Monday, January 23, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Scoring Point Guards – Do They Work?
Successful offenses – how are they established? All teams are given five individuals to work with: a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward and a center. Historically, each position has set out to focus on passing, scoring, creating, rebounding, post play, or any combination. In certain cases, though, teams may look to assign specific roles and predicate their offense on sets – such often include the Triangle Offense, Princeton Offense, or Pick and Roll Offense. Vast differences in each ideology suggest that every position may not hold the same importance in each system; certainly, various teams over many years have proven that there are numerous ways to thrive. But one thing elite offenses have never, ever done? Build around a scoring point guard.
What exactly is a “scoring point guard”, you ask? There is a distinct difference in scoring point guards, shoot-first point guards, pass-first and the rest, so to be clear: I’m referring to those players with 1) a shoot-first mentality and 2) a tendency dominate the ball. Both of these qualities must be present, or we’re mistakenly left to deal with a different prototype (a few examples of scoring point guards: Stephon Marbury, Nick Van Exel, Gary Payton, Steve Francis, Pete Maravich, Calvin Murphy, Allen Iverson, Brandon Jennings, Aaron Brooks, Derrick Rose, and Russell Westbrook).14 Here are three reasons as to why scoring point guards such as these tend to hurt their team more than help them offensively:
1) Offenses often fail to fully establish.
As a point guard is typically the player to bring the ball up the court and establish an offensive set, when a set offense is not run, all remaining players are forced to operate from a standstill. It must be considered that passing and player movement causes the defense to react, and the more they are forced to react, the more space is created for the offensive players. When the selfish tendencies of a scoring point guard prevail, lack of this movement spells trouble for the offense.
2) A point guards “scoring mindset” inevitably leads to offensive inefficiency.
In addition to the inefficient scoring that his teammates must endure from his reluctance to run a set offense, a scoring point guard faces hardship himself. Due to the fact that guards are usually the smallest players on the court, no matter how talented they may be, they will not be able to get efficient shots consistently as an undersized scorer at the one position. This hardship is compounded when their teammates are not involved in the offense and thus are not screening for them or passing to them.
3) Teammates stop working together and poor habits are formed.
“Hey, I kind of like being a part of this offense.” That’s every one of Steve Nash’s teammates in the last decade. As a friend of mine put it, selfishness is never productive once you're on a good team. How vital is it that this mindset exists throughout a team with title hopes? Take it upon yourself to remember the offensive successes of the ’86 Celtics, Showtime Lakers, Nash’s Suns, Isiah’s Bad Boys, or Phil Jackson’s Triangle-running Lakers and Bulls teams. To further investigate what, and who, has made the game's best offenses hum, let's review some great teams of the past while keeping in mind the style of basketball they stressed. Did their point guard exude selfish tendencies? Have a look at the only teams to lead the league in offensive rating, all of which exceeded 114.0:
It's okay if you are unfamiliar with the above terms, as we will delve into their proper usage and definitions very soon - however, the lower the ratio, the more passing-oriented the player is; the lower the usage percentage, the less ball-dominant the player is.
| Team/Starting PG | Team Offensive Rating | PG FGA/AST Ratio | Usage % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 Los Angeles Lakers - Magic Johnson | 115.6 | 1.34 | 26.3 | |
| 1992 Chicago Bulls - John Paxson | 115.5 | 2 | 12.1 | |
| 1988 Boston Celtics - Dennis Johnson | 115.4 | 1.33 | 18.1 | |
| 2010 Phoenix Suns - Steve Nash | 115.3 | 1.11 | 22.9 | |
| 1996 Chicago Bulls - Ron Harper | 115.2 | 2.42 | 14.9 | |
| 1995 Orlando Magic - Anfernee Hardaway | 115.1 | 2.05 | 23.7 | |
| 1987 Dallas Mavericks - Derek Harper | 114.9 | 1.63 | 19.6 | |
| 2005 Phoenix Suns - Steve Nash | 114.5 | 0.99 | 20.5 | |
| 1982 Denver Nuggets - Billy McKinney | 114.3 | 2.05 | 17.2 | |
| 1990 Los Angeles Lakers - Magic Johnson | 114 | 1.25 | 24.8 | |
| 1.617 | 20.01 |
It's okay if you are unfamiliar with the above terms, as we will delve into their proper usage and definitions very soon - however, the lower the ratio, the more passing-oriented the player is; the lower the usage percentage, the less ball-dominant the player is.
Who’s at fault?
This discussion often becomes a question of fault. At times, it is simply the player’s mindset that detriments his team (see: Russell Westbrook in Oklahoma City), but this is not always the case; I would argue that while Derrick Rose and Allen Iverson have tendencies to periodically put their individual offense before their team’s, considering their team’s historical lack of firepower, their style of play is somewhat necessary. What this discussion acts to do in such cases, then, is shed light on the fact that teams that are overly reliant on their point guard’s scoring have little chance of success; sometimes it is the scoring point guard’s mindset at fault, sometimes it is the coach and organization at fault, and very often, it is a combination of the two.
Alright, I know. Some of you are still convinced that there is no “fault” at hand – Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook fans are thinking, “What’s wrong with driving and kicking? You’re looking for a good look, and if it’s not there, you’re kicking it out to an open teammate…” Aside from the fact that that is not a set offense, there are problems with that assumption, too. First of all, it doesn’t always work that way - when your point guard isn’t going against Derek Fisher, the defense is not necessarily going to collapse. The second thing to note, here, is that the rest of your offense may not be able to reset and run as efficiently – compared to a point guard running a set from the top of the key, for instance. If the point guard drives and kicks to a teammate, they now have two players on the perimeter and three in the key, and are thus forced to operate with someone completely taken out of the offense (as the point guard is left standing in a sea of trees).
Evidence
Let’s shift numbers to see if anything else can provide evidence that a Rondo-type mindset trumps a Westbrook-type. I figured there’d be no better way to calculate point guard successes than to review the rosters of championship teams and dive into their numbers. We can look to actively differentiate classic point guards from scoring ones, shooting ones, combo guards, and other prototypes by keeping in mind their tendencies and considering the appropriate statistics. A statistic such as AST% may not help us with this as much as we think (teams with good team passing will hurt the point guard’s individual numbers in this case), but simple statistics such as Field Goals Attempted (FGA), Assists Per Game (APG), and Usage Percentage (USG%) certainly can. In review of my premise: teams that do not employ point guards with shoot-first mentalities (who dominate the ball) will have a much greater chance of success. Over the last thirty years, has this held true?
| Championship Team / Starting Point Guard | Season FGA | Season AST | FGA/AST Ratio | Career FGA | USG% | Team Off. Rating | PTS/G | Pace |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980: Los Angeles Lakers – Magic Johnson (A) | 12.3 | 7.3 | 1.684931507 | 13.2 | 20.9 | 109.5 (1st of 22) | 115.1 (2nd of 22) | 104.1 (8th of 22) |
| 1980: Los Angeles Lakers – Norm Nixon (B) | 14.7 | 7.8 | 1.884615385 | 14.1 | 20 | 109.5 (1st of 22) | 115.1 (2nd of 22) | 104.1 (8th of 22) |
| 1981: Boston Celtics – Tiny Archibald | 9.6 | 7.7 | 1.246753247 | 14.4 | 17.5 | 108.4 (5th of 23) | 109.9 (8th of 23) | 100.8 (16th of 23) |
| 1982: Los Angeles Lakers – Magic Johnson | 13.3 | 10.5 | 1.266666667 | 13.2 | 20.1 | 110.2 (2nd of 23) | 114.6 (2nd of 23) | 103.1 (4th of 23) |
| 1983: Philadelphia 76ers – Mo Cheeks | 9.4 | 6.9 | 1.362318841 | 8.5 | 16.6 | 108.3 (5th of 23) | 112.1 (8th of 23) | 102.7 (15th of 23) |
| 1984: Boston Celtics – Dennis Johnson | 11 | 4.2 | 2.619047619 | 11.9 | 18.4 | 110.9 (6th of 23) | 112.1 (7th of 23) | 99.7 (15th of 23) |
| 1985: Los Angeles Lakers – Magic Johnson | 12.3 | 7.3 | 1.684931507 | 13.2 | 20.5 | 114.1 (1st of 23) | 118.2 (2nd of 23) | 103.2 (9th of 23) |
| 1986: Boston Celtics – Dennis Johnson | 13.6 | 5.8 | 2.344827586 | 11.9 | 20.5 | 111.8 (3rd of 23) | 114.1 (8th of 23) | 101.2 (16th of 23) |
| 1987: Los Angeles Lakers – Magic Johnson | 16.4 | 12.2 | 1.344262295 | 13.2 | 26.3 | 115.6 (1st of 23) | 117.8 (2nd of 23) | 101.6 (10th of 23) |
| 1988: Los Angeles Lakers – Magic Johnson | 13.8 | 11.9 | 1.159663866 | 13.2 | 23.4 | 113.1 (2nd of 23) | 112.8 (5th of 23) | 99.1 (11th of 23) |
| 1989: Detroit Pistons – Isiah Thomas | 15.3 | 8.3 | 1.843373494 | 16.2 | 24.6 | 110.8 (7th of 25) | 106.6 (16th of 25) | 95.5 (25th of 25) |
| 1990: Detroit Pistons – Isiah Thomas | 16.3 | 9.4 | 1.734042553 | 16.2 | 26 | 109.9 (11th of 27) | 104.3 (19th of 27) | 94.4 (26th of 27) |
| 1991: Chicago Bulls – John Paxson | 7 | 3.6 | 1.944444444 | 6.2 | 14.4 | 114.6 (1st of 27) | 110.0 (7th of 27) | 95.6 (19th of 27) |
| 1992: Chicago Bulls – John Paxson | 6.2 | 3.1 | 2 | 6.2 | 12.1 | 115.5 (1st of 27) | 109.9 (5th of 27) | 94.4 (22nd of 27) |
| 1993: Chicago Bulls – B.J. Armstrong | 10 | 4 | 2.5 | 8 | 16.8 | 112.9 (2nd of 27) | 105.2 (15th of 27) | 92.5 (27th of 27) |
| 1994: Houston Rockets – Kenny Smith | 9.1 | 4.2 | 2.166666667 | 10 | 18.1 | 105.9 (15th of 27) | 101.1 (13th of 27) | 95.0 (15th of 27) |
| 1995: Houston Rockets – Kenny Smith | 7.3 | 4 | 1.825 | 10 | 17.3 | 109.7 (7th of 27) | 103.5 (8th of 27) | 94.2 (10th of 27) |
| 1996: Chicago Bulls – Ron Harper | 6.3 | 2.6 | 2.423076923 | 11.8 | 14.9 | 115.2 (1st of 29) | 105.2 (1st of 29) | 91.1 (20th of 29) |
| 1997: Chicago Bulls – Ron Harper | 5.3 | 2.5 | 2.12 | 11.8 | 12.6 | 114.4 (1st of 29 | 103.1 (1st of 29) | 90.0 (18th of 29) |
| 1998: Chicago Bulls – Ron Harper | 8.1 | 2.9 | 2.793103448 | 11.8 | 16.7 | 107.7 (9th of 29) | 96.7 (9th of 29) | 89.0 (22nd of 29) |
| 1999: San Antonio Spurs – Avery Johnson | 9.2 | 7.4 | 1.243243243 | 7.2 | 17 | 104.0 (11th of 29) | 92.8 (13th of 29) | 88.6 (19th of 29) |
| 2000: Los Angeles Lakers – Ron Harper | 6.6 | 3.4 | 1.941176471 | 11.8 | 15.6 | 107.3 (5th of 29) | 100.8 (6th of 29) | 93.3 (14th of 29) |
| 2001: Los Angeles Lakers – Derek Fisher | 9.4 | 4.4 | 2.136363636 | 7.6 | 15.4 | 108.4 (2nd of 29) | 100.6 (3rd of 29) | 91.7 (14th of 29) |
| 2002: Los Angeles Lakers – Derek Fisher | 9.5 | 2.6 | 3.653846154 | 7.6 | 17.6 | 109.4 (2nd of 29) | 101.3 (3rd of 29) | 92.1 (6th of 29) |
| 2003: San Antonio Spurs – Tony Parker | 12.7 | 5.3 | 2.396226415 | 13.5 | 22.9 | 105.6 (7th of 29) | 95.8 (12th of 29) | 90.0 (20th of 29) |
| 2004: Detroit Pistons – Chauncey Billups | 12.8 | 5.7 | 2.245614035 | 11.2 | 23.5 | 102.0 (18th of 29) | 90.1 (24th of 29) | 87.9 (24th of 29) |
| 2005: San Antonio Spurs – Tony Parker | 14 | 6.1 | 2.295081967 | 13.5 | 25.1 | 107.5 (8th of 30) | 96.2 (18th of 30) | 88.9 (23rd of 30) |
| 2006: Miami Heat – Jason Williams | 10.3 | 4.9 | 2.102040816 | 9.8 | 18.5 | 108.7 (7th of 30) | 99.9 (6th of 30) | 91.6 (12th of 30) |
| 2007: San Antonio Spurs – Tony Parker | 14.2 | 5.5 | 2.581818182 | 13.5 | 27.4 | 109.2 (5th of 30) | 98.5 (14th of 30) | 89.8 (27th of 30) |
| 2008: Boston Celtics – Rajon Rondo | 9.3 | 5.1 | 1.823529412 | 9.1 | 18.9 | 110.2 (10th of 30) | 100.5 (11th of 30) | 90.9 (19th of 30) |
| 2009: Los Angeles Lakers – Derek Fisher | 8.4 | 2.3 | 3.652173913 | 7.6 | 14.7 | 112.8 (3rd of 30) | 106.9 (3rd of 30) | 94.3 (5th of 30) |
| 2010: Los Angeles Lakers – Derek Fisher | 6.8 | 2.1 | 3.238095238 | 7.6 | 14 | 108.8 (11th of 30) | 101.7 (12th of 30) | 92.8 (14th of 30) |
| 2011: Dallas Mavericks – Jason Kidd | 7.5 | 8.2 | 0.914634146 | 11.7 | 14.3 | 109.7 (8th of 30) | 100.2 (11th of 30) | 91.3 (18th of 30) |
| 10.54545455 | 5.733333333 | 1.839323467 | 11.11212121 | 18.86666667 | ||||
| 2011: Milwaukee Bucks - Brandon Jennings | 14.7 | 4.8 | 3.0625 | 14.9 | 25.5 | 101.6 (30th of 30) | 91.9 (30th of 30) | 89.8 (25th of 30) |
| 2011: Chicago Bulls - Derrick Rose | 19.7 | 7.7 | 2.558441558 | 17.3 | 32.2 | 108.3 (11th of 30) | 98.6 (20th of 30) | 90.4 (23rd of 30) |
| 2011: Oklahoma City Thunder - Russell Westbrook | 17 | 8.2 | 2.073170732 | 14.9 | 31.6 | 111.2 (5th of 30) | 104.8 (5th of 30) | 92.7 (13th of 30) |
| 2010: Golden State Warriors - Monta Ellis | 22 | 5.3 | 4.150943396 | 16.1 | 29.4 | 108.1 (14th of 30) | 108.8 (2nd of 30) | 100.4 (1st of 30) |
| 2010: Washington Wizards - Gilbert Arenas | 19.3 | 7.2 | 2.680555556 | 16.4 | 31.9 | 104.2 (25th of 30) | 96.2 (26th of 30) | 91.6 (21st of 30) |
| 2010: Sacramento Kings - Tyreke Evans | 16.2 | 5.8 | 2.793103448 | 16.1 | 26.2 | 105.3 (22nd of 30) | 100.0 (18th of 30) | 94.0 (7th of 30) |
| 2001: Philadelphia 76ers - Allen Iverson | 21.9 | 4.6 | 4.760869565 | 19.1 | 35.9 | 103.6 (13th of 29) | 94.7 (15th of 29) | 90.6 (19th of 29) |
| 18.68571429 | 6.228571429 | 3 | 16.4 | 30.38571429 | ||||
| 2006: Phoenix Suns - Steve Nash | 13.4 | 10.5 | 1.276190476 | 10.8 | 23.3 | 111.5 (2nd of 30) | 108.4 (1st of 30) | 95.8 (1st of 30) |
| 1998: Utah Jazz - John Stockton | 8 | 8.5 | 0.941176471 | 9.1 | 19.3 | 112.7 (1st of 29) | 101.0 (3rd of 29) | 89.2 (21st of 29) |
| 2008: New Orleans Hornets - Chris Paul | 16.1 | 11.6 | 1.387931034 | 13.9 | 25.7 | 111.5 (5th of 30) | 100.9 (9th of 30) | 89.9 (26th of 30) |
| 12.5 | 10.2 | 1.225490196 | 11.26666667 | 22.76666667 |
Thirty-one long years ruled by many teams utilizing various offensive systems and boasting many dominant players. Take a quick glance – do any of these point guards seem ball-dominant to you? A couple. And those – are they classifiable as “chuckers”? Not a bit. The closest that the numbers suggest to fit both of these labels (questionably identifiable as “scoring PGs”) are Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Isiah Thomas, and Magic Johnson. We can take Magic off the list right away, because he’s without a doubt a pass-first point guard – and likely the best one ever, at that. Chauncey, while perhaps guilty of a shoot-first mentality, understands the importance of running an offense – this is depicted by his 11.2 FGA per game career average and his team’s histories of good team passing. Tony Parker may be the clearest outlier – once boasting over 14 FGA in a championship season, his scoring tendencies are not in question.15 Isiah Thomas averaged more shots per game than the rest of his elite point guard peers, but the issue is he passed a lot more, too. Not many other point guards were able to dominate the ball as much as him and still run incredibly selfless, efficient offenses, since, well... they just didn’t have his abilities. Feel free to identify Isiah as a scoring point guard if you want, but you know in your heart it isn’t fully true. Isiah - an elite scorer? Yes, but he often waited until his team needed him to take over. Was he perhaps an even better passer? Absolutely.
If we're to dig a little deeper into the statistics, something in particular sticks out: Usage Percentage.16 Not one single point guard from a championship team in the last thirty years (it dates further back than that, too) reached a 28% or higher usage rate. Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas had numerous field goal attempts per game in their championship seasons, but as they were consumed with shot creation for others, they balanced their individual offense with their team’s just enough (evident in 26% and 24% Usage Percentage alongside stupendous FGA/AST ratios). And the collective usage percentage from championship teams? An astonishingly low 18.85 percent!
For the sake of comparison, I provided the numbers of modern talents who, contrarily, haven’t had to the opportunity to hold a Larry O’Brien trophy.17 You’ll notice Hall of Famers Nash and Stockton (good group) with low usage rates and great FGA/AST ratios, but such is not the case with talents in Ellis, Rose, Iverson, Westbrook, Jennings, and Arenas (bad group). Many of these offensive juggernauts flaunt usage rates in excess of 30% - vastly different from the average championship team point guard. Mark it in the books: if you’re in excess of 28% usage rate as a point guard, your team has never won; some of our young talents of today may really want to reconsider their approach. Players in Steve Nash and Chris Paul for instance – despite being more than capable scorers – understand to put their team’s offense before themselves and correctly utilize their playmaking abilities.18 This is reflected in many of their team’s high offensive ratings, despite frequent lack of personnel – particularly seen with Steve Nash, who continues to lead inept teammates to incredible heights offensively.
One thing that cannot be ignored when having this conversation, though, is the recent implementation of the handchecking rule (2004). With the rule essentially disallowing defenders to “handcheck” or “arm bar” their opponents on the perimeter, scorers immediately experienced an easier time with gaining momentum and getting a good look at the hoop – clearly relevant to the common agendas of scoring point guards. This rule’s effects on perimeter scorers has been well documented – players like Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, and Allen Iverson (well past his prime) quickly saw noticeable increases in their scoring averages. Some people’s reaction to this: “Since athletic point guards have an easier time with scoring now, what’s not to like in their mindset?” My response: teams left to figure out their own offense while their point guard goes off on his own are missing out on too much. It would also be incorrect to assume that good passers do not benefit from the rule changes as well, as their teammates (being more open) can receive the ball with more ease. Furthermore, as the point guard is given more space, he can better navigate through the lane with the intent of finding his teammates.
Since, the game’s top scoring point guards have been clearly been searching for the right balance; unfortunately, they are unaware that the right balance requires more deferment and is more oriented around passing. Granted, all of this is mere speculation, but what we do know is, since 2004’s rule changes, two things have remained constant: 1) championship teams have not used a point guard possessing a FGA to AST ratio greater than 2:1 – in the rare cases that the ratio is higher, USG% rate never has exceeded 28% and 2) the league’s best offenses have all been run by non-scoring point guards.
So there you have it. Thirty-one long years and you’ve got between one and three (questionable) outliers – players identifiable as “scoring point guards” who ran their system to perfection and rose above the elite. Thirty-odd teams employing thousands of individuals over multiple decades, and save one or two, every single scoring point guard has fallen short of the ultimate goal. Perhaps the point guard statistics from the league's best historical offenses paint an even clearer picture - with mean averages of 1.617 and 20.01% for FGA/AST ratio and Usage Percentage, it is apparent what types of offenses lead to most the success. In sum, teams need not employ an elite point guard to win - rather, they must be very careful to not place too much importance on point guard scoring. I’m sorry to say it, but Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans, Russell Westbrook, Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis, and Brandon Jennings – you may have talented teams, but until you adopt more Nash-like behavior, your chances just don’t look very good.
[14] Collective championships won between these individuals: zero. Yep, with all that talent…
[15] Take note: Tony Parker still shot less per game than his superstar teammate Tim Duncan.
[16] For those who are wondering about the specifics of Usage Percentage, think of it as the percentage of team possessions a player uses for himself. This is simply done by shooting in the form of a field goal, with free throws, or by committing a turnover. Assists are not a part of the equation. Basketball-Reference.com’s definition and formula: "Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."
[17] The selected years for these players were arguably their best, and often when they were closest to winning a championship.
[18] Both have displayed the ability to average over 18 PPG. While Nash is likely the greatest shooter the game has ever seen, Paul boasts an impressive third-best-of-all-time offensive rating.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Delving into the "Clutch" Phenomenon and its Overdependence
Every NBA fan has heard the sayings time and time again: “Ice in his veins!” “He’s choking!” “Clutchest in the game!” Those who make the claims believe they are somehow distinguishing the sport’s heroes from its feeble-at-heart. So how are things panning out with the usage of labels in such a free and absent-minded manner?
"Clutch" and "choke" labels are being applied so excessively it's become problematic.
As the media has learned to feed off NBA fans' obsession with the “clutch” phenomenon, we feel more and more comfortable with its usage. This has led to the development of an extremely fickle mindset in fans – immediately following a crucial missed or made shot, many will proceed to sling one of two labels at the involved players (of which are polar opposites). Utterances such as the above - paired with hand selected clutch statistics - have started to surface in nearly every NBA game. Unfortunately, with such reliance and emphasis on these labels, it has gotten to the point where the words “clutch” and “choke” have begun to lose their meaning altogether.
We’re just certain of the importance of the phenomenon. Many analysts and coaches, even, insist that a player’s clutchness seriously impacts his overall worth. While it is certainly enjoyable (and sometimes feels necessary) to quickly label many of the NBA’s great talents, many fail to realize that these words carry with them a practical aura, or for the less fortunate, an ever-present stigma – and that the player in possession of such is often undeserving. Simply put, people aren’t taking everything into consideration. Fortunately, reversing this trend doesn’t require more effort than 1) reviewing our tendencies as fans, 2) understanding what “clutchness” really is, and 3) looking at a few relevant statistics.
“Clutchness” is not an innate ability, but rather something that can be developed and improved over time.
“Clutchness” must not be confused with competitive drive, as they are two separate entities. As far as clutchness is concerned, studies indicate that as players practice and experience operating in stressful situations, they begin to react more positively to them (’97 Playoffs – Kobe Bryant threw up four straight airballs in a multiple-overtime game to give the Jazz the go-ahead. This isn’t the same Kobe we know anymore). With great anxiety, muscle memory and coordination is subject to failure. With practice in such stressful situations, anxiety has less of a tendency to surface, which allows for the player’s real abilities to come through. If interested in more about this, please look into Paul Sullivan's Clutch.
"Choking” is very real when it occurs.
Keyword: When. Psychologist and writer of Choke Sian Beilock describes what happens in the brain when a player undergoes stress – the prefrontal cortex does not work in sync with the rest of the brain as it should. Thus, we have “paralysis with analysis” – a player will tend overanalyze, and natural movements suddenly don’t come so naturally. Loads of players – typically the more inexperienced ones – have a tendency to overthink in stressful situations, giving them a very limited chance to succeed.
Being clutch is not raising the level of one's game, but rather being consistent and cool under pressure - delivering what one is capable of.
Many people have the unfortunate misconception that certain players can raise their game up a notch when they choose. Ever wonder why those renowned “clutch performers” shoot a far lower percentage in crunchtime than they normally do? Hint: They don’t possess an ability to raise the level of their game. No one does. This is why a mediocre player will perform worse in crunchtime than a superstar, even if the pressure does not affect them. Superstars are given the constant opportunity to dig their teams out of a hole because of this; their coach hopes that with their high level of talent and skill, if their steady mind prevails, good results will follow.
It is in everybody’s best interest to be more patient with applying these labels to athletes.
If a young superstar makes a slew of clutch shots, it doesn’t prove that he has ice in his veins. It merely suggests it. For all we know, he could miss the remainder of crunchtime shots over his career. We need to apply these labels to athletes after the defining moments of players’ careers, or even when it’s completely finished (as opposed to after every shot they miss or make). If we continue to label someone as “clutch” every time they make a key shot, the issue at hand perpetuates; the real meaning of the word is lost. We must make a greater effort to consider the events over a player’s entire career, keep in mind that their “clutch” ability can strengthen over time, and give more weight to successes and failures that are most evident.
The general conception of who is clutch is often flawed.
Ah, the good stuff. Remember in recent years when Dirk was called a choker? In the 2011 playoffs, he proceeded to single-handedly (seemingly, at least) annihilate team after team in crunchtime. Ever hear Kobe or Lebron being called “clutch” or “a choker” and didn’t fully believe it? You can now review their endgame tendencies. Thanks to 82games.com, I was able to compile clutch regular season data for all the top crunch time players in the league from ’07-’11. These statistics concern point production, AST/TO, game-winners (postseason included), +/-, and free throw percentages (postseason included) during crunchtime .1
Point Production (per 48 minutes of crunch time):
Lebron: 56 + 55.9 + 66.1 + 45.1 = 232.1
Bryant: 51.8 + 56.7 + 51.2 + 49.8 = 221.9
Carmelo: 36.3 + 54.4 + 47.0 + 41.4 = 179.1
Nowitzki: 46.0 + 40.9 + 47.2 + 41.9 = 176.0
D Wade: 35.4 + 49.2 + 32.6 + 33.4 = 150.6
Ginobli: 43.3 + 33.2 + 33.7 + 38.7 = 148.9
C Paul: 38.8 + 45.1 + 39.2 + 24.8 = 147.9
Billups: 38.5 + 32.1 + 37.7 + 32.9 = 141.2
Nash: 40.3 + 28.2 + 43.6 + 27.6 = 139.7
J Terry: 34.5 + 36.9 + 29.8 + 38.3 = 139.5
FG%:
Lebron: .475 + .556 + .488 + .436 = .48875
C Paul: .478 + .494 + .507 + .390 = .46725
Carmelo: .420 + .565 + .427 + .417 = .45725
J Terry: .391 + .552 + .436 + .440 = .45475
Nash: .508 + .460 + .457 + .367 = .448
Ginobli: .574 + .396 + .392 + .414 = .444
Bryant: .448 + .457 + .444 + .402 = .43775
Nowitzki: .422 + .406 + .449 + .458 = .433750
Billups: .457 + .404 + .470 + .381 = .428
D Wade: .321 + .470 + .388 + .397 = .394
Not much to note here in terms of production and field goal percentage. Most of these players shoot around their career average in shooting percentage, with Nash and Wade shooting a bit lower than we’re used to. Lebron, while much ahead of the other players, typically shoots a higher percentage than fellow volume scorers anyway.
Assists (per 48 minutes of crunch time):
Nash: 12.8 + 11.6 + 13.4 + 12.5 = 50.3 (12.575)
Paul: 10.6 + 10.5 + 9.6 + 10.4 = 41.1 (10.275)
Lebron: 8.2 + 12.6 + 8.3 + 4.9 = 34.0 (8.5)
Billups: 7.4 + 9.6 + 6.4 + 10.3 = 33.7 (8.425)
D Wade: 8.2 + 9.4 + 10.0 + 3.0 = 30.6 (7.65)
Ginobli: 10.5 + 2.8 + 6.8 + 5.4 = 25.5 (6.375)
Bryant: 6.0 + 5.7 + 3.6 + 7.6 = 22.9 (5.725)
Nowitzki: 4.4 + 2.2 + 5.3 + 5.6 = 17.5 (4.375)
J Terry: 2.9 + 2.6 + 2.5 + 4.4 = 12.4 (3.1)
Melo: 2.6 + 2.9 + 1.6 + 1.3 = 8.4 (2.1)
+/-:
Lebron: +31 + +45 + +37 + +16 = +129
Nowitzki: +17 + +16 + +29 + +38 = +100
J Terry: +20 + +18 + +20 + +37 = +95
Bryant: +11 + +34 + +7 + +13 = +65
Ginobli: +18 + +15 + +3 + +27 = +63
C Paul: +11 + +9 + +19 + +14 = +53
Billups: +7 + +4 + +12 + +10 = +33
Carmelo: +4 + +9 + +6 + -8 = +11
Steve Nash: +12 + -10 + +6 + +2 = +10
D Wade: -30 + +2 + -7 + +20 = -15
Game Winners: AST/TO:
Melo: 13-27 (.481) 1/4
Point Production (per 48 minutes of crunch time):
Lebron: 56 + 55.9 + 66.1 + 45.1 = 232.1
Bryant: 51.8 + 56.7 + 51.2 + 49.8 = 221.9
Carmelo: 36.3 + 54.4 + 47.0 + 41.4 = 179.1
Nowitzki: 46.0 + 40.9 + 47.2 + 41.9 = 176.0
D Wade: 35.4 + 49.2 + 32.6 + 33.4 = 150.6
Ginobli: 43.3 + 33.2 + 33.7 + 38.7 = 148.9
C Paul: 38.8 + 45.1 + 39.2 + 24.8 = 147.9
Billups: 38.5 + 32.1 + 37.7 + 32.9 = 141.2
Nash: 40.3 + 28.2 + 43.6 + 27.6 = 139.7
J Terry: 34.5 + 36.9 + 29.8 + 38.3 = 139.5
FG%:
Lebron: .475 + .556 + .488 + .436 = .48875
C Paul: .478 + .494 + .507 + .390 = .46725
Carmelo: .420 + .565 + .427 + .417 = .45725
J Terry: .391 + .552 + .436 + .440 = .45475
Nash: .508 + .460 + .457 + .367 = .448
Ginobli: .574 + .396 + .392 + .414 = .444
Bryant: .448 + .457 + .444 + .402 = .43775
Nowitzki: .422 + .406 + .449 + .458 = .433750
Billups: .457 + .404 + .470 + .381 = .428
D Wade: .321 + .470 + .388 + .397 = .394
Not much to note here in terms of production and field goal percentage. Most of these players shoot around their career average in shooting percentage, with Nash and Wade shooting a bit lower than we’re used to. Lebron, while much ahead of the other players, typically shoots a higher percentage than fellow volume scorers anyway.
Assists (per 48 minutes of crunch time):
Nash: 12.8 + 11.6 + 13.4 + 12.5 = 50.3 (12.575)
Paul: 10.6 + 10.5 + 9.6 + 10.4 = 41.1 (10.275)
Lebron: 8.2 + 12.6 + 8.3 + 4.9 = 34.0 (8.5)
Billups: 7.4 + 9.6 + 6.4 + 10.3 = 33.7 (8.425)
D Wade: 8.2 + 9.4 + 10.0 + 3.0 = 30.6 (7.65)
Ginobli: 10.5 + 2.8 + 6.8 + 5.4 = 25.5 (6.375)
Bryant: 6.0 + 5.7 + 3.6 + 7.6 = 22.9 (5.725)
Nowitzki: 4.4 + 2.2 + 5.3 + 5.6 = 17.5 (4.375)
J Terry: 2.9 + 2.6 + 2.5 + 4.4 = 12.4 (3.1)
Melo: 2.6 + 2.9 + 1.6 + 1.3 = 8.4 (2.1)
+/-:
Lebron: +31 + +45 + +37 + +16 = +129
Nowitzki: +17 + +16 + +29 + +38 = +100
J Terry: +20 + +18 + +20 + +37 = +95
Bryant: +11 + +34 + +7 + +13 = +65
Ginobli: +18 + +15 + +3 + +27 = +63
C Paul: +11 + +9 + +19 + +14 = +53
Billups: +7 + +4 + +12 + +10 = +33
Carmelo: +4 + +9 + +6 + -8 = +11
Steve Nash: +12 + -10 + +6 + +2 = +10
D Wade: -30 + +2 + -7 + +20 = -15
Game Winners: AST/TO:
Melo: 13-27 (.481) 1/4
Ray: 8-18 (.444) 1/2
Fisher: 8-20 (.400) 2/1
Pierce: 11-32 (.344) 9/3
LB: 17-50 (.340) 6/4
Dirk: 12-37 (.324) 1/3
Arenas: 9-28 (.321) 0/4
Terry: 8-26 (.308) 5/1
Kobe: 16-56 (.250) 1/5 (56 FGA to one AST!)
Billups: 6-37 (.162) 6/2
Nash: 1-15 (.067)2 6/2
Whether individuals had large amounts of game-winning attempts or not, the collective percentages appear to be quite lousy. As one works their way down the list, they’ll certainly take notice: the Black Mamba, a renowned clutch performer in the eyes of millions of NBA fans, shot an abysmal 25% (14 for 56) in such situations. Antawn Jamison who actually had an adequate number of attempts himself, shot 56.3% (9 for 16) from the field in game-winning situations. I come to ask myself: Why is it that I - an avid basketball fan - have never heard Jamison labeled as “clutch” while I hear it every single time Kobe is taking part in a close game? Why have I never seen Travis Outlaw's 85.7% (6 for 7) shooting glorified on SportsCenter? And, hey, Chauncey Billups a.k.a.“Mr. Big Shot” shot 16% (6 for 37) in such situations. Media agendas anyone?
FT% Clutch FT%
Melo: 79.5% Melo: 81.0%
LB: 75.0% LB: 66.7%
Kobe: 83.9% Kobe: 80.0%
Billups: 89.4% Billups: 87.2%
Nash: 91.0% Nash: 92.3%
Terry: 83.6% Terry: 69.8%
Pierc: 81.3% Pierce: 69.0%
Dirk: 87.7% Dirk: 86.6%
Ginobli: 79.6% Ginobli: 75.8%
Allen: 89.8% Allen: 83.1%
Arenas: 80.5% Arenas: 78.9%
Cassell: 86.3% Cassell: 95.5%
We can conclude a few things by looking at each group of statistics. The most glaring is Lebron’s overall dominance in end game production. Keep in mind that there are external factors affecting the above results; being the alpha dog and primary ball handler for the Cavaliers gave Lebron the opportunity to produce in tight games – something not applicable to Jason Terry, for instance. Regardless, Lebron’s endgame field goal percentage and assist totals are impressive (jokes pertaining to the “amount of quarters that Lebron gives you” can stop…now). Melo doesn’t display great numbers towards the end of games, but as of now, his last-second shooting is unparalleled. Chris Paul has done well for himself also, shooting at nearly 47% and passing exceptionally well – while expected perhaps, Paul and Nash comfortably lead in terms of endgame assists. Steve Nash’s atrocious 1 for 15 game-winning attempts may not have not intimated defenders, but his 12.5 assists per 48 minutes of crunch time indicates that he has more than one way to beat you. As for the more one-dimensional crunch time players, Kobe Bryant’s 56 FGA per 1 assist ratio likely speaks for itself.
Interestingly, most players suffer noticeable drops in percentages at the free throw line (Hack-a-Terry/Hack-a-‘Bron). But why is it that their game-winning attempt percentages suffer even more? It’s likely due to the ever-present obsession to be “the man” and operate in isolations. It’s because teams’ offenses don’t run as efficiently. From observing game winning shot attempt percentages from '03-'06 and '03-'08, you’ll notice players shot an average of 29.2% and 29.8% respectively. The clear winners, apparently, are the teams that put opponents into a situation where they must rely on a game-winning attempt!
So – please take it upon yourself to remember. Remember that when you and your buddies witness a fantastic game-winner, it may not be “clutchness” at hand – rather, a typical made shot by a specific player that occurs a certain percentage of the time in any given moment. Remember that we as fans have fickle tendencies, and the media is actively conditioning us to exercise those tendencies. Remember that “clutchness” is not innate, and can very easily be improved over the course of a career. And finally: Remember that statistics – not our selective memory or attraction to aesthetics – tell the real story. Are certain individuals more prone to experiencing stress in tight situations? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they can't familiarize themselves and increase their "clutch" abilities. Can “clutchness” be a team-driving, playoff-winning, career-defining attribute? It certainly can. But if we’re not more careful with its application, it will evolve into an indistinguishable, meaningless attribute.
[1] Crunchtime is determined by five minutes or less left being left in a game decided by five points or fewer.
[2] Nash’s numbers are from 2003-2006, as his later statistics are unavailable.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The NBA’s Greatest Anomaly: A Charles Barkley Tribute
Charles Barkley, Tyrone “Muggsy” Bogues, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, and Larry Johnson.
Despite the fact that these men clearly lacked size for their position, each of them brought something special to the basketball court. It is for that reason that they remain as the only legitimate candidates for the title of “NBA’s greatest anomaly ever”.3 Most have acted as the focal point of their organization at one point, and in a few instances, they were even considered the best in the league. So how do we go about comparing their legacies to one another? With considering the large differences in playing style, physicality, and career success, we are left to ask: Who was the best player overall? Who was the most successful considering the degree of their limitations? Who best transcended their position? I hope to carefully address these points while delving into the reasoning for my all-time favorite assertion, being: “For his size, Charles Barkley is the best player in NBA history.”
Barkley’s Legacy
Since we can all agree that playing in the NBA as a power forward at 6’6” is an accomplishment in itself, we must marvel at the fact that Barkley didn’t just get by, he absolutely dominated. Here’s another thing worth acknowledging: Barkley’s 6’6” listing was generous. Consider the thought of a 6’4¾ ” power forward running around wreaking havoc on his opponents with scoring and rebounding tears, carrying his teams for multiple years. How is that not awesome? Upon entering the league, Barkley surveyed the field of his (four to eight inch taller) power forward and center peers, and boasted, “You’re bigger than me, but I want the ball more.” He took that mindset along with his lightning-quick jump, great positioning, impeccable timing, and brute strength to beat everyone to the boards. His finesse wasn’t spectacular, his physical gifts were often inferior to those of all-time greats, and his work ethic was questionable at best. He took all of this – the good and the bad – and combined it into one of the most dominant careers to date. He never won a championship (we won’t discuss how close he came in ’93), but he was an ideal franchise player who produced steadily, scored efficiently, and gobbled up rebounds. He constantly drew double teams, creating problems for defenses. He possessed a tremendous basketball IQ,4 played with an ultra-competitive aura, and was a constant supplier of energy for his teammates. 5 Only Charles is worthy of all the following titles: One of the top ten offensive players in history, one of the top five rebounders of all-time (shortest rebound champion ever in ’87), the only player to have an NBA rule implemented as a result of his individual dominance, and the only player to eat two pizzas during halftime an actual game.
Attitude
Barkley’s attitude enabled him to excel when others would have deemed it impossible. Over the course of his career, he constantly took on arduous defensive challenges, notable ones including: A physically prime Shaquille O’neal (‘99 playoffs, saving Hakeem potential fouls and valuable resting time), Robert Parish (’85 ECF, matched his production), Shawn Kemp (’93 ECF, completely dominated Kemp), and Michael Jordan (primarily in earlier Philadelphia years when he felt Jordan was getting out of control). He endured enormous height and weight disparities throughout his career (sometimes quickness, too) and though he was not defensively sound, he seemed to always rise to the occasion.
On the offensive end, Barkley’s relentlessness was easily apparent. During an interview back when everyone was still attempting to figure out his character, Barkley entertained us with his philosophy for full-court “rumbles” towards the basket: “If someone steps in front of me – like a smaller guard who likes to take charges – they might get one offensive foul called on me. But they aren’t gonna wanna do it again.” When Charles was in scoring mode, you couldn’t stop him. When he was in rebounding mode, you couldn’t get a hand on the ball (Seriously, watch people try to take the ball from him after he’d brought it down and secured it. One taste of his elbow whirlwind, and they backed off him for the rest of their career). And when he was running at you full-speed, all you could do was hope that he’d trip on himself.
Inexplicable Abilities
I dug through plenty of Barkley’s games in an attempt to better understand his improbable rebounding prowess – I knew that his lightning quick jump, great timing, immense strength, knack for positioning and desire for the ball aided in this, but I was convinced there was more to it. I finally stumbled across absolute gold, something that we’d all been missing: Barkley’s sideways frog leap. At times, while towards the front of a crowd of players, Barkley would appear to be in great rebounding position to jump straight up and grab the rebound. He didn’t take that route. Instead, he’d jump to the side or sometimes forward, separating his body from his opponents. He would only jump in such a fashion where he still could reach back far enough to snatch up ball before others got the chance. Most basketball players know that when you’re battling someone for a rebound, the actions of shoving, arm holding, and general bodily contact severely limit your ability to rise up towards the ball. In an attempt to avoid these potential complications, Charles would hop away from everyone else and away from the ball, putting him in an uncontested position to gobble up the rebound with ferocity. It was an absolutely ingenious maneuver – so subtle that his opponents never caught on. Apparently it wasn’t just his quick jump, instincts, timing, desire, and knack for positioning that enabled him to excel – he had loads of tricks up his sleeve but we didn’t notice everything.6
Statistical Dominance
To shine a little light on Charles’ worth via statistical implication, we’ll review a few of the categories that stand out the most:
Charles averaged a very high shooting percentage and had a surprisingly low usage rate.
Charles Barkley’s true shooting percentage7 at 61.2% for his career is currently the seventh best of all-time. His effective field goal percentage at 55.8% sits right at 15th, where he was outdone almost exclusively by mammoth-sized centers. He ranks only 72nd all-time in usage percentage, despite having the 27th highest points per game average of all-time. What to make of this? Charles scored a large amount of points, did so extremely efficiently, and didn’t cost his team a lot of possessions. Many of the game’s all-time best scorers, even, would be hard-pressed to fit that profile.
Considering his involvement in the offense, his rebound totals were staggering.
Barkley is in the top five for total offensive rebounds, and within the top 20 in rebounds per game average (11.7 per game) for all-time. He was beat by phenoms of his era in Moses Malone and Dennis Rodman, but considering how much more occupied he was with shooting, setting up others, and operating away from the basket, his totals bear new meaning. It’s definitely something to think about – Rodman dedicated himself to rebounding. Barkley, on the other hand, was running the whole show.
His offensive rating was ridiculously high.
Concerning Barkley numbers, this is the most glaring statistic: Barkley possesses the 8th highest career offensive rating of all-time at 119.8 Six of the seven players above him were guards, and many of them spot-up shooting specialists. For the record: Barkley’s offensive rating surpassed Michael Jordan’s. It’s also the second highest offensive rating ever for those who averaged 20 PPG or more, sitting right behind sharpshooter Reggie Miller.
Under Charles’ Defensive Rating column in Basketball-Reference.com, as opposed to a numerical unit, it says “No.”
It doesn’t really, but it’s important to touch on this topic - all-time greats aren’t worthy of their title if they only play one side of the floor. In regards to defensive ability, Charles has faced some criticism during his time. I honestly believe Charles received excessive flack for his alleged defensive inabilities, simply because he brought things to the table that most other incompetent defenders don’t. Admittedly, it cannot be denied that Charles just didn’t put in a lot of effort into the defensive end. He also had this idea that just standing still and throwing your hands straight up was some sort of an impregnable defensive tactic. Furthermore, his smaller stature clearly hindered his ability on that end; he couldn’t rely on his desire for the ball or his positioning tricks while playing defense. It was inevitable – with his physique and defensive tendencies he wouldn’t be able to shut down the offensively polished bigs of his era. However, Charles did possess an innate ability to block shots (he fed off of these momentum swings) and certainly had a tendency to conduct timely ball-pokes and anticipate outside-in passes, often resulting in turnovers for the opposition. He also exhibited a personal commitment to being an active help-side defender. None of this should overshadow his mastery of the “If you go baseline, I’m going to trap you and bounce you out of bounds with my big belly” technique. Few know that when Barkley sniffed a title opportunity (’93 and ’94), the Phoenix’ defensive ratings were better with him on the floor – shedding light on his ability to greatly increase his defensive intensity during crucial moments and games. Factor in his dominant defensive rebounding (an admissible component of overall defense), and it becomes apparent: Charles wasn’t as bad of a defender as many make him out to be – he was not a good defender, but certainly not atrocious.
Other Candidates
Fifth Place
Similar to Barkley, Larry Johnson embodied a super athletic, burly, versatile forward with an undersized stature. Larry Johnson is the only other player in modern NBA history to play the power forward position at 6’6” or shorter and be classified as one of the best two players on his team – it is for that very reason that he deserves to be on this list. He never impacted the game like Barkley did, but was a 20-10 guy in his first two seasons before his career-altering back injury. Over the course of his career, LJ exhibited the ability to consistently rebound, score from anywhere on the floor, and pass intelligently. Johnson’s ability to mold to the player that his team needed him was also very valuable. He was an able but quiet scorer; Johnson stayed out of everyone’s way while he consistently produced. Unfortunately for him, his height undoubtedly limited his abilities; he never reached the otherworldly levels of his great anomaly peers. He had tremendous body strength, but that alone didn’t enable him to produce anything exceptional. He was a great presence to have on your team, yet you just couldn’t rely on him to take you above and beyond.
Fourth Place
Allen Iverson, one of the league’s most explosive players ever - literally and figuratively - cannot be forgotten in this discussion. A tremendous scorer at a mere 6’0” and 165 pounds, he utilized his quickness and toughness like no one we had ever seen. With Iverson, you were talking about a guy who played almost the entire game every night (career average of 41.12 minutes per game) who was intent slicing through and around guys, only to get into the lane to be pummeled over and over again. He was an absolute warrior. He wasn’t the most efficient of top-tier scorers, but willingly found his teammates who were open as a result of his activity. One can easily make the claim that he was the offense for Philadelphia throughout his prime. He was an able defender who racked up plenty of steals, but given that, it was important to note his tendency to gamble in the passing lanes and that his size limited his contributions. What to make of all this? Iverson was an exceptional player, but you weren’t guaranteed a winning season by relying on a player of his sort. One of the game’s greatest anomalies? Definitely. Did he get your team as many wins as fellow anomalies in Wade or Barkley? Probably not.
Third Place
Of course, Muggsy Bogues immediately comes to mind when speaking of undersized overachievers. Muggsy didn’t exactly run the league, but he did supply the ‘90’s Hornets with some decent firepower whilst putting up elite assist numbers.9 If you look back at Charlotte and Chicago’s playoffs series in the mid-nineties, Phil Jackson intentionally sicced Jordan on Bogues - that’s how much respect they had for him. As a player, he encompassed a super quick, run-and-gun able, efficient shooting, superior passer and he did it all at the bite-sized height of 5’3”. Astonishing. I mean, I don’t even know a full-grown man that small. He even posted a near 5:1 assist to turnover ratio over the entirety of his career. But here’s why Charles is better qualified for “best anomaly”: He transcended the prototypical power forward position more than Bogues did for his respective position, and did so while being a better player. Bogues was small – no, he was so miniscule that sometimes it looked like he was engrained in the floor – but Bogues merely exploited the obvious advantages small guards have over larger players. In the words of Doc Rivers, “He ran around disrupting everything. Little guy’s runnin’ around in between your legs… so much heart and hustle.” He was great player and played with great passion and energy, but he just wasn’t on Barkley’s level as a player.
Second Place
Aside from Barkley, Wade is likely the best player from the list of candidates. A mere 6’4”, he has established an identity as one of the games’ best shooting guards to date, with exceptional penetration and scoring abilities. To be clear, what puts Wade in this position is not the fact that he succeeds at 6’4”, but merely because of what he does and how great he is at it. No other undersized guard so easily finishes at the rim or constantly toys with bigs. Similar to Barkley, he is one of the best shotblockers ever for his size, he’s short for his position, he was the unquestionable alpha-dog for the majority of his career and expected to carry his teams, and is a tremendous offensive talent. In ways, he even surpasses him - Wade definitely possesses defensive intensity and ability that Barkley just didn’t. What I can’t give Wade credit for, however, is transcending his position. Wade is a great post and perimeter defender, he often surprises the league’s biggest guys by stuffing the ball into their face, and gives up two inches to his fellow shooting guards. But does he excel against bigger competition to the degree that we’re stupefied (as Barkley did)? Not so much. Have their been elite defenders at Wade’s height or smaller? Yes.10 Have their been premiere offensive guards of similar physical stature? A few.11 Certainly, the height he gives up pales in comparison to what Barkley gave up while going head to head with the league’s big men. Will Wade be widely considered better than Barkley one day? It’s very possible. But he’ll be replaceable, and Charles never will be.
[3] Why the slightly smaller Stockton/Isiah and larger Magic/Lebron prototypes don’t qualify: Their physicality did not inhibit them as it did with the above candidates, considering the size of the competition at their respective positions.
[4] Barkley always kept track of the foul count of the opposition, knowing whom to attack. Barkley also had exceptional shot selection, and made intelligent passes while reading the defense – he was very in-tune with his team’s spacing. He’s also one of the best ever at baiting defenders into pump fakes. He was usually making intelligent plays unless he was fouling the crap out of someone when he lost his temper.
[5] When a teammate dunked over an opponent, Charles amplified the already over-the-top hype factor about ten times by picking up his teammate in sheer joy. When he grabbed three or four consecutive offensive boards and finished strongly, he’d grab the ball and powerfully smack it on the ground, as if to say, “You can’t do nothin’ ‘bout it.” On a daily basis he’d initiate solo fast breaks, tear through people, and leave the basket shaking after a massive two-handed throwdown. No one defined “electric” better than Charles.
[6] Charles would purposely undershoot certain shots once he realized he was in a difficult position – he’d know right where the ball would go and it’d plop back right into his hands. Easy two points with the putback. Add this to his tricklist of arm-holding, butt-smashing, plain old intimidation, sideways-propelled leaps for rebounds, roughly tossing opponents to the side, and holding down the shoulders of opponents to disable their jumping ability.
[7] Basketball-Reference.com’s definition of True Shooting Percentage, for those who take interest: “The formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.”
[8] Offensive Rating is actually a very basic statistic – for players, the formula is: Offensive Rating = (Points Produced / Individual Possessions) x100.
[9] From 1990-1994, John Stockton was the only other player to accumulate more assists than Bogues.
[10] See: John Stockton, Gary Payton, Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Isiah Thomas, Mookie Blaylock, Sidney Moncrief, Alvin Robertson.
[11] See: Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Isiah Thomas, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Lockout Schmockout: Ten Reasons to Stand by the Superior Sport of Basketball
We all prefer different sports for our own reasons. Perhaps we enjoy a particular sport because we have played or watched from a young age, or maybe it's merely the fact that we enjoy watching a group work towards a common goal. Whatever your reasons may be, I want you to briefly set your justifications aside and consider this statement: Factoring in each and every element present within sports, basketball is undoubtedly the greatest sport in existence. I’m going to give you ten reasons why other sports don’t quite compare.
Please realize that while some of my claims may be substantiated by historical events or numerical evidence of some sort, the majority of them will be based on nothing but comparative reasoning. This cannot be avoided – however, I will do my best to identify which elements are important in sports and how basketball contains the most of them.12 Keep in mind that discussion pertaining to athletes in these sports will be limited to those of major sports and their top leagues – the MLB, NBA, MLS (also Premiership, La Liga, Serie A etc.), NFL, NHL, and top tiers of tennis and golf. Unfortunately, I had to dismiss the less prominent sports and hereby apologize to cricket, lacrosse, ice-skating, rugby, NASCAR, ping-pong, badminton, chess, and shuffleboard enthusiasts.
Basketball is open to individuals with all sorts of physical limitations.
The NBA has boasted enormous talents ranging from the sizes of 5’3”and 136 pounds to 7’6” and 310 pounds. While the league generally employs rather tall individuals, we now understand better than ever that no matter what size you are (2011 playoffs: Bynum didn’t necessarily appreciate 5’10” Barea eating away at his team), you possess the ability to excel at the professional level. Have relatively unathletic players dominated before? Certainly (Larry Bird, Paul Pierce, Steve Nash). Do offensively challenged players have any hope? They sure do (Chuck Hayes, Ben Wallace, John Salley). Can small players be effective at the highest level? It’s happened too many times to count. Basketball: Highly impacted by athletic ability and size, but dependent on neither - that's where basketball IQ and individual skills come in.
Deserving recognition: Baseball, Football, Golf
Receiving flak: Soccer
The game of basketball provides simple, cheap entertainment from a recreational standpoint.
On a single court, the game can be enjoyed from a range of anywhere from one to ten plus people. While alone, an individual can engage in a casual shoot around, work intensely on their shot, or conduct dribbling drills. The abundance of playable games for two plus players sheds light on the versatile, technically-dependent nature of the sport: H.O.R.S.E., 21, Tips, Bump (Knockout), Around the World, Slam Dunk Competitions, Free Throw Competitions, 1-on-1 (all the way up to 6-on-6), and Plus One, Minus Two. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that no other major sport even comes close in terms of sheer number of games that appeal to players of all types. Best of all, the procurement of essential basketball equipment is extremely affordable. If you’re not looking to pay for a nice basketball or the entrance fee to a gym, a raggedy hoop and an eight-year-old ball can provide lots of fun for anybody. If the funds or materials still aren’t there, variations do suffice (used paper towel + trash bin).
Deserving recognition: Football, Hockey
Receiving flak: Tennis (ask me how much I like restringing my racquets every week)
Basketball players show development far past their physical prime.
The beauty of watching athletes and teams over a long period of time is in witnessing their development first-hand. Experience breeds knowledge, and knowledge results in increased effectiveness – this is a constant that is present in each and every sport. What some sports provide that others don’t, though, is an opportunity for an athlete to improve one of their skills and decrease in another, yet maintain the same level of relevance. A perfect example of this is the Dallas Mavericks’ Jason Kidd – while he has gotten slower with age, his once atrocious shot has emerged as an effective weapon. The reason this trade off is possible is due to reason number four…
Deserving recognition: Golf, Baseball
Receiving flak: Football
Basketball players must be well versed and exhibit ability in various technical skills.
While Kidd may not move as quickly as he used to, he’s effectively been able to mask it with his mastery of separate abilities. Players like him properly understand basketball’s decorated list of technical skills and relevant actions: Three point shooting, midrange shooting, passing, dribbling, driving with the ball, cutting, screen setting, shot blocking, rebounding, boxing out, free throw shooting, post play, team defense, post defense, and perimeter defense. It must be realized that each athlete on the floor must be as competent as possible in each of these 15 abilities. In no other sport can we say the same – they generally contain specialists, players limited to defense or offense, or two-dimensional and one-dimensional athletes. Take golf and tennis for instance - extremely technical sports, but not much versatility is required. In baseball as a fielder and hitter, you must hit for power or bunt, run bases, steal, field grounders, and catch fly balls. Not nearly as extensive.
While Kidd may not move as quickly as he used to, he’s effectively been able to mask it with his mastery of separate abilities. Players like him properly understand basketball’s decorated list of technical skills and relevant actions: Three point shooting, midrange shooting, passing, dribbling, driving with the ball, cutting, screen setting, shot blocking, rebounding, boxing out, free throw shooting, post play, team defense, post defense, and perimeter defense. It must be realized that each athlete on the floor must be as competent as possible in each of these 15 abilities. In no other sport can we say the same – they generally contain specialists, players limited to defense or offense, or two-dimensional and one-dimensional athletes. Take golf and tennis for instance - extremely technical sports, but not much versatility is required. In baseball as a fielder and hitter, you must hit for power or bunt, run bases, steal, field grounders, and catch fly balls. Not nearly as extensive.
Regarding a more specific subject of technical play within sports, ambidexterity remains as a very interesting topic. In tennis, golf, and hockey there is no essentially no payoff for being ambidextrous. Elite soccer players use both feet to a near equal degree – while some may have a clear dominant foot, being equally skilled in long kicks with both feet does not give them a definite advantage. Football, too, allows for little to no ambidexterity (David Tyree and your ambidextrous head, I see you). In baseball, being a switch hitter can prove to be useful, but the advantages with ambidexterity in basketball are another story; every basketball player would love to be equally capable with both hands. Steve Nash and Larry Bird’s ability to pass cross-court and dribble with both hands, for instance, has made them much more potent offensive threats. Lebron James’ ability to finish, pass the ball, and hit runners with his left hand makes him even more impossible to contain. Ambidexterity proves to be another technical component within basketball that other sports just don’t possess.
Deserving recognition: Tennis, Hockey, Golf
Receiving flak: Football
The game of basketball is fluid and eventful.
I must give tennis and hockey credit for being fluid and eventful, too. Soccer is a wonderful and fluid sport, but one thing has always bothered me: The constant occurrence of zero to zero games at top levels. You’d be lying if you said you sat through a 90 minute game and weren’t disappointed that no one scored a goal. Basketball, on the other hand, is a continuous, action-packed game – within the span of each 24 second possession, we see much happening on both the defensive and offensive ends. Such movement not only gives us the constant opportunity to become excited, it also gives us plenty to dissect. Factor in the minimal downtime and high scoring, and basketball clearly takes the cake in the “fluid and exciting” department.
Deserving recognition: Tennis, Hockey
Receiving flak: Soccer, Football (I detest your constant stoppage)
NBA basketball is filled with drama.
Basketball provides us with all the ups and downs that we crave – from heartbreaking upsets, to twenty-game win streaks, to superstars with unexpected injuries – we’re on a season-long emotional roller coaster. As in other sports, we get to enjoy expressing our speculations considering the intentions of athletes after they release controversial public statements. More specific to basketball, though, is our opportunity to keep a close eye on those the athletes that have it out for each other – even watching the league’s top stars engage in a brief conversation can bring us to the edge of our seats. Interestingly, such entertaining exchanges in basketball surface due to these two reasons: 1) the mechanics of man-to-man defense and 2) the sport’s continuous gameplay. That’s what allowed for extra enjoyable Malone-Rodman exchanges during the 1996 finals, for instance. In other sports (save soccer), there are barriers, constant stoppages in play, or virtually no player-to-player interaction. Looking for attached-at-the-hip verbal and physical battles? Basketball is your only choice.
Basketball even permits for the absolute best end-game scenarios. In other team sports we don’t get to zero in on the superstar who has to decide whether they’ll win the game alone or win it by passing it off to a teammate (a dynamic which we will later touch on). What is more exciting than watching the league’s best player dribble the ball up the court with a tied game and ten seconds left? It’s not exciting because a player can win the game, it’s exciting because they can win the game or elect to partake in a play that their teammate can win the game with.
Deserving recognition: Football, Soccer, Hockey
Receiving flak: Tennis, Golf
Basketball draws from athletic ability.
The NBA is absolutely crawling with world-class athletes. Because I feel that many people are uncertain about what constitutes an “athlete”, I have created Cameron’s Seven Components for Athleticism List: Height/weight, leaping ability, quickness, fastness, body strength, body control, and durability/endurance.13 In review of these components, it’s time to introduce the first head-to-head matchup between the athletically driven sports of football and basketball:
Height/weight – The average height in the NBA, at 6’6” to 6’7”, is clearly gigantic – NBA players have been historically famous for their height. It really is incredible to consider the abilities of the 7’6” 330 lb mammoths such as Yao Ming, or any of the super strong, agile giants occupying on the court. While football players don’t possess such height, they do make up for it in the weight they hold – a 6’5” linebacker with bulging muscles is really a sight to behold. Each league employs of an abundance of daunting giants who are athletically able, and I wouldn’t want to mess with any of them. Tie.
Height/weight – The average height in the NBA, at 6’6” to 6’7”, is clearly gigantic – NBA players have been historically famous for their height. It really is incredible to consider the abilities of the 7’6” 330 lb mammoths such as Yao Ming, or any of the super strong, agile giants occupying on the court. While football players don’t possess such height, they do make up for it in the weight they hold – a 6’5” linebacker with bulging muscles is really a sight to behold. Each league employs of an abundance of daunting giants who are athletically able, and I wouldn’t want to mess with any of them. Tie.
Leaping ability – This is an easy one. While many wide receivers and cornerbacks have incredible vertical leaps, each and every basketball player must shoot and operate from as high a point as possible in order to prevail against his or her peers. Basketball is played in the air; football is played on the ground. Clear victory: Basketball.
Quickness – Again, there are many agile football players, but a large percentage is so far the opposite that they just can’t compete with lightning-quick basketball athletes. Victory: Basketball.
Fastness – This is a bit tougher to evaluate. While athletes like Michael Jordan and Lebron James boast unofficial times of 4.3 and 4.4 seconds in the 40 yard dash, I don’t think they’d outrun than the Deion Sanders or Chris Johnson types. Basketball teams likely employ more fast runners, but the fastest in the NFL are a force to be reckoned with. On top of that, football athletes work day in and day out to better their ability to get from Point A to Point B in the quickest, most powerful fashion. Victory: Football.
Body strength – I don’t think this needs to be explained. Clear Victory: Football.
Body control – Football players are great at absorbing contact while running, and while I believe much of this draws from body strength and conditioning (mental, not physical), a good amount of body control is utilized by all NFL athletes who partake in running and catching. Many of the WRs and DBs possess incredible body control in an attempt to separate from (or stick to) their opponent and catch the ball. In basketball, most great finishers exhibit the ability to: Create and absorb contact, change direction in mid-air, react to the physical presence of the defense, and maintain great flexibility. Furthermore, much offensive production in basketball is dependent on how well one uses their body to shield themselves from their opponents. Slight victory: Basketball.
Durability/Endurance – Since we cannot assess these athletes’ durability considering their involvement in different contexts, we must consider endurance as its own entity. While football games are similar in length, they just don’t offer the same flow as basketball games. Without the presence of stop and go action in football, many of the meatwagons would be in big trouble. The stamina that it takes to play 40+ minutes of game time on a basketball court is just on a whole other level, and players don’t get the opportunity to sit out on the offensive or defensive end – they must engage in both. Clear Victory: Basketball.
Deserving recognition: Football
Receiving flak: Baseball, Golf, Soccer, and Hockey (all rely on fine-tuned skills more than athleticism)
While basketball is highly team-oriented, it includes a rare dynamic: the individual/team “seesaw”.
I must concede: soccer and hockey contain the most teamwork within their games. In order to score in these sports, a team must work together or else their goal becomes unattainable. If gauging the level of teamwork across major sports, we can throw individual sports aside and put basketball above football in third place. In the game of basketball, teamwork is very essential to achieve success (see: Bill Simmons’ concept of The Secret). The exception at hand is that an individual has the ability to not only drive and carry his team, but also completely take over the game. While that may be considered a flaw when comparing teamwork in different contexts, consider this: The ability for an individual to take over adds a very attractive dynamic to the game. Is it not entertaining to put ourselves in the shoes of superstar when his team is in desperate need of points? If the talent is there, an individual can decide whether or not they want to penetrate and pass out or go one-on-five and shoot over the defense. This provides for supreme entertainment. We have seen the most selfless, best-passing teams dominate (Bird’s Celtics, Magic’s Lakers) and the dominant individual-driven teams (Michael Jordan’s Bulls) take control of the league. In no other sport are we treated by the constantly shifting dynamic of individual and teamwork-based play.
Deserving recognition: Soccer, Hockey
Receiving flak: Baseball
Effectivity is highly dependent on a player’s mentality, which provides for entertaining swings in the game.
In mentally dependent sports such as tennis and golf, productivity unquestionably rests on an athlete’s confidence, nerves, and their undying desire to compete. What about team sports? The impact of a particular individual's mentality differs per sport, but take any football, hockey, or baseball player - can a single player decide to “turn it on” and carry their team on their back? They can’t. This is simply because production is either dependent on the involvement of multiple people, or it ultimately remains unaffected by a change in mindset. In basketball, if a player decides, “There’s no way we’re losing this game”, they possess the potential to drastically alter the outcome. The same applies to those who tend to shrink away from the moment (Karl Malone): “Crap. It’s nearing end of a close game and I’m expected to produce. I’m terrified.”
Deserving recognition: Tennis, Golf, Soccer (lapse in concentration can be costly)
Receiving flak: Baseball, Football
Analyzing and discussing basketball is most entertaining.
With baseball or tennis, you can understand almost everything an individual brings to the game simply by looking over the statistics. I know exactly how much to expect from pro tennis and pro baseball athletes by merely glancing at their career statistics. Basketball analysis isn’t the same. Despite the recent emergence of some (incredibly fun) advanced statistics, while analyzing, we still need to factor in what the statistics don’t show – contributions by defensive specialists, the guys who hustle, and the intangible-possessing individuals.
Delving into the “there’s more than meets the eye” idea with the game of basketball, not only do we look at statistics a certain way – we take a player’s production, achievements, and overall legacy with a mountain of salt. Bearing in mind the game’s colorful history, we can then start to compare players from different eras, apply the change in pace and account for rule changes – it’s a really fun process. Considering the game’s ever-changing state, basketball remains as the only game where we can say, “Yeah, Allen Iverson had his best years statistically in ’05 and ‘06, but he wasn’t nearly the same player. Those numbers are a mere product of the implementation of the hand-checking rule.” Basketball: the ever-changing, super dynamic team-oriented game where intangibles matter. There’s nothing like it.
Deserving recognition: Soccer
Receiving flak: Baseball, Tennis
Overview
Baseball: Offers great entertainment and heroic plays from time to time, but the lack of teamwork and constant droughts in offensive production are of concern. Many baseball players are great athletes, but plenty are old men who just need to hit the weights from time to time and maintain a quick enough reaction time. The atmosphere is a plus, however – I can still remember the smells associated with playing outfielder as a boy. No other sport is as relaxing to watch in a beautiful outdoor stadium.
Football: Basketball’s biggest adversary. The game possesses players of many talents and sorts, all with designated specialties. Football players must remain extremely agile, strong, and alert in order to stay relevant; the NFL boasts a plentiful amount of elite athletic specimens. Highly valued by its fans is football’s ever-present capability to produce mind-blowing, even gut-wrenching plays with its fast-running, hard-hitting style. It is also enjoyable to focus on many of the specialists to see how they operate – from field goal kicking, to quarterbacks running the offense, to blockers protecting their teammates, there is a lot going on at any given moment. The game of football loses serious points for having so much downtime – the constant repetition of few seconds of game play followed by much waiting is a bit of a downer. There is also a limited amount of teamwork required, as football teams embody a group of individuals focusing on their own duties.
Soccer: The MLS boasts some great athletes, but here’s the reality: a highly skilled player can rely on fastness, nimbleness, and great conditioning to surpass his peer; a player lacking body strength, leaping ability, height/weight and body control can ultimately excel in this sport. Soccer games also tend to go extremely long lengths of time without the occurrence of any game-changing events. Soccer does provide us with a very team-oriented style of play, plenty of contact, and a good amount of drama. It’s also extremely easy to pick up and play with friends and remains as a globally recognizable pastime.
Golf: Many debate whether or not this should be considered as a sport, simply because of its physically undemanding, mundane nature. Golf is by no means easy – it’s one of the most difficult sports to master with its highly technical nature. An enormous amount of mental strength is required to stay relevant at the top level. Despite its technical play and required mental strength, it still lacks far too many crucial components to contest with other major sports (slow moving, individually played sport, requires zero athleticism). Golf does receive points for being peaceful to watch and play, and not being too physically taxing.
Tennis: Top-tier tennis player likely possess the strongest mentality of any athletes, with golf in a close second. Its major flaws: while doubles exist, tennis is essentially a one-manned game, and can also prove to be quite repetitive. We also do not get to see much player-to-player interaction during the flow of the game. However, none of this should not take away from the entertainment that lengthy, down-to-the-wire matches provide. Tennis players are some of the best-conditioned athletes we’ve seen, and are generally quite athletic. It remains as one of the most technical sports ever – ever seen Roger Federer’s arms? They’re twigs, but his ability to snap his wrist and generate arm speed allows for some devastating forehands.
Hockey: Hockey loses points for lack of familiarity with its fans. I personally cannot claim, “That is one of the toughest maneuvers I have ever seen” because I don’t know how difficult it’d be if ice-skating was second nature to me. Exposure to ice hockey in terms of playing is rather limited in most parts of the world, and so is the participation in basic ice-skating. Hockey receives massive points for being a team-oriented game, and the fast-paced, technical play is definitely thrilling to observe. Needless to say, those who enjoy contact sports and player-to-player interaction will be more than pleased when viewing most hockey games.
Basketball: Definitely loses points for already decided games dragging on for ages as the losing team commits fouls over and over in an attempt to prolong the game. The arenas also don’t possess the same tranquil or wonderfully chaotic atmospheres as those of baseball and hockey, respectively.
[12] People are catching on, too. Basketball has emerged as the fastest growing sport in the world.
[13] Height and weight do factor into the discussion of athleticism; if two individuals move at the exact same speed and possess equivalent strength – and one of them is larger, the smaller is deemed less athletic. And don’t fret – flexibility is contained within the list, as it falls under the body control category. There is also a distinct difference in quickness (acceleration, horizontal movement) versus fastness (primarily referring to running in a straight line).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)