April 19, 2010 - I made few but important changes to this article published on February 13, 2010. At first, I wanted to leave the original sentences crossed, but in the end I decided to take them out completely because crossed lines destroy the flow. In addition to revising some sentences, I removed all the comments. The debate made sense while it was happening but I don’t think it is interesting as a permanent addition to the article.

Author

“Winning is like deodorant – it comes up and a lot of things don’t stink.” – Doc Rivers, The Celtics Coach

Not long ago, the Belmont Marauders basketball team was undefeated, 15 and 0. But, they lost two of their last three games, first to Reading, then last night to Watertown. Both these teams are considered serious rivals and getting the wins was extremely important to the team. The game against the Watertown Raiders was particularly important because the team wanted to go into the post season on the wings of a decisive win against a great rival. It all looked possible as Belmont thoroughly outplayed Watertown in their first game of the season. This time, the final score was Watertown 57 – Belmont 53.

In my article from January 13th, 2010, titled Big win for Belmont against undefeated Reading, I highlighted what Belmont needed to do differently to get more decisive wins and to prevail in tough situations. When the article came out some people expressed their consternation that I was too pessimistic while the team was winning. I wanted the team not to be oblivious to the “deodorant effect,” to look at their performances objectively, and start fixing problems while there was still time.

Let’s revisit briefly what I said in January (more details here). The Belmont Marauders needed to:

• Find their defense
• Have four players score in double digits
• Promote good passing and have everybody touch the ball on offense
• Move the ball inside out
• Play pick-and-roll basketball
• Take only smart (good) shots
• Dispel the idea of a big three
• Fast break a lot more
• Keep working on team spirit

I can tell with full confidence that in Belmont’s first game against Watertown (watch full game here ) the team followed these guidelines to the letter. They didn’t do it because they read my article, of course, they did it because they know instinctively how to play basketball, and the coach didn’t interfere. In their second game, last night, they failed on 8 out of the 9 points. The coach tried to force them do things his way and he imposed the most confused substitution pattern that I’ve seen this season. Of course, the experiment was bound to fail. (By this I don’t mean playing mostly seniors in the first half on the Senior Night, because I think that was a noble idea and I fully supported it.)

So, what happened last night? Belmont got outplayed and thoroughly outcoached second time in a week. The team played man defense in the first half, then switched to some sort of zone diamond with one player shadowing Marco Coppola, Watertown’s best player. It worked poorly in the first half, and it didn’t work at all in the second. When Belmont had the players in the game who could play zone, the team played man defense. When they had players who could match up, they played this weird combo-zone. The players looked like they played the diamond scheme for the first time in their lives, and it was easily broken down by the Watertown offense. When shots didn’t go in, the Watertown offense penetrated and scored inside.

What was most revealing about the team dynamics was the way the Belmont team did, or to be more accurate didn’t, respond to their coach. Their body language revealed deficiency of trust. They showed resistance to the his substitutions and speeches in the huddle. Can this trust  be established before the post-season? Respect is not something you can shove down your players’ throats in 3+ hr practices after a loss for which you have nobody else to blame but yourself. Opportunities to gain the players’ respect were missed long ago.

Great coach John Wooden believed in practices in which every minute was used for a purpose. He had minute-by-minute schedules and he never let anything distract him from following through with his practice plan. He never extended his practice beyond the attention-holding boundary. If you can’t get your message heard in 1.5 hrs you are unlikely to get it heard in 3 hrs. And don’t blame the recipient, blame the messenger.

Watertown, on the other hand, played a great game. When played the right way, basketball is like music performed by a good symphony orchestra. When you have players in full harmony with their coach they are his extended hand  on the court, materialization of his coaching philosophy. The coach needs to have a good feel for his players; he needs to understand when it is better to let their talent take off and when there is a need to provide guidance, but a good coach never interferes with his players’ talent. He never puts himself in front of or above his players. I enjoyed watching Watertown last night. I enjoyed watching a great coach and enthusiastic players who responded to him throughout the game. At times, although still rooting for Belmont, I caught myself admiring Watertown’s execution of their coach’s game plan, the patience with which they passed the ball until they got the shot they wanted.

In the game of basketball, there are good scorers, good defenders, good rebounders, good shot blockers… There are  few born winners, and even fewer true leaders. Marco Coppola played like a true leader last night. He scored when the team needed it, he ran without the ball tirelessly, he passed when his teammates needed to be engaged. He showed a great feel for the rhythm of the game. He did not take a single bad shot. The last fast-break attack was supreme evidence of his leadership. In a two-on-one play, most MVP-caliber players would take it upon themselves to score and win the game, but he chose to pass instead. Why? Because it was the right thing to do, the right way to play the game. It increased the odds.  That’s why Marco Coppola should be considered a serious candidate in the race for the Middlesex League MVP. He lead a team without much depth to a winning record by making everybody around him better.

Where does this leave us? The Belmont players will continue winning in the post season. They will do it because they have too much talent and pride to stop now. Will they go all the way? That, I don’t know. I do know one thing, though, if they win the state championship it will happen because of the camaraderie on the court, not because of the long speeches in the locker room. They will win by following the guidelines from the beginning of this article because it is a common-sense approach to basketball. They will win because they will find a way to put their egos aside and forge the kind of unity needed whenever a group of people wants to achieve something great.

Basically for every minute of the season we look at who is on the court and how the score of the game changes. After adjusting for who you play with and against, we come up with an Adjusted +/- Rating for a player. For example, currently we rate LeBron James as a +21 Points Rating, +19 Offense Rating, and -2 Defense Rating. This means that if LeBron replaced an average NBA player for 48 minutes we estimate that his team would perform 21 points better. If LeBron replaced an average offensive player his team would score 19 points more per game, and if LeBron replaced an average NBA defender his team would give up 2 fewer points per game.

When you apply this method, you realize that Marc Gasol is better than his elder brother Pau. You also find out the following:

Carmelo Anthony is overrated and Nene is underrated. Being a top scorer does not make you an all star. Denver has played great in Melo’s absence. Nene’s +10 Points rating shows that Nene is a major contributor to the Nugget’s success.

You may disagree with this approach, but it is certainly better than approach which selects Allen Iverson as a starter and T-Mac as a serious candidate for the All-Star game.

We all know that the the only way for players to excel is to be none else but themselves. You’d think that this is a simple formula, but when you watch any basketball game (high school, college, pros) you see players trying to be something they are not. Players make adjustments over the years, they improve their free-throw shooting, or work on their post-up game (to name but a few), but they reach their true potential only when they realize who they really are on the basketball court, which is really an extension of their ordinary life personality. A true transformation happens when a go-to guy realizes that he’s really just a very good second fiddle. He can still drop thirty points on a given night, but forcing the ball through his hands on every possession alienates him from his true nature and minimizes his potential and reach. If somebody likes deferring, or simply enjoys passing (I believe a good pass can give you the same thrill as ripping it through the net from the three-point line) asking him to shoot a lot, even if he has a terrific shot, makes that player uncomfortable in his role, and minimizes the positive impact he could have on the team.

Phil Jackson knows all this. I believe what he’s trying to accomplish with his book recommendations is to reach his players in the manner that a simple practice talk or coach’s one-on-one with a player cannot achieve. He wants them to dig deep into themselves in order to find who they really are, and he understands that all human beings need time to get there. The ritual of the book reading, the time and patience it takes to reach the back cover, provide the structure for this inner exploration.

The blogger who often calls himself Bethlehem Shoals wrote an article about this for his blog Free Darko. He mentioned that two nights ago, Phil’s girlfriend and the Lakers executive, Jeanie Buss put this year’s picks on Twitter. She says that some players simply won’t read, but that doesn’t make Phil stop. Free Darko provided an interesting insight about the books and why he thinks Phil matched these particular books with these exact players.

Note: Bethlehem Shoals wrote “The Macrophenomenal Pro Basketball Almanac “, in which he explains the styles, stats, and stars in today’s game. This is a somewhat psychedelic, but very well written book.

Here are some excerpts from the article.

Player: Kobe Bryant
Book: Montana 1948 by Larry Watson
Synopsis: A small-town sheriff finds out that his brother has raped and murdered numerous Native-American women. He finds himself torn between his dual loyalties to family and the law.
Meaning: Wow, Phil doesn’t screw around, eh? Forget for a minute the connections to Kobe’s legal troubles and consider that the reader is meant to identify with the sheriff. The common perception of Kobe is that he’s torn between his need to score and his desire to win as part of the larger team. Often, he appears to toggle between each pole, unable to find a happy medium. What Montana 1948 teaches us is that no matter which option you choose, you must live with the consequences and emotions of forgoing the other choice. It’s about living in the gray area, something Kobe must embrace to realize his full potential as a teammate and star.

Player: Ron Artest
Book: Sacred Hoops by Phil Jackson
Synopsis: A coaching legend details his philosophy of basketball as the ultimate in spiritual communication among teammates.
Meaning: This is one of the few choices Buss explained: apparently Phil likes to give new players an introduction to his approach to basketball. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. The more likely explanation is that Phil knows Artest is borderline insane, tried to think of a suitable book, couldn’t come up with anything, and just picked up one of the copies of Sacred Hoops he had around the house. The good news is that Ron-Ron is so sincere that he’ll undoubtedly take every message in the book to heart. It’s just unclear what it’ll all mean to him.

An interesting coincidence for me is Roberto Bolano’s book (recommended to Pao Gasol). I find it interesting, because I’ve become recently intrigued by this author and I was toying with an idea of translating his “Los detectives salvajes” (“The Savage Detectives”) into Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian.

Among good things, the inside defense was solid. Reading centers and forwards couldn’t easily score. Belmont hit more than their typical 20% of threes attempted, which helped quite a bit.

Among not so good things, the defense on penetrations was shaky. It looked like Reading guards could get into the paint any time they wanted.

When you win an important game, the media covers it. Jon Hines wrote “Belmont tops Reading in unbeaten boys hoop battle ” and published it in Daily Times Chronicle. Amara Grautski wrote “Musler carries Belmont to win ” for the Boston Globe. Michael Pina wrote “Belmont High boys hoop wins battle of unbeatens ” for the Belmont Citizen-Herald.

What should Belmont team do better if they want to be a really terrific team? Here are some thoughts:

• Find their defense. In the first 4-5 games, they were constantly switching between press, zone, man. They need to find what suits the players they have the best, execute that well, and use press more judiciously. Opposing teams scored too many easy baskets on broken Belmont presses in the past.
• Make sure that four players score in double digits every game. Why? Because they can, they have enough talent to do it. You can stop one player, you can stop two, it is very hard to stop three, and it is impossible to stop four. I am not talking about the league games any more, although there will be a lot of battles in January and February. I am talking about the tournament and winning against really good teams. Well, that preparation should start now.
• The team needs to understand that good passing is the most effective offensive weapon in basketball. That’s the only play which works against any defense. Good passing makes basketball mesmerizing to watch. Seven games into the season, I am still waiting for a good passing game by Belmont. The game against Reading wasn’t one of them. If you don’t believe my theory about passing just look at the best players in the history of basketball, they were all unselfish players and great passers. Larry Bird thinks that good passing is more difficult than good shooting, because you have to hit a moving target through the forest of hands. But good passing needs to be actively promoted by the coaching staff, not only as the player’s last resort. The best leaders are the best facilitators, they make every other player perform at or even above their current level of capability. I have to say that I am not optimistic in this regard because Belmont basketball programs seem to like players who can “take it to the hoop”, which is often done recklessly, against double or triple teams, without ever looking for an open player.
  Note: On Saturday, I watched Harvard beat Dartmouth. What a beautiful passing game. Every player touches the ball on every offense, often more than once. High school teams should collectively go to one of Harvard games to witness quiet leadership (Jeremy Lin) and  excellence without self-promotion at work. No wonder Harvard beat BC and almost beat uConn. As a side note, I saw the whole Winchester High basketball team at the game.
• Move the ball inside out and not only in circles outside the three point line. Inside out movement is more likely to open three point shots, and a variety of cuts. If executed well, it is much harder to defend. Unlike last year, Belmont has good passers in the low-post positions. They need to understand that passing is a strength not a weakness, especially if they are double-teamed and their teammate is open somewhere.
• Re-introduce the mid-range shot. Despite what I have heard may times in the circles around Belmont basketball, the mid-range shot is not dead! This shot should not be discouraged when missed because it is as good as any other shot, no better no worse. It is certainly better than a forced lay-up or a hasty three. This is true, of course, if you have players who can make it, and Belmont has at least three of them.
• Play some pick-and-roll, but for real, as part of the game plan. Again, the reason Belmont should do it is that they have players who can execute it. Over 60% of all offense in the NBA is pick-and-roll. The reason is simple: it is next to impossible to defend it, if done well. I am aware that there is a lot of zone defense in high school basketball which makes pick-and-roll way less effective. Belmont couldn’t do it 60% of time (and they shouldn’t), but it could be an additional, potentially deadly, offensive weapon.
• Take only smart shots. The line between good shooters and gunners is very thin. I don’t care if you score 25 points on 20% shooting. That’s a bad game by all standards. Imagine if you were sick and your doctor diagnosed your disease right only once in every five attempts – you’d be dead by now. Making good decisions when time is limited is not easy. Here’s my quick definition of a good shot: it is a shot you can make with confidence higher than 50% (try to get this closer to 90%), but ONLY if your teammate is not in a position to make a shot with confidence higher than yours! Otherwise, it becomes a bad shot. As I said earlier, the line is very thin. Not easy to make that decision in 1/2 of a second? Well, that’s what makes a difference between solid basketball players and really good ones. I will not mention great because there are no great players in the Middlesex League, and there are very few in high school basketball in any given year.
• Dispel the idea of “big three”. Last year, I read in the local newspapers and online publications that Belmont had “big three”. Early on this season, one article mentioned Belmont’s new “big three”. It was repulsive last year and it is equally repulsive now. I don’t even know where these ideas come from. Some players will score more than others and maybe they’ll do it consistently, but who is there to decide that scoring is more important than defensive stops. So, you may have a player who works his butt off every night, maybe shadows the other team’s point guard the whole season, and he is not part of the “big three” society only because he doesn’t score 15 points every night. The sole emphasis on points bothers me. I believe this mistaken idea comes from the NBA, and it bothers me there too. Garnett, Pierce and Allen are the “big three” because they suck in two third of the team’s money. I know Perkins is not a superstar and he may never be, nor will he ever get the status that Dwight Howard has in the league. But, he hauls double-digit rebounds and adds double-digit points many nights, and he’s… what… “crappy two”. Belmont has big five, and big seven, and big nine if the need be, and that’s the only right approach. Sometimes, a player changes the rhythm of the game when playing only two-three minutes. In some ways, that’s harder than scoring 15 points in 38 minutes.
• Fast break a bit more. Belmont doesn’t have a typical slow center. They basically play with three guards and two forwards (who could also play guard if the need be). They can throw some long passes from out-of-bounds. They can throw the outlet pass quickly then run the court. They should get more easy points this way. I am not advocating for them to start gambling with risky passes and try fast breaking every time they get a defensive rebound. Like any other offense, if used too often it becomes predictable and easier to defend. But, I’ve seen missed opportunities in the past and, I am sure, more opportunities will arise in the future. They should not be missed. Here’s what great Red Auerbach said about coaches who don’t run fast break: “Coaches today figure you can’t control a fast break the way you can control a half-court offense. These guys don’t want a running game because they lose control if they have one. They want to walk the ball up the court so they can stand up and control every possession, every pass. They feel more secure that way. [...] A lot of coaches get up and scream or call time-outs so they look like they know what they’re doing. It’s all about image…”
• Improve free-throw shooting. It was surprising to see Belmont team struggle in the first couple of games. Free throws often win games. When Larry Bird broke his foot in high school, he kept working on his free throws (and passing) even while on crutches. Most Belmont players can make 80% of their free-throws and I am convinced they will start doing it soon.
• Keep working on the team spirit. Do not worry about who scored most points or got most rebounds. I’ve already seen a player with limited minutes WIN a game with one critical play which didn’t show on the score board. The boom box at the end of the games may help more in this regard than anything coaches may do or say.

Belmont has potential to win the state championship this year, but many teams with potential lost it before they even got to the championship game. It is time to celebrate seven wins, time to enjoy being unbeaten in a solid league. It is not time to become over-confident and stop improving. If things are done right, that time will never come until the season is over.

The best definition of the player with high basketball IQ comes from Van Gundy:

It’s a guy who has an innate understanding, the game comes easily to him… They see things once and it all makes sense to them. Basketball just makes sense to them and they make smart plays. They’re ahead of the play defensively. They can pick up plays you put in easily.

While doing further research on the basketball IQ on the web, I came across another article on The Crossover Movement blog. This paragraph in particular caught my eye. I believe the description extends to any player who, for whatever reason, plays out of his position. The worst, as highlighted below, is when a scorer is put into a position to be a playmaker. This rarely works well.

Combo Guards dominate the low I.Q. list: Arenas, Crawford, Ellis, Iverson, Tinsley, Jones. I have written about the difference between point guards and combo guards previously. While these players may be low I.Q. players, to me, the obvious point is that they are shooting guards trying to be point guards. As I have written before, this is a poor use of their skills and personality. They are scorers and to expect them to change and become point guards reduces their effectiveness.

It can work well, though. Dwayne Wade is a natural scorer, who excels when he has the ball in his hands. He is as good a playmaker as any point guard in the league.