Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

NBA’s offensive boom carried into 2017 playoffs, especially Finals

5 Comments

In Games 2-5 of the NBA Finals, the Cavaliers scored 113, 113, 137 and 120 points.

They went 1-3.

Cleveland was at the center of an offensive explosion (defensive implosion?) in the 2017 NBA playoffs. After the league posted its highest regular-season offensive rating on record this year (108.8), the scoring rate increased in the postseason – to a whopping 111.3 points per 100 possessions. (All using Basketball-Reference)

The Cavs’ playoff offensive rating was a record 120.3. The Warriors’ playoff offensive ranking, 119.0 ranks third all-time. (The 1987 Lakers, who scored 119.9 points per 100 possessions in the postseason, are sandwiched between.)

Here are the leaders in playoff offensive ranking since 1974, when the league first tracked turnovers (necessary for calculating offensive rating):

image

Understandably, the combined offensive rating in the Finals – 118.0 (121 by Golden State, 114.6 by Cleveland) – was the highest on record.

Here are the combined offensive ratings in every Finals since 1984 (as far back as Basketball-Reference has data):

image

With Cleveland and Golden State advancing to the Finals, the result was the NBA’s highest playoff offensive rating in 25 years. Here’s regular-season (blue) and postseason (orange) offensive ratings every season:

image

This wasn’t just a product of better offensive teams just happening to make the playoffs and advancing further then better defensive teams. Using teams’ regular-season offensive and defensive ratings and their number of postseason possessions, the projected playoff-wide offensive rating this year was just 109.4 – higher than the regular-season mark (108.8), but well below the actual playoff rate (111.3).

Despite a perception that defense cranks up in the postseason, teams just scored far more efficiently in the playoffs. The 2017 postseason continued a trend, just accelerating it into overdrive at a time of year when a ceiling on scoring was long thought to be more limited.

The biggest driver: 3-pointers. Players are better than ever at shooting from beyond the arc, and teams are increasingly leaning on outside shooting – even, when necessary, at the expensive of defense. The shift has come both schematically (players spotting up in the corners – ideal location for shooting 3s – not as well-positioned to get back defensively) and strategically (with teams prioritizing 3-point shooting over defense when allocating minutes).

The question: Did a fluky Cleveland team take the 2017 to a new offensive place, or are the Cavs trendsetters? Teams won’t purposefully emulate the Cavaliers’ bad defensive habits, but this was a roster filled with better shooters than defenders around LeBron James. Cleveland even carved up Golden State, which has proven over the last few years to be an elite defensive team. (The Warriors are also elite offensively, which is why they still outpaced the Cavs’ onslaught.)

Build a roster in the mold of the Cavaliers – heavy on 3-point shooters, light on natural defenders – preach more defensive commitment and communication, and a team might have something special. Will it work without LeBron’s attention-drawing and passing? Perhaps not.

But there were hints all around the 2017 playoffs that teams can bank on scoring over defense, even in the most high-pressure games, more than previously thought.

Paul George-Gordon Hayward-Celtics rumor doesn’t add up

AP Photo/George Frey
1 Comment

Paul George reportedly wants to play with Gordon Hayward. George is also reportedly willing to join his desired team (universally accepted to be the Lakers) by means that don’t guarantee the highest salary.

Could the Celtics – who are pursuing Hayward in free agency – leverage those conditions into getting George?

Adam Kauffman of 98.5 The Sports Hub:

I don’t what George would do, but it’d be a MAJOR financial disadvantage to go this route.

There a couple ways it could happen – George getting extended-and-trade or George getting traded then signing an extension six months later. The latter would allow George to earn more than the former, but even if he pledged to sign an extension, would the Celtics trade for him knowing he’d have six months to change his mind if he doesn’t like Boston as much as anticipated?

There’s a bigger issue, anyway. Both extension routes would leave George earning far less than simply letting his contract expire then signing a new deal, either with his incumbent team or a new one.

Here’s a representation of how much George could earn by:

  • Letting his contract expire and re-signing (green)
  • Letting his contract expire and signing elsewhere (purple)
  • Getting traded and signing an extension six months later (gray)
  • Signing an extend-and-trade (yellow)

image

Expire & re-sign Expire & leave Trade, extend later Extend-and-trade
2018-19 $30.6 million $30.6 million $23,410,750 $23,410,750
2019-20 $33.0 million $32.1 million $25,283,610 $24,581,287
2020-21 $35.5 million $33.7 million $27,156,470 $25,751,825
2021-22 $37.9 million $35.2 million $29,029,330
2022-23 $40.4 million
Total $177.5 million $131.6 million $104,880,158 $73,743,861

Firm numbers are used when it’s just a calculation based on George’s current contract. When necessary to project the 2018-19 salary cap, I rounded.

The Celtics could theoretically renegotiate-and-extend, but that would require cap room that almost certainly wouldn’t exist after signing Hayward.

Simply, it’s next to impossible to see this happening. It’d be too costly to George.

Dwyane Wade on why he exercised his player option: ’24 million reasons’

2 Comments

Dwyane Wade said he wanted to see the Bulls’ direction – winning now with Jimmy Butler or rebuilding? – before deciding on his $23.8 million player option for next season.

While Chicago was actively shopping Butler (before eventually trading him to the Timberwolves), Wade opted in, anyway.

David Aldridge of NBA.com:

This is most real answer answer you’ll ever see. Props to Wade for his directness.

This also speaks to the unlikelihood of him accepting a buyout, no matter how poorly he fits with the rebuilding Bulls now – though maybe he’d accept a small pay cut to choose another team.

Medically risky prospects bring intrigue to 2017 NBA draft

AP Photo/Frank Franklin II
2 Comments

ESPN analyst Fran Fraschilla dubbed Indiana forward O.G. Anunoby, who was slipping through the first round, a “sexy blogger pick.”

While I appreciate the compliment, Fraschilla was also right about another point: Those analyzing the draft for websites clearly valued Anunoby more than NBA teams. Fraschilla cited Anunoby’s limited offense, but it’s hard to get past Anunoby’s knee injury as a primary reason he fell to the Raptors at No. 23.

The 76ers adjusted us to the idea of picking an injured player high in the draft, with Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid in recent years. Even though Ben Simmons was healthy when picked, a later injury that cost him his entire rookie year conditioned us to the idea that sometimes top rookies don’t begin their pro careers ready to play.

But the 2017 NBA draft pushed back against that as a new norm. Most of the biggest tumblers on my board had injury concerns, from where I ranked them to where the went:

  • 12. O.G. Anunoby, SF, Indiana – No. 23, Raptors
  • 13. Harry Giles, PF, Duke – No. 20, Kings
  • 18. Isaiah Hartenstein, PF, Zalgiris – No. 43, Rockets
  • 19. Ike Anigbogu, C, UCLA – No. 47, Pacers

Anunoby had the aforementioned knee injury that even he, trying to paint himself in the most favorable light, said would cause him to miss some of the upcoming season. The strength of his game is a defensive versatility that would be undermined by a decline in athleticism.

Giles looked like a potential No. 1 pick in high school until three knee surgeries in three years derailed him. He was limited at Duke as a freshman, though reportedly acquitted himself in pre-draft workouts.

Hartenstein’s and Anigbogu’s medical issues were less widely know, but teams were apparently concerned.

Jonathan Givony of DraftExpress:

https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/878094857037676544

https://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/878099339012210688

The 7-foot-1 Hartenstein is big enough to put a heavy load on his back. Just 19, he has nice vision as a passer and a developing outside shot that could allow him to spend more time on the perimeter and better take advantage of his passing.

Anigbogu was the youngest player drafted. He’s big and strong and mobile and throws his body around like a wrecking ball. He must develop better awareness and maybe even some ball skills, but there’s a path toward productivity.

Will these players blossom as hoped?

As I wrote when ranking Anunoby and Giles 12th and 13th before the draft, “I’m somewhat shooting in the dark” and “I’m mostly guessing here.”

This is the disconnect between the public perception of these players’ draft stocks and where they’re actually selected. We don’t have access to their medical records like teams do. We’re operating with far less information.

Still, it’s not as if teams always know how to interpret medical testing. Even with more information, this is hard.

I’m confident Anunoby, Giles, Hartenstein and Anigbogu would have gotten drafted higher with clean bills of health. So, this is an opportunity for the teams that drafted them. If the players stay healthy, they provide excellent value.

It’s obviously also a risk. If the player can’t get healthy, his value could quickly approach nil.

There are no certainties in the draft, but these four players present especially wide ranges of outcomes, which makes them among the more exciting picks to track in the years ahead.

Vlade Divac: Kings would have drafted De’Aaron Fox No. 1

5 Comments

I sense a pattern.

Like Celtics president Danny Ainge saying Boston would’ve drafted No. 3 pick Jayson Tatum No. 1 if it kept the top pick, Kings president Vlade Divac said Sacramento would’ve taken No. 5 pick De'Aaron Fox No. 1 if it had the top pick.

Divac, via James Ham of NBC Sports California:

“Screaming,” Divac said about the reaction in the room to Fox falling in their lap. “It was a guy that we all loved and in some way, if we had the number 1 pick, he would’ve been our guy.”
“De’Aaron is our future,” Divac added.

The Kings are getting a lot of credit for drafting well. Maybe it’s a good thing they didn’t get the No. 1 pick, because it would have been foolish to pass on Markelle Fultz and Lonzo Ball (and others) for Fox. (The real punchline: Sacramento couldn’t have won the lottery due to Divac’s dumb salary dump with the 76ers giving Philadelphia the ability to swap picks.)

I don’t believe the Kings would’ve actually taken Fox No. 1. This sounds like Divac embellishing, which can be no big deal. It also puts outsized expectations on Fox, for better or worse.