team gets more than a third of its misses back as offensive rebounds, it has rebounded well -- and the opposing team will hear about it after the game, and in the next practice.

This is something you can measure at home. Look at the box score to see how many shots a team missed. (For simplicity, I ignore missed free throws since the defensive team rebounds virtually all missed free throws.)

If a team shoots 40 for 85 from the field, there were 45 misses.  Each miss represented an offensive rebounding opportunity. (I have had many a game where my shooting supplied my team's big guys with many offensive rebounding "opportunities".)  If the offensive team gets 15 or more of those 45 misses back as offensive rebounds, that is very good -- and the opposing coach is upset with his guys.  But if the offensive team gets less than 10 offensive rebounds on those 45 misses, that will make it very hard to win.

Applying this statistic to last year's Finals is telling. In Game Five, the Heat actually had more total rebounds than the Spurs.  As you may recall, the Heat still lost - by a lot.  One reason not mentioned on the air:  The Heat had only 5 offensive rebounds in the entire game, on 45 missed shots.  This was a dreadful "offensive rebound percentage" of 11%.

This was a series-long problem for the Heat, and an important one.  For the Finals, the Heat got an offensive rebound on only 15% of their misses, about half of what a good rebounding team will get.   (The Spurs, generally not a strong offensive rebounding team, were at 23% for the Finals.)  When the Heat missed shots in the 2014 Finals, 85% of the time the Spurs rebounded the ball and could immediately attack, feeding into their offensive dominance.

National announcers also love to mention "points off turnovers".  This statistic tells us virtually nothing.  Unless the turnover is a steal, it is actually harder to score off a turnover than a missed shot.  The turnover that goes out of bounds, or results from a violation or offensive foul, stops the clock and requires the referee to handle the ball. This stoppage allows the defense to retreat and set up, which is the hardest time to score. 

Last year in the NBA, teams shot an effective 61% after live ball turnovers, but only 46% after dead ball turnovers.  While watching the game, watch for live ball turnovers.  Blocked shots that are recovered by the defense (and don't go out of bounds) are similar. They often lead to easy baskets the other way.  (This is also a rarely mentioned problem with the Hack-a-Shaq.  Putting the other team on the free throw line essentially eliminates any chance of a steal or blocked shot and the resulting easy transition basket.) Whatever you do, ignore the "points after turnovers" statistic they throw on the TV screen, since it ignores the crucial distinction between live ball and dead ball turnovers.   

Also be wary of the "4 point swing" announcers love to tout.  This happens when a team misses at one end, and the other team comes down and scores.  We eliminated the center jump after every basket in the 1930s.  The "four point swing" ignores the fact that the other team would have still gotten the ball even if the first team had made the shot. All that being said, total turnovers do matter: Put simply, the team that turns the ball over has a zero percent chance to score on that possession.

Since most teams score about a point per possession, each turnover costs that team about a point. Put another
way, if the Spurs have 10 turnovers in a game, and their opponent has 15, that is generally worth about a five point swing in the final score.  (Of course, since the Spurs are averaging over 16 turnovers per game, having a game with only 10 would be cause for much rejoicing.)

Technical fouls, including those from defensive 3 second violations, matter too. Each is worth about a point too, since normally the team puts their 90% free throw shooter at the line for the free throw. Since teams should shoot about 75% on free throws, any made or missed free throws above or below that 75% line is also a worth about a point. (As an example, Wednesday night the Warriors went 20 for 20 from the line against the Clippers - which is 5 points more than the "expected" 15 for 20. Warriors also went 15 for 25 from 3, which is 15 points more than if they shot a more normal 40% and went 10 for 25. Not coincidentally, the Warriors won.)

Finally, a team's raw shooting percentage can also be misleading, which is why people with better math skills and more time than me have created all-encompassing stats like "true shooting percentage" or "effective shooting percentage".  These new-age numbers factor in free throws percentages, number of times fouled while shooting, and 3 point shooting.  If you have that number, go with it.  If you can't get that, there is a shorthand method you can do at home.  For every three pointer a team made during the game, add ½ of a made shot.  A team that went 40 for 80 shot 50% in raw shooting percentage.  But if it made 10 threes, that is the equivalent of going 45 for 80, which would be 56%.  With that number, the number of free throws shot and a team's free throw percentage, you can get a pretty good idea of which team actually shot better. 

Add the shooting information to the other box score factors discussed above.  This will give you a better idea of why one team won, and the other didn't - certainly a better idea than relying on the meaningless statistics many national announcers like to throw at us.