The Secret to Winning in the NBA.

In the late 1990’s I was working for a software firm in the Bay Area.  My friend at work, Bruce, was about a decade older than me.  He had brown long hair and a beard.  He listened to Led Zeppelin. He watched movies like the Blue Brothers, drank hard liquor, and may or may not have dabbled with the green stuff.  He was a product of the 70’s and I was a product of the 80’s.  He couldn’t stand that I listened to Billy Idol and quoted The Breakfast Club.  Our common ground was that we both loved sports.  One day we had this chat about the NBA:   

Bruce: “Man you think you know the NBA but you don’t.”

Me: “Huh?”

Bruce: “You are always talking about point guards and centers.  If I hear you gloat about Van Excel or David Robinson one more time I think I’ll puke.”

Me: “I’m not following you?”

Bruce: “Who’s the best team in this decade?”

Me: “The Bulls?”

Bruce: Who are their best players?”

Me: “Jordan and Pippen”

Bruce: “What positions do they play”

Me: “2 and the 3.”

Bruce: “Exactly”

Me: “You are saying that the other positions don’t matter?”

Bruce: “Yes. In general the other positions tend to cancel each other out.  The 2 and 3 matchups are what decide games.”

Me: “Ever heard of Magic and Kareen?”

Bruce: “When the Lakers played the Celtics and lost… how did Worthy and Byron play”

Me:  (He had me.  It was well known that sometimes Worthy and Byron struggled against the Celts in the finals.).  “They stunk it up.”

Bruce: “And when they played well…?”

Me: “Lakers won.”

Bruce: “And when the Bulls played the Lakers in 1991?”

Me: “Worthy was hurt and Scott was a non-factor. Shut down by MJ.”

Bruce: “Magic and Perkins and Divac were not enough?”

Me: “Not even close.”

Bruce: “This is why it doesn’t matter if the Bulls center is Cartwright or Longley, or if the extra shooter is Paxson or Kerr.  Or who brings the ball up.  You need only put role players around Pippen and Jordan.  Don’t get me started on the draft- the number of teams that draft ‘big man projects’ is ridiculous.  Why a player like Kobe Bryant fell so far is beyond me.  Teams should be lining up to sign stud twos and threes even if they have to gamble on a few.”

Me: “Interesting…”

Bruce: “Barkley and the Mailman. Best two power forwards to ever play.  No rings. Stockton.  No ring.  David Robinson.  No ring” (This was before he won in 1999)

Me: “Indeed. Is it time for lunch yet?”

It took me a few years to really understand what Bruce was saying.  The more I studied the game the more I realized he was right.  Look at the teams that have won titles and look at who they started at the 2 and 3 positions- Scottie Pippin, Michael Jordan, Clyde Drexler, Manu Ginobli, Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Dwayne Wade, LeBron James.  These are guys with superior athletic ability.  These are guys with size and length.  These are guys that play at both ends.  These are guys that want to dominate their opponents.  These are the guys that hit their three’s when the team needs a bucket- and stop their opponent from doing the same.  Consider the teams that made it to the conference semifinals last year: Heat, Pacers, Spurs, and Thunder.  Each team had studs at the 2 and 3 or both.  Again we see James, Wade, and Ginobli.  Add to it George, Stephenson and Leonard. See the pattern here?  

Go through the stats of the championship teams. Take a look at the shooting guard and small forward production.  Certainly we know the result of pairing guys like Pippen and Jordan (6 rings), Wade and James (2 rings), and Pierce and Allen (1 ring) . Looking at the stats you keep finding the same formula.  Consider these random gems: Marie Ellie and Trevor Ariza.  In the 1995 playoffs Mario Ellie, playing small forward, shot 50% from the field and 43% from three point range.  Not bad considering Drexler and Hakeem were supposedly the 'go to" players.  During the 2009 playoffs Trevor Ariza shot 49% from the floor including a blistering 47% from downtown - not to mention 4 boards a game and using those long arms to grab two steals a game.  Kobe and Gasol were supposedly the 'go to" players.  Again and again we see this trend with shooting guards and small forwards.  

What about the 2004 Detroit Pistons you say?  It’s true that Richard Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince took most of the team’s shots.  They shot horribly- even in the playoffs.  How did they win?  The Piston played good team defense and came up against a Lakers team that was in complete dysfunction and had lost their starting power forward to injury.  But this is the exception not the rule. 

The Spurs are another anomaly.  Or are they?  Duncan and Parker dominated the ball in 2014.  They took more shots than the two guards and small forwards. But shots were spread somewhat evenly among the latter.  When you look at the percentages you can see that Leonard shot 52%, Bellineli shot 48%, and Ginobli shot 47%. And all three players had low turnover numbers (as did Danny Green – another small forward in the rotation).  Clearly Popovich used his twos and threes very effectively to achieve a respectable output- especially from Leonard.  Any surprise they won the title?  One could argue they won based on overall team play, and by having a good PG and a good PF.  I'd argue that the platoon of 2s and 3s shot very efficiently when called upon, played good defense on James and Wade, and didn’t turn the ball over.  Let’s not forget that the Spurs also won championships in years past.  They didn’t win every year (and I am willing to bet they received poor guard/forward production the years they came up short).  Recall that when they won in 2007 we saw red hot shooting from Bowen, Ginobli, and Michael Finley.  These are guys with size that can defend and score from 3 point range.  In the playoffs Bowen shot 44% from downtown, Finley shot 41%, and Ginobli shot 38%.  Tough to beat a team that shoots that well. 

               Here’s a good example from last season in the Eastern Conference. Compare the Heat at 56-26 (a team that made the finals) vs. a poor team- the New York Knicks at 37-45.  For the Heat, Wade and James took 33% of the teams shot attempts.  Wade made 54% from the field and James made 56%.  Is there another 2/3 duo with this type of accuracy?  It’s no wonder this team made it to the finals four years in a row (this is rare company by the way, only the 60's era Cetlics and 80's era Lakers have achieved this). Both players do much more than score.  They rebound, play defense, and pass the ball.  No seriously they do. Look it up.  Look up assists, rebounds, and defensive ratings on the Basketball Reference stat site. James and Wade are incredible.  For the Knicks, Melo and Smith took a staggering 38% of the teams shot attempts (what you should expect if you prefer my theory) but only made 45% and 41% of their attempts respectively.  Neither player can claim better than 3 assists per game and both had horrendous defensive ratings (more on that later).  Of course I love watching these guys play but it’s no wonder they did not make the playoffs.  How can the Knicks expect to beat a team like the Heat in the standings when the small forward/shooting guard comparison is so lopsided.  Carmelo did actually shoot well from three point range (40%) and he rebounds (8.1).  But is that enough?  We know about his poor defense and his passing is almost non-existent.  Doesn't having a superstar open up shots for other players?  When double teamed the star finds the open shooter?  Yet Melo only managed 3.1 assists per game.  He needs to work on the other dimensions - and clearly he needs drastic help at shooting guard.        

             The Pacers are an Eastern team that should also be discussed.  I couldn’t have been more surprised that so many teams had a chance to pick up Lance Stephenson and did not- all because of one incident.  Remember this is a league based on personalities. From Wilt to Ron Artest, Cedric Ceballos to J.R. Rider, Darryl Dawkins (he named his dunks) to Dennis Rodman.  Most GMs would sign a Dennis Rodman all day long.  So why would Lance Stephenson be any different?  It’s a mystery- unless you suppose GMs think Lance is a liability in the high definition television era.  The Pacer’s Stephenson and Paul George both shot well from downtown (35% and 36% respectively).  They took 33% of the team’s overall shots- comparable to the Heat.  George shot poorly at 42% overall but Lance Stephenson shot 49% from the field.  Not bad.  He also dished out close to 5 assists, grabbed 7 boards a game, took care of the ball, and clamped down his guy at the defensive end.  He can play two positions (hint: the ones I am emphasizing).  And yet, teams like the Lakers, Rockets, and Bulls were willing to throw their money at Carmelo- a player with a worse field goal percentage than Lance Stephenson, a player who turns the ball over more than Lance Stephenson, a player who passes less than Lance Stephenson, and a player who does not exactly embrace defense.  My point here is that the Pacers were strong at BOTH positions, they made it deep in the playoffs, and they were one of the few teams that could strike fear in Heat fans.  For the most part I do not subscribe to the defensive rating - a self-admittedly flawed analysis. But it is worth mentioning that both Stephenson and George rank highly on defense- both are ranked in the top 15 for the entire league.   

               What about centers?  The Bulls of the 90's proved you don't need need a dominant center.  The Heat didn't need one.  Nor did the Pistons.  Nor did the Mavericks.  Nor did the Spurs.  What about Shaquille O'Neal?  He didn't exactly win the title every year. But in his prime he was always dominant.  In 1998 Shaq averaged 30 points a game in the playoffs and didn't make the finals.  Just 3 years later the Lakers won it all.  Shaq played with the same dominance-   he averaged 30 points a game- again. What changed?  It didn't hurt that Phil Jackson was hired to be the coach.  The on court difference was that Kobe Bryant became a starter.  In 1998 Eddie Jones was the starter at shooting guard and his playoff statline included 17 points per game and a horrendous 110 on the defense rating scale.  Enter the 2001 version of Kobe Bryant- he averaged 29 points a game and had an impressive 99 defensive rating.  What a difference three years and a new shooting guard make.  

Now let's discuss the modern era Clippers. One could say “wow there’s a team that’s really buttoned up...  Great coach...  Best PG in the game… Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan have those highlight dunks…  New ownership...”  So why can’t they can’t past round two of the playoffs?  Is Chris Paul destined to become another John Stockton?  A guy who wins his individual match-up but never wins a ring?   Well let’s look at how this team is constructed.  Griffin and Crawford take, by far, most of the shots.  Griffin is a power forward.  He shoots 52% - mostly shots near the basket or via his new mid-range jumpers.  The Clippers can and should live with his numbers.  Crawford is shooting guard but let’s be honest he is used in a very odd way.  He comes off the bench and for the most part creates for himself.  He may as well be considered a point guard.  Albeit one with very few assists (3.2), a very low shooting percentage (41%), and a not-so-great defense rating (109).  For a guy who appears to make so many incredible shots it’s surprising that his numbers aren't better.  How many games can we recall where it seemed that Crawford shot them back in the game?  Perhaps his streaky shooting is done in the clutch so the shooting percentage is misleading? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if Billy Beane were the GM he’d ship off Crawford for a bag of popcorn based on shooting percentage alone.  What of the other shooting guards and small forwards? This has been a sore topic for the Clippers. Let’s take a close at all the guys they plug into these positions.

Matt Barnes – Shot 43% and dished out 2 assists per game

Jared Dudley – Shot 43% and dished out 1.4 assists per game

Danny Granger – Shot 42%, and dished 7 assists per game

JJ Redick – Shot 45% and dished 2.2 assists per game

Willie Green – Shot 37% and dished out .9 assists per game

Reggie Bullock – Shot 35% dished out .3 assists per game

(The Clippers also gave minutes to Stephen Jackson and Hedo Turkoglu - don’t worry the numbers are brutal)

For the love of god there’s not a single player shooting over 45% or making any significant contributions (Barnes plays some defense- according to the rating system it's a very pedestrian 106 - still better than the others).  Again, if the two and three are the most critical positions then a team MUST at least get efficient scoring from those positions.  Doc Rivers would say it’s all about spot-up shooting.  He brought in Redick to do one thing- shoot the three-ball.  And JJ does that well.  He shot 39% from three point range.  But what else are you getting?  He doesn’t rebound,  pass, or play defense.  There are times where he impacts the game with his shooting.  But put Redick in against a stud two deep in the playoffs for extended minutes? Can he create his own shot?  Can he stop his guy?  I’m just not convinced that JJ Redick is the long-term answer for the Clippers playoff hopes if he is expected to contribute major minutes.  The Clippers are thinking that their 1 and 4 will dominate the ball and that will open up opportunities for the 2 and 3.  It doesn’t work that way- it should be the other way around.  Just ask Stockton and Malone. 

The Clippers are in a lot of trouble.  My advice:

1) Find a legit day-to-day PF and move Blake Griffin to small forward.  This will solve one problem immediately.  There are not a lot of small forwards who can handle Blake down low and certainly he has been improving his ‘away from the basket’ game.  Certainly we don’t want to think of Blake as wing and we don’t want him shooting threes.  But think of the matchup problems this would create for the other team.  This would also add size and length with DJ, Blake, and third big man smothering the lane on defense.  

2) Consider moving Crawford to the starting two position and hope that he can blend his game into the team concept. If Crawford is not a fit as a starter (for some reason he’s a fit when they need buckets) then the Clippers should keep Crawford in the bench role or consider trading him.

3) Take a chance.  It’s unlikely they can trade to find a stud shooting guard who can score, play defense, rebound and pass.  Finding one is hard enough – being able to afford one is even harder.  But they do have young prospects in Bullock and the recently drafted CJ Wilcox.  They might need to roll the dice on playing time and find out if one of these guys is a fit.  It couldn’t hurt to invite a plethora of unsigned shooting guards to camp in hopes of finding that diamond in the rough. 

How does this theory apply to the recent Cleveland trade to bring in Kevin Love?  I’m very curious to see how this plays out for both teams.  On first glance I hate this trade.  Why would Cleveland trade young for old?  Why would Cleveland trade cheap for expensive?   Why would Cleveland trade two number one overall picks for a number five overall pick?  Given the theory laid out above does a team really need a big man who can score?  Think about that.  Houston has a big man who can score (insert Dwight Howard "ho hum" joke here).  Did the T-Wolves ever make the playoffs with Love?  And what position does Kevin Love really play?  Last year he took an aggressive 20% of the team’s shots but made only 45% of those shots.  Aren’t most big men expected to shoot less, but with more accuracy?  For comparison, Duncan took 13% of his team’s shots and made 49%.  They won the title (what a difference a few percentage points make).  Blake Griffin also took 20% of his teams shots but he shot close to 53%.  Cleveland should be asking- does it really help a team to have the big man doing the scoring- especially by taking outside shots?  With the love trade I’m feeling the Barkley and Karl Malone conundrum.  In all fairness to Love you can look at the Wolves roster and conclude that he simply didn’t have the running mates.  We know that Lebron needed Wade.  Duncan needed Parker, Ginobli and Leonard.  Kobe needed Gasol.  But the questions about the role of the big man in today’s game are valid.  Perhaps the way for Cleveland to make this thing work is to play Love and James at the 2 and the 3.  I’m not joking.  Love will at least out-rebound his smaller opponent.  We see the brilliance of Love when he steps outside the arc.  He’s a career 36% shooter from three point range.  Maybe he’s a small forward in a center’s body?  We know what James can do at the shooting guard position.  Those are nightmare match-ups for other teams if the Cavs are willing to take this approach.  Time will tell. 

As for the T-Wolves they made out like bandits.  They were going to lose Love to free agency.  They got Wiggins, Bennett, and Thaddeus Young.  The question is Wiggins.  His shooting percentage in college was 44%. He averaged 2.3 turnovers per game.  He didn’t impress anyone in the NCAA tournament.  So what made him such an interesting trade chip?  He’s only 19, he’s 6’8”, he shoots 34% for three, and he can jump out of the building.  This is the athlete you want playing shooting guard. This is the guy you hope becomes a consistent performer.  This is the guy you expect to play both ends of the court.  This is the guy you build around.  This is the guy you expect to get you deep in the playoffs one day.  Time will tell.

        My last thought on this theory involves Phil Jackson.  When he drafted he drafted Cleanthony Early I laughed out loud.  It was so predictable- so typical of Phil Jackson.  Why didn’t I see it sooner?  Of course it was Phil Jackson the GM who would hand pick an athletic swing player no one else wanted.  This is the same Phil Jackson who built his career around Jordan, Pippin and Kobe Bryant.  The problem with Early is he’s late- no pun intended.  He’s is older than most of the players coming out.  Phil didn’t care.  He saw a 6’8” athlete.  He saw a guy who shot 48% from the floor and 37% from 3 point range.  He saw a guy who grabbed 6 boards a game.  He saw a guy who can run the floor and has the size to be a lock down defender.  He saw more than one dimension. 

Why didn’t more teams have an eye on Early?  Some teams did grab shooting guards and wings ahead of Early- no pun intended- but they chose to gamble on youth.  Many teams were focused on big men, or guys who could rebound, or guys who could dribble.  They were searching for aftermarket parts.  Let me repeat that- they were searching for aftermarket parts before they even had the right engine powering their franchise.

It is also interesting to note, while we are the subject of Phil Jackson, that the Triangle offense generated 11 championships in a 19 year period.  That's 6 with the Bulls and 5 with the Lakers between 1991 and 2010.  You'd think that more franchises would take note of a winning strategy that wins titles more than half the time.  But that begs the question... what exactly was the formula?  Was it the coach, the system, or the personnel?  One theme that cannot be ignored- all of his championships featured a dominant 2 guard.

In summary (hint: the GM playbook should read):

1)      Point Guards influence games but they rarely win championships

2)      Power Forwards influence games but they rarely win championships

3)      Centers influence games but they rarely win championships

4)      Shooting Guards and Small Forwards Decide Games and Championships

a.      More money should be spent on finding good 2s and 3s

b.      More money should be spent developing good 2s and 3s

c.      More money should be spent signing and retaining good 2s and 3s

d.      A good 2 or 3 should be between 6’4” and 6’10”

e.      A good 2 or 3 must have superior athleticism

f.       A good 2 or 3 should pass, rebound, and play defense

g.      A good 2 or 3 must shoot efficiently- preferably better than 47% from the floor, better than 33% from the 3 point line, and they must be able to create for themselves and others when the game is on the line.

The END!

Note: In the analysis above I have downplayed the defensive rating system.  If anything I could have used it to better solidify my arguments.  When you read through the explanation of how defensive ratings are compiled it leaves one shaking their head.  It's a complicated formula that invokes team points allowed while the player is on the court per 100 possessions.  I've also seen vague references to a category called PPP (opponent Points Per Possession) but I have yet top find where this stat is posted. I'd love to see a "Moneyball" style debate among the best basketball minds to determine what stats are really important.