The Hangover 3: NBA Edition

by KVin2 on Feb 20, 2012 10:24 PM PST

"We talkin' about practice. I know I'm supposed to be there, I know I'm supposed to lead by example. I know that. And I'm not shoving it aside like it don't mean anything. I know it's important, I do, I honestly do. But we're talking about practice man ... We're not talking about the game, the actual game when it matters. We're talking about practice ... How the Hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?" -Allen Iverson

To answer the question posed by the inarguably** best monologue on practice of all time, it turns out you can make your teammates quite a bit better by practicing. There has been a great deal of criticism of Raymond Felton's game this season, largely due to his poor shooting, bad decision making, and turnovers. On all of the various "let's rebuild" or "blow it up" FanPosts, the BlazersEdge community seems united in its desire to see Felton off the Blazers' roster. There is also a segment of fans who seem convinced Nate McMillan is a terrible coach who should have been fired years ago.

**Monty Python Corollary: nothing is truly inarguable.

The reason for these complaints is simple: the Blazers are statistically a top-10 team, but only have a 17-15 record to show for it.** Consequently, fans want someone to blame. According to John Hollinger, the Blazers are 11th in offensive efficiency, and 6th in defensive efficiency. According to Basketball Reference, are 11th in Offensive Rating (pts/100 possessions) and 5th in defensive rating (pts allowed/100 possessions). They also have the 5th best point differential in the NBA at +4.81. After starting the season 7-2, they sit tied for third place in the Northwest Division, 7.5 games behind Oklahoma City, and tied for the last Western Conference playoff spot. Why?

**All stats are pre-Laker embarrassment.

Well, as we all know by now, the Blazers are an NBA worst 2-10 in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That has been the main contributor to their 10-13 slide. I looked at why here, and feel free to read it if you want, but the simple explanation is that the Blazers don't have a closer. The Blazers brought in Jamal Crawford to replace what Brandon Roy did in the 4th quarter of close games and to be a creator, but he simply isn't the player Roy was and never will be. LaMarcus Aldrige is evolving into a franchise player, but isn't there yet. Due to the poor shooting of the Blazers' guards this season teams are doubling LA down low and daring Felton/Crawford and Wesley Matthews to beat them from deep. LA hasn't yet developed enough to be able to score consistently on double teams, and Crawford is having a down year shooting-wise. There are other issues, such as Crawford having too high a usage rate and and poor ball handling, but that's the crux of the issue.

Many fans are simply placing the blame on the players and coaches for the Blazers' poor performance this season. However, saying Nate is a bad coach or Felton is just a terrible point guard is not entirely satisfying, is it? I feel there is a fairly simple underlying cause for why the Blazers are playing so poorly: they are experiencing lockout hangover.

There are several symptoms of lockout hangover that can be summed up as "sloppy play". Sloppy play manifests as an increased turnover rate, lower scoring, and as it turns out, poor shooting. How do we know this? Well, just compare the league-wide statistics from the last lockout-shortened season to the one before it, the 1997-98 and the '98-'99 seasons:

Season	Pts/G	FG%	3P%	FT%	ORTG	eFG%	TOV%
1997-98	95.8	.450	.346	.737	105.5	.478	.145
1998-99	91.6	.437	.339	.728	102.2	.466	.146

Across the board the basketball played during the lockout-shortened season was worse than the season before it. The league points per game dropped by over four full points, shooting percentages decreased, the offensive rating of teams decreased, and turnovers were up. (To be fair, they were up by one thousandth of a percentage point, but I'll get to this in a minute. You have to keep in mind this was before the NBA changed defense rules in the mid-2000's to outlaw hand checking and a number of other things in order to increase scoring). It was sloppy basketball. The same holds true for this season:

Season	Pts/G	FG%	3P%	FT%	ORTG	eFG%	TOV%
2010-11	99.6	.459	.358	.763	107.3	.498	.134
2011-12	94.7	.443	.345	.748	103.0	.482	.142

The numbers are even more striking this season. Points per game are down by nearly five full points per game, and turnovers have increased almost a full percent.** The underlying cause of teams' sloppy play is practice. Or, more accurately, the lack of practice. Look at it this way: the league year/free agency begins on July 1 after the draft. Then summer leagues (mainly for first and second year players) start in August and September. Then training camps happen, then a full slate of preseason games. By the time November rolls around rosters have been set and been playing together for six full weeks. This season free agency, training camps, and the preseason - a process that normally takes four months - were all rolled into the span of four weeks.

**This is actually a fascinating commentary on the NBA's defensive rule changes. Even with the sloppy play of the lockout-shorned season the TOV% is still not as high as it was during the '97-'98 season, points are almost to the level they were at during the '97-'98 season, and shooting numbers are up across the board. Yes, I think it's safe to say the NBA achieved its goal to increase scoring.

Losing that much practice time affects the quality of play for every team. So the question then becomes why some teams are succeeding and others are not. The answer is the lockout schedule: 66 games in 120 days. That's insane. Teams are playing back-to-back-to-backs on a regular basis, players are tired and get no rest, and you hear the term "lockout loss" used a lot. The schedule benefits two types of teams: deep teams, and teams who had low roster turnover from last season. Having a deep teams keeps your legs fresher, and teams with low roster turnover have better chemistry and familiarity from the get-go.

The Blazers have a deep team. The rotation goes nine-deep, and the statistics bear that out. However, the Blazers have an almost entirely new roster. Blazers newcomers Felton, Crawford, Kurt Thomas and Craig Smith represent 44% of the Blazers rotation, so instead of being able to work on things like shooting form and ball handling during training camp and the preseason, Nate had to focus on integrating four new players into his system and developing chemistry.

Now all of that may not seem like such a big deal, but consider this: the Blazers were dead last in the NBA last season in pace at 87.9 (pace is an estimate of possessions per 48 minutes). This season, they are 9th in pace, at 92.5. So not only did Nate have to integrate half of his rotation, he had to get the whole team used to playing at a new pace. Think a team who adjusts pace that radically with as many new players as the Blazers might benefit from a little practice time to work on things like ball handling and shooting? It's not an accident Felton is enjoying the worst season of his career from a points/assists/turnover perspective (9.9 PPG, 6.7 AST/G, 30.0 AST%, 2.9 TO/G, 20.3 TO%, all career worsts) in a lockout shortened season on a new team. It's not because he is a bad point guard, he's just merely had no practice time to find a rhythm with the rest of the team. It is also no accident his, Crawford and Matthews' shooting numbers are the worst of their careers.** With so little practice time at the start of the season, the coaches could not correct some bad habits they may have developed. Now with the regular season schedule they get no practice time to iron out things like poor shooting form or better decision-making in a faster paced offense.

**As it turns out, Matthews is shooing the best out of the guards and by a fairly wide margin. Here are their lines (FG% / 3P% / FT% / eFG% / TS%): Matthews, .415/.347/.844/.488/.530; Crawford, .385/.333/.984/.439/.499; Felton .366/.215/.797/.402/.442. However, Batum has been the best shooter on the team this season: .461/.416/.827/.549/.598. This is partly due to the fact Batum is simply maturing as a player and entering his prime. But it's also not a coincidence the best shooter on the team is also the player who played in Europe during the lockout.

Some of you will say I'm simply making excuses for the Blazers. I'm not. I recognize a lot of the Blazers wounds this season are self-inflicted. For instance, it is definitely concerning that Felton appears to visit VooDoo every day for breakfast in a contract year. If he had cared enough he could have certainly kept his weight down to a more reasonable level during the lockout. I am not arguing that Felton would be a top-5 PG if they Blazers had a full offseason, just that we know he is a better player than he has shown this season. Also, while it is not the Blazers' fault Roy retired, Nate is still using a shoot-first, high-volume shooter too much late in close games instead of going to LA more. He is, however, an excellent coach; there isn't a coach in the league who could have gotten more out of the Blazers' injury-ravaged lineups the past few seasons.

What I am saying is the Blazers are not as bad-off as many of you seem to think. They are suffering through a horrible lockout hangover. Overall they are playing well, and have a deep lineup filled with quality players. Given a regular offseason the Blazers would probably have better guard play. Better guard play would probably have led to the Blazers being in fewer close games, which would have masked their lack of a go-to crunch time scorer. At the end of the day, if you want to assign blame for the Blazers' poor play this season, blame the lockout. I'm not saying the Blazers should or should not resign Felton, or that we as fans should just accept the Blazers' poor guard play. But we should recognize it for what it is.

A really, really bad hangover.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

"but the simple explanation is that the Blazers don't have a closer."

It’s true that they don’t have a closer, but the explanation isn’t that simple.

They are one of the highest scoring fourth quarter teams in the NBA. They were the highest a couple of weeks ago, not sure where they are now.

What they don’t have are guys that can come out of the gate and not dig themselves a double digit hole in the first half.

So while a closer at the end of games would be nice, it’s not really the problem this year.

by raoulduke on Feb 21, 2012 9:34 AM PST reply actions

I wonder if having five of the first six players in a contract year is having an effect on team play.

They all want to get those numbers to show when they try to get paid. It’s gotta make for a scramble for minutes and touches.

by raoulduke on Feb 21, 2012 9:38 AM PST reply actions

I don't think we are seeing selfish play from this team...

If anything, they are sometimes too unselfish. A lack of practice and feel for one another on the floor (poor execution) I think contributes to their poor play the most followed up by fatigue (both physical and mental).

by clinchmobb on Feb 21, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not saying they are selfsih necessarily, but it's one more layer of pressure and expectation added

to the grind, and when starters get replaced and minutes cut, that adds another layer. I think they are good folks who want to do the right thing, but I can think of lots of times in my own life where my good intentions just weren’t enough.,

by raoulduke on Feb 21, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

I think pressure and expectations are high on most every team and player in the NBA...

especially those teams middling around the playoff bubble and those players that are good but not great talent.
I agree with the layering of pressure and expectations affecting performance, I just don’t agree that contract status is adding pressure or increasing expectations. That being said, I think the plan for this team was for everyone to buy in to one another, have success, and get rewarded for that success (contractually). The problem is that when one or two cogs fail, it puts a lot of pressure on the other guys to make up for it while still trying to support their teammates. We haven’t quite seen the total domino-effect but we were pretty close last week when LA went down. It definitely compounded the pressure on Felton and even Crawford based on what was said in the media reports.

The two guys who I feel have shown a positive response are Batum and Matthews. Batum stepped up his game all-around when LA went down which happened to correspond with him starting. Matthews has always had the right attitude and I think going to the bench took some pressure off him. The guys that need to step up are Felton (obviously) and Wallace. Gerald is an enigma…his consistency (offensively) needs improvement.

by clinchmobb on Feb 21, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions

Nice write-up and rec'd...

It would be interesting to take the low-roster turnover hypothesis and correlate it across the NBA to see where teams sit in comparison to win% vs player turnover from last season. Same with depth but that is a much more subjective term.

I think there is some visual evidence in regards to Felton’s turnovers that might not show up in the stats. Last night for instance, Felton has some sweet dimes down the lane that simply bounced off or went through the hands of Wallace, Batum, and LA that he was certainly attributed. While they may be Felton’s on the stat sheet, those guys were simply not ready for them and should have been. I’ve seen this repeated all season. At first I thought it was on Felton (and many were) but after seeing where he likes to drive the ball to and when to dish, at least some of the blame has to be spread to the other guys. They have to learn and understand that part of Felton’s game as much as he has to learn where other guys want to receive it.

Crawford and closing in the 4th quarter; he simply doesn’t pass the ball enough and over dribbles. When he does pass, guys aren’t ready because they’ve been conditioned to try and rebound. This is what Crawford is and until they get conditioned to run through LA, I don’t see him changing…

by clinchmobb on Feb 21, 2012 10:11 AM PST reply actions

Philly kept all their pieces from last year

and have been doing really well.

"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."

by YoniRap on Feb 21, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

I wanted to make the correlation

but I thought 1,700 words was pushing a reader’s limits. But if you look at the standings, the teams who are doing really well have largely kept it together. Chicago, Philly, Oklahoma City, Miami, Orlando and Indiana have all won 20 games (ok, the Pacers have won 19, close enough) with minimal roster turnover. But teams like Dallas, San Antonio have had some key additions/losses and are succeeding. Then there is a team like Boston, who is struggling with essentially the same lineup as last season. It’s an interesting questions, and I’ll do a more in-depth study and post my results later.

by KVin2 on Feb 21, 2012 2:16 PM PST up reply actions