[Brian Windhorst wrote an excellent piece on the vastly underrated Dan Gilbert] “But much of what Gilbert promised has indeed come true, and certainly the most important promises have. And five years in, Gilbert’s reputation is for backing up promises and putting his money where is mouth is has become rock solid.”
We’re all a little worried about Mo Williams. Rick at WFNY discusses what we really need from Mo this post-season.
[Mary Schmitt Boyer on Mo] “Williams apologized to Cavs fans on his Twitter account on Saturday night, using an expletive to describe his performance. But by Sunday, he sounded as if he was on the road to recovery.”
[Brian Windhorst on Tonight's Game] “If he fights me hard enough, maybe I’ll let him play,” Brown said. “But I think this is an opportune time for him to get some rest with the amount of days we have in between games.
On Saturday the Cavs lost to the Bucks but there was a moral victory for LeBron and Cavs fans being won at the same time. And no I’m not referring to the argument that LeBron is more valuable because the Cavs cannot win without him, I’m talking about the MIT Sloan Analytics Conference. Neil Paine at basketball-reference.com has the best collection of news from the conference. One of the most profound topics was a paper called “The Price of Anarchy”. In it, Brian Skinner argues that it’s counter-productive to have 1 player taking the majority of the big shots. John Hollinger summed it up: “The solution? Distributing the shots (or the traffic) to take advantage of all the possible avenues to Point B (or the basket) — even if it involves erecting barriers to the path of least resistance (a shot by Kobe). By this theory, creating a few more shots for Farmar and a few less for Bryant seems suboptimal at first, but it will have such a positive impact on the remaining attempts by Bryant that the Lakers come out ahead on the bargain.” Remember the debate over LeBron’s decision to pass to Donyell Marshall in game 1? I think if the Cavs had a snuggie for every time someone said something about LeBron not having that “killer instinct” because he doesn’t always take the last shot they could fill The Shoe. BW wrote about this years ago. Just another piece of evidence that LeBron plays the game the right way by keeping his teammates involved and trusting them to take the last shot of big games.
I reminded Sheridan of his piece on LeBron passing to Donyell Marshall in his SportsNation chat today. He answered that LeBron made the correct basketball play. I was unable to find where he wrote that but in his piece he did say this on the matter which fits perfectly with debate that will likely take place now that “The Price of Anarchy” has gotten national attention: “Doesn’t matter how open Marshall was, and it doesn’t matter how many defenders were coming at him. It just didn’t seem right, and it’s an open debate as to whether it was. ”
It is an open debate and has been for years now. Is it better for an alpha dog to always take the last shot? In the culture of basketball there is the perception that the the best players should always take the last shot. Obviously in certain cases this is true. Who can give you a better CHANCE to make a 27 foot fade-away 3 pointer with 1 second on the clock than LeBron or Kobe? As much as a like Boobie Gibson, he doesn’t have the shot-making-ability to really give a shot a chance in a situation like that.
But those are the rare cases. Usually, guys that “take the last shot” hold the ball, wait, wait some more, before making a move. As Hollinger pointed out: “NBA offenses tend to do this, at least to some extent — for the first 47 minutes of a game or so, shots are spread somewhat evenly among the five players. But in the final seconds, they aren’t, and this also tends to be where NBA offenses are at their worst. I don’t think that’s an accident, and I think this conference showed me why.”
The “Prices of Anarchy” wasn’t specifically about taking the last shot it was about spreading out the wealth on offense. There is a lot of evidence for this RIGHT NOW. When LeBron takes less shots and gets more assists the Cavs have a higher winning percentage. Pau Gasol is fed up with with Kobe firing up 30+ shots a game (and the lakers are struggling).
This is such a great debate and I’m glad it is being brought to the forefront.
Ive always been in the “make the right play” bandwagon, and no statistical evidence has been found to knock me off of it.
I think a perfect example of this is Rondo’s HORSE performance (don’t worry, I’ll get there).
Rondo is widely regarded as a sub-par shooter. In fact, he is kind of abysmal at it. However, he stood at the top of the three point line and drained 10 threes in a row (correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it was that many). Almost everyone that watched it was probably thinking the same thing, “wait a minute…. I thought this guy wasn’t a good shooter.” The truth is, he’s not…. when compared to other NBA players. However, put him in a gym by himself, or with non-NBA players, and he becomes the best shooter on the floor, which is exactly what we saw in that HORSE competition.
Now, Donyell Marshall was considered a three-point specialist for that Cavs team. So, not only is he better than a bad shooter (Rondo), but he is considered one of the best of the best. When looking at the situation, LeBron driving to the basket with Prince right with him and Sheed coming over to help, leaving Marshall WIDE OPEN in the corner, the absolutely correct play is to kick it out to Marhsall. You could make the case that LeBron should have tried to force up a tough angle layup against two defenders since he is the best player on the team, but Marshall was supposed to be a very good three point shooter.
What does this have to do with Rondo? Well, as he proved in that HORSE competition, even the worst shooters, when give a ton of room to shoot, can knock down shot after shot after shot. Marshall was a GOOD three point shooter. A wide open corner three is probably a shot he knocks down nine times out of ten. In fact, I bet LeBron had watched him do it in practice and games thousands of times.
In short, passing the ball to a wide open player is always going to be a better option than forcing up a next to impossible shot except in the most extreme cases (for example, if you’re kicking it out to Shaq for three).
@Colin – very true. There is some decision making that is important.
We’ve talked about this a little when it comes to LeBron. Often he reacts to the defense to make the “best basketball play” and if something breaks down he is forced to take a shot out of rhythm. When this happens we question Lebron’s clutchness.
But for the most part, in late game situations, LeBron uses his superior athleticism and endurance to drive and put the pressure on the D to collapse and either finishes or finds the open man. He makes the right play 9 times out of 10 regardless of the outcome and it’s nice to have some statistical evidence to support his style of play.
“Lebron doesn’t seem to be able to will his team to victory, and isn’t able to just win games like Jordan did”
^^I’ve heard statements like that been thrown out before, and I’m not trying to suggest that Lebron is better than Jordan or anything, but I would like to point out that through the first 7 seasons of their career, Lebron has 328 career wins, while Jordan (did not include his injured season) had 358. Considering the season (assuming the Cavs win 62, as per Pythagorean W/L model) is not yet over, Lebron will finish 7 years with 360 wins. How the above argument holds up makes no sense whatsoever.
Love the Brian Skinner article. I’ve always thought there’s a place for analytics beyond pure statistical methods in sports. There are many economic and game theoretic models that can be just as revealing in the right contexts.
I went up to Detroit for the “Donyell Marshall” game. Why’d you have to bring that up? WHY!!!
Silver lining was that I had just had knee surgery and was on crutches so I think it saved me from getting jumped.