Playoff Quick Thoughts (West Edition)

Let’s continue with Part 2 of our First Round review, the Western Conference (Part 1 can be found here)….

-Jazz v. Grizzlies:  The Grizzlies have hung tough but are down 2-1, despite shocking the Jazz by beating top seeded Utah in the first game.  That got me wondering how often a top NBA seed has dropped Game 1 of a First Round series and what happened thereafter.  We will limit the inquiry a bit to span from 2002-03, when the NBA changed the First Round to the seven game series format, through 2018-19 (2019-20 was played in the Bubble and there were no home games).  In that span, there have been 34 top seeds.  Of the 34, only five lost the first game of the series at home versus an eight seed.  Here’s the group with how they did overall:

2002-03 Spurs:  Lost Game 1 versus the Suns on an incredible bank shot by Stephon Marbury.  The Spurs would go on to win the series 4-2 and, ultimately, win the title.

2006-07 Mavericks:  Dallas looked like the title favorite at 67-15 but the Mavs were famously upset by the feisty “We Believe” Warriors 4-2 in the First Round.

2010-11 Spurs:  The Spurs couldn’t beat the Grit ‘n Grind Grizzlies and lost to Memphis 4-2 in the First Round.  It was clear that the Grizz were better than an eight seed when they followed 2010-11 with several more good playoff seasons.

2013-14 Pacers:  This one is forgotten because the Pacers were not really considered the best team in the East (Miami was).  Indiana lost Game 1 versus the Hawks in the First Round.  The Pacers even were down 3-2 but were able to pull it out and win in seven games.  Indiana lost in the Eastern Conference Finals to Miami.

2016-17 Celtics:  This Celtics team was, like Indiana, another good team but not considered dominant.  Boston actually lost the first two games at home to the Bulls (as an aside, doesn’t 2017 seem like it was 20 years ago?).  Rajon Rondo had been playing great for Chicago but he broke his hand and the Celts ended up winning the next four straight.  Boston would lose to Cleveland in the Eastern Conference Finals.

Utah looks to be in pretty good control of this series and the chance of an upset by Memphis feels very remote.  It’s not clear what that bodes for the future for Utah but the three teams above who got out of the First Round made, at least, the Conference Finals.

When they last met:  Utah and Memphis have never met in the playoffs before this season. 

-Suns v. Lakers:  This series has swung wildly a few times.  First, the Lakers stole a road game in Phoenix and looked to be in control.  Then, in Game 4, the Lakers gave back the home court advantage, thanks to Anthony Davis’ groin injury.  If AD is hurt, the Lakers are cooked. 

While the Lakers are not a typical seven seed, we should recognize that seven seeds have upset two seeds exactly as often as eight seeds have upset one seeds (five times each).  In addition, only one seven seed has upset a two seed since the NBA went to the seven game series format in 2002-03.  That “upset” occurred when the 2009-10 Spurs (50-32) beat the 55-27 Mavs.  The teams were not as far as the seeds would indicate.  Actually, the Spurs were much better in SRS than Dallas (5.07 for the Spurs versus 2.66 for the Mavs). 

When they last met:  Speaking of the 2009-10 playoffs, it was also the last time Phoenix and the Lakers met.  The Suns had swept the aforementioned Spurs in the Second Round.  Phoenix, which was in the midst of its final run with Steve Nash/Amare Stoudemire, then met Kobe Bryant and the Lakers in the Western Conference Finals.   The Lakers would win the series 4-2 thanks to Kobe’s dominance (33.7 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 8.3 apg).

-Nuggets v. Blazers:  This is a difficult series to get a handle on.  Are the Nuggets, even without Jamal Murray, still the slightly better team?  For now, the Nuggets have leaned on Austin Rivers and Facundo Campazzo at the guard slots.  While they both have played pretty well, they are not Murray   On the other hand, Damian Lillard might be the toughest guard to stop in a game (or series) that comes down to a single possession.  The Lillard Factor has been key in beating better teams in playoff series in the past (2013-14 Rockets and 2015-16 Clippers are the best examples). 

As a Blazers fan, are you still worried about the Blazers having to win a Game 7 in Denver?  We only have to look back to the Second Round of the 2018-19 Playoffs when the Blazers came from 15 points behind at the half in Denver to win Game 7.  Lillard had a terrible shooting game (3-17 from the field) but did other things wells and CJ McCollum carried the scoring load (17-29 from the field, 37 points).  I doubt Lillard will shoot so badly again.  In any event, there is documented history that Portland can beat Denver on the road again.

Final weird stat note: Jusuf Nurkic has more assists than Nikola Jokic so far this series.   

When they last met:   We just noted above that crazy 2018-19 series so we won’t talk about it more here.  Before that meeting, the Blazers and Nuggets hadn’t had a playoff series against each other since 1985-86 when the 40-42 Blazers lost 3-1 to the 47-35 Nuggets.  The series was moderately entertaining because the teams had done a challenge trade in 1984 when Denver gave up Kiki Vandeweghe for Fat Lever, Calvin Natt, and some other things.  

Kiki played his usual offensively-oriented game that series (28 ppg but only 1.3 rpg and 2.0 apg).  Natt was great (23 ppg, 8.8 rpg) and Lever was pretty good too (16 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 5.8 apg).  The consensus was that the Nuggets won this deal. 

-Clippers v. Mavericks:   The weird series.  Frankly, this Clippers team has been good but weird for a couple of years now.  They blew a 3-1 lead last season to Denver.  Now, they tanked the end of the year to draw the Mavs, only to lose the first two games at home but bounced back to easily win the next two games in Dallas to even the series. 

Though this is a series between a four and five seed, the numbers indicate that the Clippers (47-25, 6.02 SRS) are vastly superior (Dallas was 42-30, 2.26 SRS).  The Mavs had played well early but Dallas’ three-point shooting, particularly from Tim Hardaway, didn’t seem sustainable.   The series  feels similar to the 2016-17 Bulls/Celtics series noted above when the better Boston didn’t relinquish control after a bad start.

When they last met:   The only other time these teams have met in the playoffs was in the First Round of last season’s Bubble playoffs.  The Clipps won 4-2.

Playoff Quick Thoughts (East Edition)

We missed a formal playoff preview this year so, instead, let’s jump into some quick thoughts for each playoff series and do our usual feature about the last time each team met in the playoffs.  Today, we will do the East today and the West shortly after….

-76ers v. Wizards:  As anticipated, the 76ers handled the Wiz relatively easily at home (Game 1 was competitive but Game 2 was decidedly not).  The 76ers stars have been dominant and Tobias Harris’ great start bodes well for the later more challenging rounds.

What caught my eye specifically was how active Matisse Thybulle has been.  He is a great at racking up steals (6 so far in two games) but he also has 7 blocks (!).  Thybulle’s 1.1 blocks per game ranks seventh best in a regular season for any player 6’5 or under since the stat has been kept (Dwyane Wade has three of the top five seasons.  The other two guards are David Thompson and Dennis Johnson).  Moreover, on a per-minute basis, Thybulle’s is the best shot blocking 6’5 guard with a 4.9 block% (interestingly, Derrick Jones’ 2020-21 season is second on the list).  It’s not clear how Thybulle will develop as a player but, even if he has plateaued now, he is hugely valuable.  If he can learn to hit threes, then he will make a ton of cash.

On the Wiz side, they just don’t have the horses to compete with Joel Embiid or Ben Simmons (or even Harris apparently).  Russell Westbrook has really struggled to make shots (9-27 from the field) but he has had injury issues and it’s really hard to finish in the paint with Embiid, Simmons, and Thybulle.  If the Wiz can win one home game, they will consider this season a success by their modest ambitions.

When they last met:  For two franchises that go back a long time, they haven’t had too many playoff matchups.  This is mainly because the Wiz have been pretty bad for much of the last 40 years and the few times they were okay, the 76ers were not. They last played in the playoffs back in 1985-86, at the tail end of the Julius Erving/Moses Malone Era (they also had a young Charles Barkley).  Philly was 54-28 and a solid third seed.  The Bullets were very blah at 39-43 led by Jeff Ruland and Jeff Malone.  The East was so weak that Washington still somehow netted a six seed with that record (for reference, the Bulls made the eight seed at 30-52).

The series was competitive and the Bullets stole Game 1 in Philly.  Washington was down 17 with four minutes to go and went on an 18-0 run to close it out.  In a nice data point regarding whether momentum exists, Philly came out and won the next two games (including Game 3 in Washington).  The 76ers clocked the Bullets by 25 in the decisive Game 5.  Young Barkley had 21.4 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 7.2 apg, and 2 spg (and in keeping with his three-point shot selection still went 1-11 from three).  The ironic postscript is that Moses sat out the series and Ruland barely played.  A few weeks later, they would be traded for each other in one of two infamous 76ers deals.

-Bucks v. Heat: Really not much to say here.  Milwaukee has controlled much of the series (yes, Game 1 was fun and competitive).  Milwaukee is just hyped up to move on and go toe-to-toe with Brooklyn and, if they beat the Nets, Philly.  Milwaukee has a few worries in losing Donte DiVincenzo for the rest of the playoffs and Giannis Antetokounmpo’s problems shooting (1-12 from three, 17-27 from the line) but neither concern matters until next round.

On Miami’s side, the year has been a disappointment.  They may have spent all their karmic capital in last year’s Finals run.  Most of the players who played so well in the Bubble last season have not maintained that level this year.  I assume Bam Adebayo and Jimmy Butler should be fine going forward.  The biggest area of focus must be Tyler Herro.  He has been okay during his two regular seasons but the hope was that his great Bubble play would carry over and it hasn’t.  He’s still young but the Heat will soon have to make a decision on whether he is a trade piece to clear cap space or a cornerstone keeper (spoiler alert: he seems like trade bait).

When they last met: It feels like 10 years ago but it was actually last September when Miami shocked Milwaukee and dispatched the Bucks with relative ease.  The tables have turned drastically this time.  If you want a more distant match up, the squads previously met in the First Round of the 2012-13 playoffs. The Bucks were 38-44 and led by Monta Ellis and Brandon Jennings (this was the year that the Bucks gave up Tobias Harris to Orlando for a few months of JJ Redick).  LeBron/Wade/Bosh smashed the Bucks 4-0, winning by an average of 15 ppg and the Bucks lost Redick after the season.

-Nets v. Celtics:  It’s been a bad year for Boston due to injuries and lack of size and they looked pretty cooked in the first two games.  They showed a pulse and won last night behind Jayson Tatum’s 50 points.  It seems likely that Brooklyn will regroup and win this series fairly easily unless Tatum can go crazy again.

When they last met:  The Nets and Celtics played a memorable Conference Finals in 2001-02 where the Nets blew a big fourth quarter lead at home in Game 2 but came back to take a close Game 4 in Boston and close out the series in Boston in Game 6 (Keith Van Horn’s best moment as a Net).  What might be forgotten is that the teams met in the Second Round in 2002-03.  This time the Nets wiped the floor with Boston, sweeping the series 4-0.  Jason Kidd was brilliant (19 ppg, 9 rg, 9 apg) and controlled the games.  The most memorable moment of the series occurred at the end of a double OT Game 4.  The Nets had the ball and Boston had given up with a 24 seconds left.  Kidd, who had jousted with Boston fans quite a bit, declined to take the gentleman’s shot clock violation and made a three at the end of Game 4 just to stick it in Boston’s eye.  (The Celtic players, other than Paul Pierce, didn’t seem too peeved afterwards).

-Knicks v. Hawks:  This has been the only fun series in the East so far.  New York has played hard but, other than Derrick Rose, they have really struggled to score.  Julius Randle’s sudden inability to hit shots is a credit to the Hawks (specifically, Clint Capela’s looming presence) but you do get a sense that there may be some regression to the mean with Randle’s shooting.  Less noticed is that RJ Barrett has shot nearly as poorly as Randle. 

On the Atlanta side of the ledger, Trae Young has been amazing in hitting that floater when he gets into the lane.  I have always been skeptical that Young could be so effective at his size but he has been against a very tough defense this series. 

The sideshow in this series has been the New York fans versus Trae Young.  Knicks fans got on Trae Young with the emphatic “F— Trae Young” chants in both games at MSG.  I was not offended at the profanity but was at the lack of creativity.  New York fans have always been very good at tweaking rivals with more thoughtful (and more personal) insults.  The “Cheryl” chants at Reggie Miller are the best example but there are tons more.  Knicks fans can do better in Game 5. 

When they last met:  During the Knicks magical 1998-99 eight seed run to the Finals they swept the Hawks in the Second Round.  The Hawks had their 1990s core (Mookie Blaylock, Steve Smith, Dikembe Mutombo) but seemed old and slow.  Marcus Camby ran circles around Deke and Latrell Sprewell was highly effective.  The Hawks tried to copycat the Knicks by trading Smith for JR Rider (another bad boy shooting guard) and jettisoning Mookie too.  Rider played poorly and didn’t behave and the Hawks fell out of the payoffs for years thereafter.

2020-21 MVP Picks

Who is the 2020-21 NBA MVP?  Usually, there is not much controversy and the best player seems apparent to most fans/voters.  Specifically, the MVP is usually the best player on the best team.  That’s the nice thing about the NBA, the best players historically are on the best teams.  There were times when strong narratives regarding nice stories (i.e. Allen Iverson 2000-01) or shear voter fatigue (see Jordan, Michael) changed the vote but, for the most part, it has held.  The 2020-21 MVP award seemingly tests the voters more than usual because these general precepts don’t totally apply.  The Utah Jazz are the best team but they are marked more by a balanced team then by any superstars.  

A few players appear to be having the gaudy stats years for good teams that are definitely in the running.  Joel Embiid has been great in leading the 76ers to the best record in the East and, out West, Nikola Jokic has had an incredible season.  Jokic appears to be the overwhelming favorite, as his current average odds probability to win is 90.24%.  Nevertheless, there is a sense that some don’t consider him a conventional choice.  Let’s run through the candidates and see where the numbers and facts lead us.  First, the current stats of players likely to receive first place votes:

-Nikola Jokic: 67 gms, 35.0 mpg, 26.4 ppg, .648 TS%, 10.9 rpg, 8.5 apg, 31.1 PER, .301 WS48, 11.8 BPM, 8.1 VORP

-Joel Embiid: 48 gms, 31.5 mpg, 29.2 ppg, .636 TS%, 10.8 rpg, 2.9 apg, 30.8 PER, .274 WS48, 7.6 BPM, 3.6 VORP

-Stephen Curry: 59 gms, 34.1 mpg, 31.6 ppg, .658 TS%, 5.5 rpg, 5.8 apg, 26.2 PER, .201 WS48, 8.2 BPM, 5.2 VORP

-Giannis Antetokounmpo: 57 gms, 33.0 mpg, 28.2 ppg, .630 TS%, 11.1 rpg, 5.9 apg, 29.1 PER, .241 WS48, 8.9 BPM, 5.2 VORP

-Rudy Gobert: 66 gms, 30.8 mpg, 14.4 ppg, .683 TS%, 13.3 rpg, 1.3 apg, 23.6 PER, .249 WS48, 4.6 BPM, 3.4 VORP

-Chris Paul: 66 gms, 31.5 mpg, 16.2 ppg, .593 TS%, 4.5 rpg, 8.9 apg, 21.2 PER, .200 WS48, 4.6 BPM, 3.4 VORP

-Donovan Mitchell: 53 gms, 33.4 mpg, 26.4 ppg, .569 TS%, 4.4 rpg, 5.2 apg, 21.3 PER, .167 WS48, 3.5 BPM, 2.5 VORP

Before we turn to our observations of the above players, let’s pause and recognize that there are a few players who have been really good but have a minor quibble that probably disqualifies them from meriting a first place vote.  Either they missed too much time or their stats aren’t quite enough to merit a first place vote.  Still, let’s briefly give a shout out to Jimmy Butler, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Luka Doncic, James Harden, and a few others that could be in the conversation but for poorly timed injuries and other issues are not really there.

With that said, here’s a brief summary of the possible winners:

Chris Paul:  Paul is an incredible talent and has been a key component in making the Suns a resurgent team but the notion that he is a first-tier MVP candidate is a stretch.  His raw stats are a step below most of the players on the list.  He was a huge improvement over Ricky Rubio (Paul has a 4.6 BPM versus Rubio’s 1.0 last season) but CP3’s candidacy rests more heavily on the narrative that the Suns jumped from fringe playoff team to title contender right after they acquired him. 

Though CP3 definitely gets a lot of credit for the improvement, we should note that the Suns began to look really good during the Bubble last summer.  They went 8-0 in the Bubble and clearly some of the seeds of improvement were pre-Chris Paul.  To seriously consider Paul as an NBA candidate with good-but-not-great stats would require us to give him almost all the credit for many inchoate improvements when there is evidence that some of those improvements (but not all) are independent of his presence.  At the very least, it’s hard to make a case for him when you see that there are several players with much more impressive stats.

Donovan Mitchell:  I can see an argument for Paul but Mitchell’s case is, by far, the weakest.  His case is basically that he is the high scorer on the likely best team in the NBA.  Mitchell is a good player but he’s well-below Paul, let alone the other contenders.  In fact, a case could be made that he is Utah’s third or fourth best player.  No disrespect intended but he really shouldn’t be getting any MVP votes.

Rudy Gobert:  Utah’s best player and defensive anchor is the most vital player on the best team.  Sure, he is not nearly as good offensively as anyone on the list.  The only question is whether his excellent defense can vault him over Embiid or Jokic, who are also centers and thus directly comparable to Rudy.  As with Paul, the offensive stats gap is too large to be bridged by the argument that Gobert’s defense makes up for the offensive lead.  Having said that, Gobert has a legit case between his key to the team defense and the fact that he has missed so few games.

Stephen Curry:  Curry’s season has been great and it’s nice to see him putting up stats that are basically consistent with what he did before the Warriors had Kevin Durant six years ago.  He’s been the best guard in the NBA this season.  He has a pretty strong argument for MVP but his defense isn’t great and Giannis, Embiid, and Jokic have been at least as good and had better team success.  Team success isn’t a primary criterion to me (it’s not Curry’s fault that Draymond Green forgot how to shoot or that James Wiseman rawer than sashimi) but, on margins, it is relevant.

Giannis v. Embiid v. Jokic:  These three are clearly the top three non-Curry candidates.  Of this group, it’s hard not to pick Jokic.  He is a monster center who passes like a point guard, hasn’t missed a single game, and is leading significantly in every advanced stat category.  Embiid is close but has played nearly 20 fewer games.  Similarly, Giannis has missed about 10 more games.

Instead, let’s address potential arguments against Jokic:

-Denver isn’t that good:  As noted above, team success is a squishy criterion.  The Nuggets are pretty good and the win differential between Denver, Philly, and Milwaukee isn’t greater than the gulf between Jokic’s stats and those of Giannis and Embiid.  Currently, Philly is only a few games better than Denver and Milwaukee are a push.

-Jokic isn’t a great defender:  He certainly isn’t a dynamic rim protector or a good perimeter defender but Jokic’s DBPM is plenty respectable.  DBPM is perfectly reliable and may overstate his defense but he’s certainly not a huge liability on defense.  Conversely, his passing is so much better than that of Giannis and Embiid.  It’s hard to ding Jokic too much for the fact that he is not a huge defensive disruptor when he brings so much more to the table offensively than the other two contenders do.

-Would you really take Jokic to start a team to win a title for the playoffs?  This is a fair point.  Jokic leads the NBA in every advanced stat and has been a workhorse but, if forced to choose, most GMs would take a healthy LeBron James (and a few other players) over Jokic as the primary building block to win the 2020-21 title.  Can these truths be reconciled?  Sure.  The MVP is for the best regular season player.  If the players being compared are close, we could consider this factor but, frankly, the race is not close.  Jokic is dominating the field.  It’s also not clear that Embiid or Giannis, the only plausible alternatives to Jokic, are better playoff performers.  Having said all this here is my hypothetical MVP ballot:

5.  Luka Doncic

4.  Stephen Curry

3.  Giannis Antetokounmpo

2.  Joel Embiid

1.  Nikola Jokic

SI’s 1996-97 Fearless Predictions Revisited

In March 2020, while we were just starting this long pandemic, I resolved to do more deep dives on NBA history stuff.  The first result was an article revisiting Sports Illustrated’s Hank Hersch “10 Fearless Predictions” for the 1995-96 NBA season.  The goal wasn’t to critique the predictions.  Really, the goal was to capture that moment in time and what people were thinking at the time and what we see now with the benefit of hindsight.  These predictions were obviously meant more to entertain and/or catch the reader’s attention than to be entirely accurate.  Despite that goal, Hersch was pretty accurate in his predictions.

Here we are 14 months later, the pandemic seems closer to ending but my interest in random old NBA history is still going strong.  Now, I have just run across the 10 Fearless Predictions article written by Jackie MacMullan before the 1996-97 season for Sports Illustrated.  I thought this is a good time to go back and time and do a similar exercise with MacMullan’s predictions…

1. Eddie Jones will make the All-Star team

The rationale for this prediction was two-fold: (a) Jones was only 25 and was developing as a player and (b) the arrival of Shaquille O’Neal would free Jones up to score more.  The 1995-96 Lakers season was perceived as a disaster due to Magic Johnson’s erratic comeback, Cedric Ceballos’ jet skiing vacation, and a bad loss to the Rockets in the playoffs.  (I examined the Laker’s season at length and concluded that it was messy but definitely not a total disaster).

Putting aside the story lines, here’s what Jones did in cold, hard numbers for the 1995-96 season:

-31.2 mpg, 12.8 ppg, .583 TS%, 3.3 rpg, 3.5 apg, 17.0 PER, 17.8 USG%, .150 WS48, 3.3 BPM, 2.9 VORP

Jones’ raw numbers showed he was good but barely shot.  In fact, he was the best defender on the 1995-96 Lakers and had the second best BPM behind Magic.  Jones’ 3.3 BPM was 20th in the NBA and the only Western Conference shooting guards who were better were Jeff Hornacek (4.4) and Mitch Richmond (3.5).  Jones was already a fringe All-Star and predicting he would get the slot in 1996-97 was a sound one.

Result:  Correct! Jones made the All-Star team in 1996-97 and 1997-98 for the Lakers.  His 1996-97 was less efficient but racked up more points:

-37.5 mpg, 17.2 ppg, .559 TS%, 4.1 rpg, 3.4 apg, 17.3 PER, 20.9 USG%, .154 WS48, 3.3 BPM, 4.0 VORP

So, Jones wasn’t really any better.  He just played many more minutes and took a few more shots.  The end result was the same 3.3 BPM, which was 22nd in the NBA, and fifth among Western Conference SGs.

The real story of Jones and the Lakers was management’s decision to deal him in 1998-99 for the better shooter, but much less athletic, Glen Rice.  It always seemed to me that Jones fit perfectly with Kobe Bryant because Jones didn’t need shots to be effective. 

Jeff Pearlman, who wrote Three-Ring Circus about those Laker teams told me the following: “[t]hey tried to trade Eddie Jones for years and years.   There were two reasons.  Number one, they thought he and Kobe played too similarly.  They were similar but I don’t think it was a problem.  They were both slashy-type players that explode to the hoop.  Somewhat similar body types, Eddie Jones was leaner than Kobe, though Kobe was thinner when he was younger.  Number two, there was this idea that Eddie Jones was not a money player.  Shaq talked about that a lot.”

Rice was okay for the 1999-00 title team but was dumped for nothing after the season.  Here’s how jarringly better Jones was than Rice from 1998-99 through 2003-04:

-Jones: 394 gms, 37.9 mpg, 17.9 ppg, .548 TS%, 4.4 rpg, 3.4 apg, 18.3 PER, .160 WS48, 4.1 BPM, 22.8 VORP

-Rice: 176 gms, 28.8 mpg, 12.2 ppg, 541 TS%, 3.5 apg, 1.6 apg, 13.7 PER, .119 WS48, -0.1 BPM, 3.8 VORP

Did this trade cost the Lakers a title or two?  Impossible to say.  They were such a mess in 1998-99 (the year they first traded Jones for Rice) that they weren’t winning a title even if they kept Jones.  The Lakers ended up winning the next three titles. The interesting question is whether the Lakers win a title in 2002-03 or 2003-04 if they had kept Jones instead of resorting Devean George, Kareem Rush, or an ancient Rick Fox.  It’s hard to say.  The Lakers seemed gassed in 2002-03 from three straight Finals but maybe having Eddie Jones could’ve made things easier.  The Lakers’ 2003-04 was such a weird season (Kobe’s rape trial, his feuding with Shaq, and the Gary Payton/Karl Malone subplot) that seemed like it wasn’t meant to be.  Either way, the Lakers definitely should’ve kept Eddie.

2.  Rod Strickland will turn his career around by turning the Bullets around

Strickland had a well-earned rep as “talented but troubled” at the time.  In 1995-96, Strickland had 18.7 ppg and 9.6 apg and had been All-Star level for four straight years in Portland.  What’s forgotten is that Strickland liked P.J. Carlesimo about as much as Latrell Sprewell did later in Golden State. 

In February 1996, Strick left the Blazers abruptly after getting in a fight with Carlesimo.  According to the AP: “[Strickland] walked out of a shootaround before that night’s home win over Denver.  Though Strickland vowed never to return, team executives and his agent had expressed hope he would be back….Strickland’s poor relationship with Carlesimo deteriorated rapidly as Portland lost six home games in a row, tying its worst home losing streak, before the Denver win.”

Yup, Ceballos wasn’t the only player to bail on his team and get suspended in 1995-96.  The funny thing is that Strickland’s AWOL status didn’t sink Portland’s season.  Portland went 2-5 without Strickland and the squad was sitting at 26-34.  Upon Strick’s return, Portland went 17-4 and moved up to the sixth seed and even took a great Jazz team to a tough five-game series in the first round before losing (actually, Portland won two close home games and lost by 48 in the deciding game).

Portland decided they were better off giving Kenny Anderson a big free agent contract that summer and flipping Strick for the also erratic Rasheed Wallace.  The Bullets didn’t like Sheed’s temper and already had the forward slots set with Juwan Howard (whom they gave a huge contract) and Chris Webber.

As a post-script to the P.J./Strickland feud, Strickland was asked about Sprewell’s attack on P.J. in 1997.  Strickland told the press that: “[t]hey thought it was me. I guess it wasn’t me…. (Carlesimo is) annoying, that’s the bottom line. We’ve been face-to-face on many occasions, that’s for sure, so I can kind of understand Spree.”

Result:  Sort of correct.  Strickland played up to his usual standards in 1996-97 and he did lead the Bullets to the playoffs, where they were swept by the Michael Jordan Bulls.  It wasn’t totally smooth sailing with Strick in D.C.  Strickland beefed with a teammate and was given a hard time for eating hot dogs before games.  But Strick didn’t have any front page problems anymore and was considered a good point guard until he retired in 2005 at age-38.

3.  Chris Childs will be booed lustily at least once in Madison Square Garden before the New Year

A little context is necessary.  The Knicks had horded tons of cap room to be players in the 1996 summer free agent market and used it to sign Allan Houston and Childs.  Houston was the primary target but Childs was a secondary value play.  Childs was a 28-year old CBA refugee who became the Nets starter in 1995-96 when they traded pending free agent Kenny Anderson.  MacMullan noted that Childs had “modest numbers (12.8 ppg, 7.0 apg) but those numbers ignore that he wasn’t the starter until January 15, 1996.  From that point, he had 16 ppg, .371 3FG%, 8.6 apg, and 1.9 spg.  MacMullan assumed that Childs would regress and struggle in the pressure at MSG

Result:  Mostly correct.  As early as December 1996, the Knicks were booed by MSG fans and Childs was never again nearly as good as he was in 1995-96.  He lost his starting job to Charlie Ward and never put up a positive BPM again.  Still, Childs was a tough defender and had some great moments against the Heat in the 1998 and 2000 playoffs.  He also didn’t care about the booing.  He told The New York Times in December 1996 that booing “goes with the territory….If they boo, so what?  We have to continue to play.”  To his credit, Childs did as he said he would.

4.  Marcus Camby will be named NBA Rookie of the Year

The 1996 Draft was one of the all-time best with Allen Iverson (who did win ROY), Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Stephon Marbury, Ray Allen, Antoine Walker, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, and many others.  Why would Camby be favored for ROY?  MacMullan felt the Raptors’ up-tempo style with 1995-96 ROY Damon Stoudamire would give Camby the numbers to win.  (As a quick aside, Stoudamire didn’t deserve the 1995-96 ROY as Arvydas Sabonis was vastly better).  It wasn’t crazy to think Camby would have a good year but it’s hard to beat Iverson, Marbury, Toine, or Allen, who were going to get tons of shots on bad teams.

Result:  Big whiff.  Camby was okay (14.8 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 bpg, 17.8 PER, -0.1 BPM, 0.9 VORP) but didn’t receive a single ROY vote.  Iverson won a close vote over Marbury and Abdur-Rahim (Walker and Kerry Kittles also got a few votes).  Who really deserved the ROY?  Let’s look at the contenders:

-Iverson: 23.5 ppg, .416 FG%, 4.1 rpg, 7.5 apg. 0.9 BPM, 2.2 VORP

-Marbury: 15.8 ppg, .408 FG%, 2.7 rpg, 7.8 apg, 0.0 BPM, 1.2 VORP

-Abdur-Rahim: 18.7 ppg, .453 FG%, 6.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, -1.8 BPM, 0.2 VORP

-Walker: 17.5 ppg, .425 FG%, 9.0 rpg, 3.2 apg, -2.1 BPM, -0.1 VORP

-Kittles: 16.4 ppg, .426 FG%, 3.9 rpg, 3.0 apg, 1.8 BPM, 2.9 VORP

-Camby: 14.8 ppg, .482 FG%, 6.3 rpg, 1.5 apg, -0.1 BPM, 0.9 VORP

-Dean Garrett: 8.0 ppg, .573 FG%, 7.3 rpg, 0.6 apg, 1.0 BPM, 1.3 VORP

(Ray Allen and Matt Maloney were also both okay but we omitted them because they were clearly not contenders.  Dean Garrett was a 30-year old rookie for the Wolves.  He was pretty solid as a rook and I wrote about his career here).  Iverson had gaudy raw numbers on a bad team but the best player was probably Kittles.  AI’s volume shooting was incredible but also incredibly inefficient.  Kittles was able to be moderately efficient and play defense, giving him a slight but distinct edge.  While Iverson (and many others) would end up being better than Kittles, Kerry was the true ROY in 1996-97.  

5.  The Spurs will win at least 50 games, but that won’t be enough to save Bob Hill’s job

Today, Gregg Popovich is the long-time and current coach of the Spurs.  He’s coached there for 25 years and won five titles.  But he started out in 1988 as a Spurs assistant coach and then moved to the Warriors in 1992 and had the same role.  Somehow, Pop was hired back by the Spurs as GM and VP in 1994. (I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone make such a jump from assistant coach to boss of the whole organization but it has worked out for the Spurs).

At the time, the Spurs were led by peak David Robinson and not a ton more (Dennis Rodman, Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, and Vinny Del Negro).  The Spurs had the best record in the NBA in Hill’s first season as coach in 1994-95 (62-20) but they lost to the Rockets when Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Robinson in the Western Conference Finals.  The Spurs were really good but their record overstated their dominance as they were fifth in the NBA in SRS (5.90) and the supporting cast wasn’t great (there is also strong evidence that Robinson wasn’t quite as good in the slowed down playoff grind).

Before the 1995-96 season, the Spurs dumped Rodman for backup Will Perdue and ran it back without a real replacement for Rodman.  Despite this, the Spurs still went 59-23 and had a slightly better SRS (5.98).  The Spurs were still title contenders and second seed in the West but SRS still had them as worse than that Jazz (6.25) and the Sonics (7.40).  Utah beat the Spurs 4-2 in the second round and Pop was not happy with how Hill coached.  The Spurs did not compete well in the games they lost (the Jazz beat them by 20, 30, 15, and 27).  Pop clearly felt that the Spurs didn’t show up and blamed Hill.  This is a tough but not unfair assessment.

Popovich publicly stated that there was a 50-50 shot that he would fire Hill and apparently only didn’t fire Hill because Don Nelson wouldn’t take the job.  This was the point in time where MacMullan’s prediction came in and seemed eminently reasonable.

Result:  Halfway correct.  Hill was fired by early December 1996 but the Spurs were terrible.  Robinson missed the early part of the year with a back issue and the team went 3-15.  As soon as Robinson was ready to come back, Pop fired Hill and did not give him a chance to coach the full team.  Pop said that: “I fully realize that the timing might look bad.  The fact that David is coming back is a coincidence. The decision wasn’t made in a knee-jerk way. It was made with a lot of thought and a lot of counsel and a lot of heartache.”

The move reeked of unfairness.  Hill had no chance without Robinson and the firing seemed more like a delayed reaction to the 1995-96 failures.  Karma did get Pop.  Robinson broke his foot a few days later and missed the rest of the season.  The Spurs were terrible and Popovich had to coach the team the rest of that miserable season.  That karma didn’t last long.  The Spurs ended up getting Tim Duncan in the draft and the Spurs were excellent for about 20 straight years and Popovich is going to the Hall of Fame. 

Hill went on to coach at Fordham from 1999 to 2003 but the team wasn’t great (36-78).  He returned to the NBA and was an assistant coach and even got a regular job briefly with the Sonics in 2005-06 and 2006-07.  He has had a few more assistant jobs but seems retired now.

6.  The Clippers will play their final season in Los Angeles

At the time, the Clippers split their games between the ugly Sports Arena in Los Angeles and they preferred playing games in Anaheim.  MacMullan felt they would ditch L.A. for Anaheim soon.

Result:  Incorrect.  The Clipps would continue to play in the Sports Arena for three more seasons (in which they were last in attendance each year).  They moved to the STAPLES Center in Los Angeles in 1999-00 and have been there ever since.

7.  The Nuggets will win more games without Dikembe Mutombo than they did with him last season

In 1993-94, the Nuggets were up-and-comers.  They went 42-40 with Mutombo and some other talented players (Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Robert Pack, Bryant Stith, Laphonso Ellis, and Bison Dele).  They upset the Sonics in a legendary playoff series and the future looked bright.  All these years later, everyone remembers the ecstasy in Denver of that great run but the Mutombo Era was pretty disappointing as a whole.  Denver went 41-41 in 1994-95 and were swept out of the playoffs.  They traded for heralded rookie Antonio McDyess in 1995 but it didn’t help.  The Nuggets were even worse (35-47) and they let Mutombo walk as a free agent after the season.

MacMullan thought that the loss of Mutombo would “alter chemistry” in a good way and the Nuggets would pick it up.

Result:  Hugely incorrect.  Mutombo wasn’t the problem.  Lack of talent was.  Without Mutombo the Nuggets slumped to 21-61 and spent the next six years in misery until they finally pulled Carmelo Anthony in the 2003 Draft.  Mutombo went to Atlanta and they were a solid playoff team for the rest of the decade.

8.  Rony Seikaly, Dee Brown and Calbert Cheaney will (finally) be traded

This prediction seems silly.  I’m not talking about accuracy of the prediction as much as the gravity of it.  Here are the three players we are talking about and their 1995-96 stats:

-Seikaly, age 31: 12.1 ppg, 7.8 rpg

-Brown, age 28: 10.7 ppg, 2.2 apg

-Cheaney, age 25: 15.1 ppg, 3.4 rpg

I was (and am) a huge NBA fan and I’m sure the trades of a decent center, decent guard, and a role player wouldn’t have particularly interested me at the time.  

Result:  33% correct.  Seikaly was traded to Orlando right before the season started and was his usual decent self.  Brown barely played due to injuries (21 games) but stayed in Boston.  He was traded to the Raptors in mid-1997-98.  Cheaney remained with the Bullets/Wizards through 1998-99 when his contract ended.  He signed with the Celtics for the 1999-00 season.

9.  Larry Bird will begin to emerge as a major player in the Celtics’ front office

Bird had a special assistant role with Boston since retiring in 1992 but didn’t really do much.  MacMullan wrote that Bird was getting “itchy” to have a substantive position and would, perhaps, replace GM M.L. Carr. 

Result:  Incorrect.  Sort of.  Bird did want to get  more involved.  After the 1996-97 season, the Celtics dumped Carr and gave full control to Rick Pitino, which effectively forced Bird out because he did not want to be a figurehead with no decision making power.  Bird then immediately took the head coach job and helped turn the Pacers around.

Shortly after Bird took the Pacers job, MacMullan wrote a profile of him that laid out Bird’s issues with the Celtics: “For the past two years his frustration with the Boston franchise had been building. He made suggestions in team meetings that were ignored. Deals he thought were foolish went through. The Celtics, he felt, were going in the wrong direction. Team owner Gaston maintains Bird could have been involved with the Celtics in any capacity he wanted, but Bird says he never believed that. ‘[The owners] had already made up their mind what they wanted,’ he says, ‘and it wasn’t me.’”

An interesting side bit from that story is that the Celtics asked Bird who the best coach would be to replace Carr for the 1997-98 season.  He recommended Pitino, Larry Brown, or Roy Williams.  Bird said “I wanted Williams so bad.  He was the perfect guy.  I envisioned him leading the Celtics to their next championship.  But I knew he probably wouldn’t take the job for another four to five years.” 

Pitino ended up being a failure in Boston.  It would’ve been interesting to see whether Williams would’ve done well on the pro stage.

10.  The Sonics will beat the undermanned Bulls to win the NBA Championship

This is a bold prediction.  The Bulls were coming off of the best season in NBA history (72-10) and still had Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen.  They had just beaten a really good Sonics team 4-2 in the 1996 Finals.  MacMullan felt age and injuries would finally catch up with MJ (age 34) and Pippen (age 31).  The Sonics were the second best team in the prior year (64-18) and, if you weren’t picking the Bulls, they were a reasonable alternative.

Result:  Incorrect.  While it was logical to think age would catch up to Jordan, it never did (at least not with the Bulls).  The Bulls “slumped” to an astounding 69-13 and won the title again.  The Sonics had much more difficulty.  They were still really good (57-25, 6.91 SRS) but Utah was better (64-18, 7.97 SRS).  The bigger problem was Shawn Kemp, who became disgruntled when he couldn’t get the new contract he wanted and was very angry that the team had paid a ton to backup center Jim McIlvaine.  Kemp was traded for Vin Baker after the season.  The Sonics were still good for one more season after the trade but then collapsed when George Karl left town.

Are the Knicks for Real?

With a relatively easy victory over the Raptors yesterday, the Knicks have now won nine straight and sit tenuously in the fourth seed at 34-27.  Naturally, New York is aflutter over the Knicks playing meaningful games in April and generally appearing to be a competent organization.  Let’s look at the Knicks and how real this turnaround is…

What exactly are the 2020-21 Knicks?

They are the 2020-21 version of the old Jeff Van Gundy Knicks, a slow paced/defensive squad.  Tom Thibodeau has done a very nice job adjusting his plodding/defense-first style to the 2021 NBA but, in reality, the Knicks are similar in spirit to their 1990s ancestors.  The Knicks are 19th in offense and an impressive 4th in defense, all done at the slowest pace in the NBA (96.0).  Slow pace is obviously relative to the current NBA (for example, the 1997-98 Knicks had a pace factor of 88.2 and were 25th in the NBA).  I’m sure Thibs would play even slower if the style of NBA play permitted it.

For a frame of reference, here are Thibs’ offensive and defensive ratings and pace in his full seasons as a coach (he was fired halfway through 2018-19 so we won’t review that one):

-2010-11 Bulls (62-20): Offense 11th, Defense 1st, Pace 23rd

-2011-12 Bulls (50-16): Offense 5th, Defense 2nd, Pace 28th

-2012-13 Bulls (45-37): Offense 23rd, Defense 6th, Pace 27th

-2013-14 Bulls (48-34): Offense 28th, Defense 2nd, Pace 29th

-2014-15 Bulls (50-32): Offense 11th, Defense 11th, Pace 23rd

-2016-17 Wolves (31-51): Offense 10th, Defense 27th, Pace 25th

-2017-18 Wolves (47-35): Offense 4th, Defense 27th, Pace 24th

Thibs has always demanded a slow-paced offense (to avoid fast breaks the other way) and in that sense he has very much stuck to his roots in New York (no pun intended).  We can probably chalk up Thibodeau’s offense-first teams in Minnesota as an anomaly unique to the personnel in Minnesota (The Wolves have been unable to play defense since they let Kevin Garnett go the first time). 

Knicks versus their Peers

The clear favorites in the East are the Nets, 76ers, or Bucks.  The Knicks fall into the group of squads that have about a 50% shot of making the second round.  They are in a virtual dead heat with Atlanta, who the Knicks beat in a very entertaining game last week (they would play the Hawks in the first round if the season ended today.  Here’s how the Knicks stack up with their peer group teams (the above .500 squads in the East outside of the top tier):

Knicks: 34-27, 1.73 SRS

Hawks: 33-27, 2.24 SRS

Celtics: 32-28, 2.47 SRS

Heat: 32-29, -0.68 SRS

SRS can be misleading sometimes and particularly so in a season like this one where so many key players have sat due to rest, injuries, or COVID.  Here’s how each team has done in the injury front with its top players:

-The Knicks have been more fortunate than the other teams in this tier on the injury front.  The Knicks two top scorers players Julius Randle and RJ Barrett have missed only one game all year.  Randle is also leading the NBA in minutes per game (37.5), which is fourth most MPG for a player since 2014-15 (the most MPG in a season was logged by Jimmy Butler playing for Thibs in 2014-15 at 38.7).

-Atlanta lost De’Andre Hunter for much of the season.  Trae Young was healthy until a bad ankle sprain versus the Knicks last week.

-The Celtics have missed about seven games from Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown but Tatum has admitted to struggling to recover from COVID.  Marcus Smart missed about 20 games with injury and Kemba Walker is being load managed due to bad knees.

-The Heat have consciously load managed Jimmy Butler (he’s missed 17 of 61 games).  Bam Adebayo has missed seven games.

Thibs’ approach has been to ride his workhorses, while other teams have sat their stars.  When rotations tighten up in the playoffs and all the stars play every game, it is possible that Boston, in particular, will look better than New York.

Randle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Randle’s incredible 2020-21 season has been the primary engine for the Knicks’ offense.  It’s not quite clear where this came from.  Randle was always a perfectly competent NBA player but now he’s a point forward who does everything!  Let’s compare his stats from last season with this one:

-2019-20: 32.5 mpg, 19.5 ppg, .460 FG%, .277 3FG%, 9.7 rpg, 3.1 apg, 17.5 PER, .062 WS48, -0.3 BPM, 0.9 VORP

-2020-21: 37.5 mpg, 24.0 ppg, .462 FG%, .416 3FG%, 10.5 rpg, 6.0 apg, 20.1 PER, .148 WS48, 3.9 BPM, 3.4

Incredibly, Randle has almost doubled his three-point attempts and went from a terrible three-point shooter to an excellent one (he’s 11-15 from three his last two games!).  Randle has also nearly doubled his assist rate, all without a rise in turnovers. 

Looking at Randle’s shot chart is even more astounding.  Per Basketball-Reference.com, Randle has radically reduced his inside shots.  Only 17% of his shots come within three feet of the rim (compared to 40% for his career).  His long two point shots have gone up to 15% (from 9% for his career) and threes are up to 29% (compared to 16% for his career).  Somehow, Randle has shot a career high 42% on long twos and threes (his career averages on both are 34%).  All of this suggests that Randle’s shooting may regress unless he has found a new level of shooting proficiency at age-26.  This is possible but not likely.  In fairness, Randle’s 2019-20 season was abnormally bad as well and the average of the two seasons is in line with what he did with New Orleans in 2018-19. 

Putting aside whether this playing level is sustainable, Randle likely deserves to be on an All-NBA team but the notion that he is a serious MVP candidate is silly.  He is 21st in BPM, 11th in VORP and plays the same team roles as Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Joel Embiid, who have all been better this year.  Stats aside, none of those GMs would trade their stars for Randle in a million years.  You can understand why New York fans would get excited but that is a bridge too far.

3-Point Defense

On the other side of the ball, the Knicks have been the best team at defending the three all year (.337% allowed).  The interesting question is whether three-point defense is a skill or more a result of random chance.  Generally, most of the scholarship finds that three-pointers are much harder for a defense to control than two-pointers and that luck is much more of factor in the results.  Indeed, plenty of others have thought that the Knicks are due for a regression (or maybe a progression?) in this area.

Is it possible that Thibs is somehow good at three-point defense and that variance is less of an issue on three-pointers with his teams?  Let’s review his rankings against three-pointers as coach in prior years:

-2010-11 Bulls: .326% (1st)

-2011-12 Bulls: .325% (3rd)

-2012-13 Bulls: .346% (5th)

-2013-14 Bulls: .351% (8th)

-2014-15 Bulls: .335% (3rd)

-2016-17 T-Wolves: .366% (23rd)

-2017-18 T-Wolves: .366% (18th)

The NBA world has changed a lot since Thibodeau coached the Bulls but he consistently kept opponents to low three-point percentage and was routinely one of the best teams at preventing threes.  If we throw away Thibs’ Minny experience (and that time does appear to be an anomaly), this year’s Knicks are facially similar to his old Bull squads.  The difference, though, is that the Knicks are actually allowing a lot of threes this year (10th most allowed).  So, the evidence is mixed on the luck versus skill issue.  My sense is that Thibs gets some credit for the three-point defense but they are probably on the high end of their defensive range against three-points and are due for some bad luck at some point.

Going Forward

Thibodeau will ride the scorching hot Randle as far as he can.  This ride will depend on matchups but making the second round is quite achievable in this year’s playoffs.  Regardless of playoff outcome, the Knicks are having their first relevant season since 2012-13 and the future is potentially bright.  They have a ton of cap room to burn (there is another challenge on the horizon because Randle’s contract is up after 2021-22.  If he can continue to play near this well, he will get the max.  If the real Randle is the 2018-19 version that would be an overpay).  I am always highly skeptical that a James Dolan-led franchise will stick the landing but the opportunity is certainly there for a good Knicks team for a few years to come.

Too Many 3-Pointers?

At the end of today’s Celtics-Nuggets game, Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan tweeted “Celtics and Nuggets a combined 15-for-67 on threes today. Yeah, that three-point shot is a great idea. It really enhances the game. By the way, Nuggets score 8 points in the fourth quarter. I don’t have a punch line.”  Ryan’s disgust triggered the typical back-and-forth about the relative merits of the three-pointer to which Ryan noted: “How about just junking the whole needless thing? The three was the gimmick of a promoter, Abe Saperstein. The ABA borrowed it because it needed its own gimmick.”

This brings up the continuously asked question: do we finally have so many threes that it detracts from the enjoyment of the game?  It is clear that the three-point shot frequency has been creeping up for decades (I recall writing about this phenomenon way back in 2004).  Basketball-Reference has provided the stats for the last decade of three-point makes and attempts per game, along with the percentage of field goal taken that were three-pointers:

2010-11: 6.5-18.0, .358 3FG%, .222% 3FGA%

2011-12: 6.4-18.4, .349 3FG%, .226 3FGA%

2012-13: 7.2-20.0, .359 3FG%, .244 3FGA%

2013-14: 7.7-21.5, .360 3FG%, .259 3FGA%

2014-15: 7.8-22.4, .350 3FG%, .268 3FGA%

2015-16: 8.5-24.1, .354 3FG%, .285 3FGA%

2016-17: 9.7-27.0, .358 3FG%. .316 3FGA%

2017-18: 10.5-29.0, .362 3FG%, .337 3FGA%

2018-19: 11.4-32.0, .355 3FG%, .359 3FGA%

2019-20: 12.2-34.1, .358 3FG%, .384 3FGA%

2020-21: 12.7-34.7, .367 3FG%, .393 3FGA%

Wow.  Threes have nearly doubled since 2010.  At the same time, the shooting has gotten much better (.367% would tie the best percentage with 2008-09 and 1995-96).   The shooting has actually extended to the free throw line, where the NBA has shot year best .778% so far. On the other hand, the ratio of free throws to field goals of .190 is the lowest since the shot clock.  Conversely, nearly 40% of shots taken this year have been threes, by far the highest percentage ever.  Basically, the NBA has turned into a fast paced three-point contest and the players have gotten really good at it.

Having seen that three-point shooting has grown, is this really a problem?  Let’s take a look at the arguments against the rising use of the shot:

-General dislike of the shot:  This seems to be Bob Ryan’s argument.  While he didn’t appreciate the crappy shooting, his real problem was that he thinks that the three does not represent pure basketball because it was invented to jazz up the game.  This thought has been echoed by other vet NBA writers like Patrick Reusse of the Star Tribune in December 2019.  After watching the T-Wolves and Kings go 19-87 from three in a game, Reusse wrote that “three-point madness has ruined the NBA for me. Wolves-Kings was the final, rim-bending night of nauseam. Serious column desperation might win out occasionally, but I can’t stand what has become of Elgin’s game.”

I can appreciate that teams missing shots is not aesthetically pleasing to the viewer but that’s true about any shots (threes included).  Just randomly search old columns and you will find similar complaints about the state of the game.  Take this February 1997 column by Brian Schmitz of the Orlando Sentinel where he decries the state of the defensive-minded NBA of the late 1990s: “[n]o shots are pretty or easy in the NBA, circa ’96-97. Scoring has been so difficult, you wonder if the league wouldn’t bring in the 3-point stripe to college range.”

If you go back to the beginning of the three-point shot in the NBA in 1979, puritanical objections were also made.  Golden State Warriors owner Franklin Mieuli told Sports Illustrated that “[c]hanging the two-point basket is immoral.  The ABA had it and folded. What have we done except hurt ourselves? We have separated ourselves from the main body of basketball by tampering with a game that has lasted for 90 years. We have paid too high a price. I could even accept raising the basket, which has always been 10 feet up, because the people are bigger. But two points for a basket is a good concept. Otherwise it wouldn’t have lasted this long. Everyone else from kids on the street on up will give two points for a field goal, but the NBA will give three for outside shots. We are going to destroy the team concept.”

Most of what Mieuli spews there is, umm, questionable.  First, the fact that the rule didn’t exist before is not a particularly strong argument for not changing anything.  The question was whether the rule improved the game in some way.  Mieuli doesn’t really deal with that consideration and his morality argument (which is similar to the “gimmick” argument made by the old-time writers) holds little weight to me. 

In fact, for the most part, the three-point shot made the NBA a much more watchable game.  The spacing in the 1970s is bunched near the basket and 15-feet.  When a team was down late, it was difficult to come back at all.  The three-point shot improved both of those aspects of the game. 

-Lack of diversity of styles:  Most of Mielui’s hysterical arguments against the three-pointer seemed silly.  Still, he made one point that had some merit.  What if teams stopped shooting twos because the allure of the three-pointer?  That’s not exactly what has happened but 40 years later there is some real concern.  As noted above, three-point attempts continue to rise exponentially each season.  In addition, the modus operandi of all teams is to park one or two specialists in the corner, where the three-pointer is closer (22 feet) than the 23’9 mark from the top of the key (Stephen Shea wrote a nice article at the growth of this tactic). 

In April 2019, Kirk Goldsberry wrote that the three-point shot was seemingly overshadowing other facets of the game.  Goldsberry referenced an interview with Greg Popovich where Pop said “[t]here’s no basketball anymore, there’s no beauty in it.  Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the 3s. If you made 3s and the other team didn’t, you win. You don’t even look at the rebounds or the turnovers or how much transition D was involved. You don’t even care.”  In other words, Pop is making the same point Mieuli made but in more refined terms. 

A few months earlier, in November 2018, Reid Forgrave of CBS Sports did a nice review of the issue and asked coaches about how far the three-point revolution would go.  Here’s what they told Forgave:

-Kenny Atkinson (correctly) saw no end in sight to the increase in threes and wondered when teams would hit 60 attempts per game.

-Nick Nurse said that teams had to shoot threes to compete and that the shot made protecting the rim hard and that the coaches had to plan for the long rebounds caused by the three-point misses.

-Brad Stevens guessed that the line had to be moved back to 28 or 30 feet because of how easily the modern players can shoot the three off of the dribble.

-Quinn Snyder smartly noted that it was obvious that teams would take more shots that were worth more points and players would train and adjust to a further line (his exact quote was: “[i]f they put [a four-point line] in, we’ll start figuring out how to use it”).

Last month, Kevin Arnovitz wrote that the NBA finally thinks it has a problem: “[m]easures that have been implemented over the past 20 years to help jump-start scoring are approaching an age of overcorrection.”  In other words, the pendulum has swung too far from towards the offense.   It is sort of shocking to see centers like Andre Drummond be discarded because they have less utility than solid small forwards.  I’m agnostic about how big a problem the three-point heavy game is but it does seem that some tweaking of the three-point rules is in order.

No matter the rules, it’s nearly impossible to stop guys likeSteph Curry from hitting shots off the dribble from 30 feet.  Nor do I mind, particularly, the three-point barrages but I do agree that there needs to be more than one roadmap for success in the NBA.  The NBA players and teams have perfected the rules dealt to them and you can’t criticize them for doing so.  If the NBA wants change (and it seems like reversing the three-point trend slightly would make some sense), they will have to make some rule alterations.

Numerous ideas have been floated including moving the line way back (as Stevens’ noted it would have to be waaaay back).  My personal preference would be to eliminate the 22-foot corner threes and limit the shot to 23’9.  This move is not a perfect change.  It could encourage the teams to keep several players outside even farther from the paint.  Still, it would be a good start to encourage other innovations.