Kate Fagan attempted to tackle the Sixers "closing" issues in her
Sunday column yesterday. In some respects, she had solid points, in others, she missed the mark completely. Unfortunately, I don't think there are really any concrete answers. It's either a simplistic, "they're too young," or "they aren't very good." Or it's this ethereal logic that can basically be summed up by, "they don't have
it." Somewhere in the middle lies the answer, if there is one.
First, let's tackle Kate Fagan's piece. The part where she's spot-on is all about setting screens. This is something I've noticed the entire season. For some anecdotal proof, think back. When was the last time the Sixers were called for a moving screen? Has it happened at all this season? Maybe once or twice? There's a reason for that. You can't get whistled for a moving screen if you never make contact. Fagan gives Elton Brand a pass in this regard, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. He might be the biggest culprit of setting these alleged screens.
Viewed through the lens of late-game ineptitude, I think the weak screens are more of a symptom than the problem. The problem we're talking about here is crisp execution. Not just phantom screens, but setting your man up for a hard cut, cutting through the lane with a purpose, keeping the floor spaced on the weak side, not drifting. These are all keys not only in late-game situations, but they are keys to running an efficient offense in the half court at any time. It just so happens that when the rubber meets the road in late/close game situations, teams are forced into the half court more often than not. Which leads us back to the question of why the Sixers
can be efficient in the half court for long stretches of the game, just not in those key possessions at the end of games.
For me, it comes down to running two different offenses. We've got the standard offense which starts with a
point guard. Then we've got the late-game offense, which starts with isolation for a
combo guard. The standard offense employs several simple plays. The pick-and-roll, the pick-and-pop, down screens for shooters, post-ups for mismatches, and dribble penetration by our
point guard, either for a shot in the lane, a dump-off or a kick-out for an open jumper.
The late-game offense consists of our
combo guard dribbling the ball, then either driving the lane hoping for contact, taking a tough, fall-away jumper, or pump-faking a couple times, hoping to entice his defender to foul him on a jump shot attempt.
We've gone over this thousands of times. Anyone who has watched a game this season is a first-hand witness. It's not always Lou Williams, though he's the most frequent offender, sometimes it's Iguodala. The sad fact is that it's almost never Jrue.
Which makes this section of Kate Fagan's column troubling:
Holiday can't keep playing the game's final five minutes like he plays the game's first five minutes. Doing that is called pickup basketball, and even then guys usually take extra precaution on game point, especially if a team is waiting for next.
First of all, Jrue doesn't play the last five minutes of the game like the first five. Not even close. In the first five minutes of the game, Jrue is the point guard. He's running the offense, making the decisions. In the last five, he's standing in the corner watching someone else make the decisions. He's an afterthought who rarely, if ever gets a shot, and if he does, it's with the shot clock winding down. Jrue isn't making bad decisions at the end of games. He isn't making any decisions at all. He's completely marginalized.
The truly disturbing thing here is that she's throwing stones at Jrue for the crimes Lou Williams is committing. And you know what? It wouldn't even be fair to throw them at Lou Williams, because he's just the trigger man. Doug Collins is the one who turns these games into pickup games at the local YMCA when he throws his offense out the window and lets Lou Williams go one-on-one to decide the game.
There's another large portion of the column that contains a good deal of faulty logic. Basically, Fagan says the Sixers can't finish games because they have too many AAU guys on the team. Guys who didn't cut their teeth in college. And this weakness is their fault because of who they drafted. She mentions the Jrue Holiday over Ty Lawson pick in particular, which is kind of ironic. The one game Jrue was allowed to "close" this season came in Denver, against Lawson. While Lawson was chucking up terrible shots down the stretch and turning the ball over, Jrue took the game over and closed out the win for the Sixers. Soon thereafter, Lou came back from the birth of his daughter, and was given the keys to the car again to run the late-game offense.
Fagan's talk about the draft got me thinking, though. A couple questions: (1) Have the Sixers taken less experienced guys in their past couple drafts? Would it have made a difference if they hadn't? (2) Is this a problem that's specific to the Sixers? I mean, with a few rare exceptions, players with any talent are one-and-done in college these days. There are very few four-year players. The best you can hope for is to get a guy who came out of a good program with a good coach for his one, maybe two seasons, no?
So let's take a look at the last four drafts for the Sixers.
- 2007 - Thad Young or Al Thornton. Thad was clearly younger, clearly an "AAU" player. Thornton was the "seasoned" guy with three years of college under his belt and also almost five years older than Thad. The Sixers took Thad. Right choice or wrong choice?
- 2008 - Marreese Speights vs. Darrell Arthur. Both Speights and Arthur had played for national championship teams. Both played two years in college. Speights is actually older than Arthur, but I guess the case can be made that Arthur was more NBA-ready, if that means anything. Roy Hibbert went immediately after Speights in the draft, I suppose you could make a case that he would've been a more "seasoned" choice, but he didn't have any more experience than Speights or Arthur. PF was also a position of need at the time.
- 2009 - Jrue Holiday or Ty Lawson. Lawson played three years at North Carolina, and he's three years older than Jrue. If you were looking for experience, he'd clearly be the choice. He's had success running against backups with a talented roster around him. Jrue has had success actually running the show, and he's still three years younger.
- 2010 - Evan Turner vs. Derrick Favors. I find it odd that Fagan talked at length about how the Sixers have chosen the freak athletes over the more accomplished (older) players, and how that's what's put them in this position, without even mentioning the fact that they did the exact opposite in this summer's draft.
When you get right down to it, the Sixers aren't any more affected by the AAU culture than any other team. It's a league-wide epidemic that players don't get seasoned in college. For the most part, if you spend three or four years in college it means you weren't much of a prospect after your first two. If it's truly an experience thing for the Sixers, it's a result of what's happened since they got to the NBA. Thad Young has had four coaches in four seasons, with a full year of Eddie Jordan mixed in there. Speights has had four coaches in three seasons, with a full year of EFJ. Jrue had a full season of EFJ jerking him around, in an idiotic offensive system. Iguodala has had five coaches in seven years, including a year of EFJ damage. If these players are behind the curve in terms of experience, it has nothing to do with how much time they spent in college relative to the rest of the league. It could have something to do with the year(s) of lost development in an unstable situation in Philly.
Then again, it may just have to do with talent and meshing skill sets. Who knows?
It seems the problem with our Sixers is that they are going with Lou in the last 5 mins because Collins thinks he's the best player to get off a good shot. He thinks he's the best one on one player on the team. Lou doesn't turn the ball over much, doesn't settle for threes and can get to the line at a good rate. Thing is, if you're relying on Lou to win games for you night in and night out you're team is in trouble. He's not good enough for that role.
Collins seems to totally forget who his best players are. Jrue, Iggy and Brand are seen as not good options on offense late in the game. that may be because Jrue turns the ball over a little to much and Iggy settles for jumpshots.
Brand is the one player who I dont understand is being frozen out. He gets good looks, rebounds the offensive glass and gets to the line. He's made big shots before and has a leaders attitude. He wants to be in that position to put the team on his back win the game. I dont think Collins has that confidence in brand to go to him.
I can't believe our coach is this dumb; there must be a logical explanation or numbers to back up his choice of who has the ball at the end of games. Is the team better cause Lou draws more attention up top? Is this a way to push Jrue to be great, like he seems to be doing with Marreese by sticking with Hawes?
As far as Lou goes, he seems to be passing more lately but why not let him attack from the wing?
The team essentially went from running late hame iso's for Iguodala to doing the same for Lou. We are talking years or late game Iso. At least since Andre Miller left (3 coaches ago) and probably longer.
Its partly an NBA team. Many teams run Iso's late- because they have one player who stands out. Atl probably iso's JJ more than anyone. While PG led team's can run plays, since putting the ball in their best players hands is the same as running the offense.
I agree they need to put the ball in Jrue's hands. Even if he fails, the team will be better for it long term. And as Brian has said- he can't do any worse :)
But I also see where Collins is coming from. The team lacks the experience and skill to execute down the stretch. It is much harder to generate a quality shot through plays against a hyper-focussed defense than it is earlier in a game. And the Sixers are not the only young team to struggle in these settings: http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/71292/20110123/granger_blames_inexperience_for_inability_to_close_out_games/
So if you worry that set offense will fail to generate a shot, than you iso you best 1 on 1 player because at least the ball will be in a scorers hands... Again, I'd rather it be Jrue. And I think moving Jrue to SG late hurts the defense even more than the offense- but I can see the other side. And regardless, they will struggle closing games.
"team" should read "thing"
Wow, my grammar, spelling and punctuation is terrible early in the morning. Any chance we can start editing our posts, because I'm often too lazy to proof-read.
It seems our defensive minded coach goes against character by playing Lou late and getting stops should be his main focus. The sooner Turner can close games the sooner we start winning close ones hopefully. An end of game lineup minus Lou and Thad should increase our getting stops potential bigtime, especially if Battie is at the 5.
Yeah, I actually said something about this in the game thread Saturday night. The Sixers were up by like 13 points with 4 minutes left and Lou was still in there. I don't get that at all. If you climbing back into a game, then fine, if he thinks Lou is a key to getting scores I might not agree, but I see the logic. But when you're protecting a healthy lead, get a defensive lineup in there. Turner should've been in the game for Lou. Going offensive w/ a lineup in that situation is very Eddie Jordan.
Worse case go the L.B. route with offense for defense switches; he was good at that.
I agree that Collins must be thinking that team will get a better shot by running an isolation rather than trusting them to execute a play against a prepared defense.
To get good looks against late game defense, you've gotta execute - discipline in sticking to a plan has not shown to be a strength of this group, as evidenced by their late game follies on the other end of the court (bad fouls, bad switches).
So that leaves a few options:
1. Isolate Jrue.
2. Execute and fail... with the hope that it helps them later.
At this point I guess I'd go with #1, and try and work #2 over time.
The "right choice" would be to run a pick and roll with Jrue and a big. But I'm not sure that big is on the roster. It could be Speights, but he can't make good defensive decisions (but at least he can secure a rebound.)
If Elton is at the center spot next to Thad either he or Thad in a pick n pop with Jrue should get a good shot for somebody. Even Turner will probably need screens to get a good look so that should be the focus now. And Brand and Spieghts would also be a good option over iso's.
#1 is the short sighted view in my opinion
#2 is more important to the long term success of the sixers - and Jrue - even this year - cause come playoff time - Lou is going to get bitchslapped as the refs allow the more physical teams (ala the boston celtics) to commit more non called fouls than they do in the regular season
d'oh - stupid sign in function - that was meant to go to TK76
Why would giving the ball to Jrue on an iso up top be bad? He's a good scorer who can pass. While if you run a play the ball might stop in the wrong player's hands.
It wouldn't be bad - compared to iso lou
But the whole iso principle in the last 5 minutes, it's just stupid to me - basketball doesn't change - if the defense know's you're going to go to iso's - and who - it's easier to defend - stop a guy stop the team.
If something was working for 43 minutes - why won't it work for 43+-48 minutes?
It's like the equivalent of the prevent defense
It is harder to execute in the final 5 minutes because the defense is "trying." That's not to say you can't up your offensive focus to compensate...
When I use double negatives I feel like Donald Rumsfeld.
More Rumsfeld:
Do I think they should run set plays? Yes, I do.
Will that make them more successful on the field? Not necessarily. But if you don't fail, then success is not less likely, in a strategically meaningful way.
See, this is where I disagree. Well, I think I do anyway.
In the final minutes, the defense is definitely more focused. There's no doubt about that, but they aren't suddenly impenetrable. Basically, what you have is a set defense who maybe has more ability to shut something down. Say Brand's been killing them all game. In the final stretch, they may double Brand, get the ball out of his hands. If the P&R has been killing them, they may decide on a hard double instead of a soft hedge. They can focus on stopping what's been beating them throughout the game, take away your plan A.
Of course, then you have to be good enough. Or more accurately, your playmaker needs to be good enough to go with plan B or plan C. Instead, the Sixers just skip right to plan D, which is essentially a contested jumper more often than not. Maybe a 0.8 point possessions, on average.
Yep, that sums it up nicely.
Although I prefer Rumsfeld speak.
Although I prefer Rumsfeld speak.
I prefer FOrrest Gump Speak - it's smarter
I realize this is kind of absurd, but think about the Sixers as the late 80's pistons for a second. Jrue is Isiah, Lou is Vinny "the Microwave" Johnson. The Microwave would come in and fill it up for long stretches, carry the offense, but when it came to crunch time, there was no question who was getting the ball.
Lou is a whole lot closer to "the microwave" than Jrue is to Isiah... but I see what you are saying.
But overall, I'm against any parallels comparing the current Sixers with a prior Pistons team. If anything they most resemble the current Pistons (past his prime big, PG who is bigger and lacks pure PG skill, gunner off the bench, bigs who can score but can't defend...)
For the hullva it
And another.
Different game back then, obviously.
Although I do think Jrue would've been better with the old hand-checking rules. He would've kicked the crap out of opposing, smaller PGs.
Hah. Usage, pts/36, asst/36, TOV/36 and eFG% all nearly identical. Although Lou is more like a taser than a microwave.
Now lets see Jrue v Isiah... never mind. Even Isiah at 20 was impressive:
http://bkref.com/tiny/EsrxN
Jrue's numbers are better at 20.
The comp I put above is Jrue now vs. Isiah the year they won the championship.
Again, though, much different game especially for perimeter players.
If Lou can do what he does now for 13 years - no one will compare him to johnson - because of the team johnson was on - so is johnson 'over valued' because of who he played for or is lou better than some of us think?
Different game. Harder for perimeter guys to score. I think Lou would've been useless back then, the Microwave might've been much more effective today.
Also, I'm not really sure the microwave is thought of in that good of a light, is he? Just the nickname stuck.
The biggest problem I have with Lou being on the floor late isn't even the isolations. I'm more bothered by the overall negative from shifting Jrue to SG.
It means you go from having a decent defender at PG (Jrue) to having over-matched defenders at PG(Lou) and SG(Jrue.)
I guess that if you are trailing then bringing Lou might spark the offense for a few possessions. but even then,you need stops.
If the sixers have a lead - of 3 or more - Lou shouldn't be on the floor - run Jrue Evan and Iguodala - and doug probably would throw thad and brand out there - having brand as your 'close out center' is a bad idea - but it's what Doug likes to do.
Lou can't defend a paper bag
Didn't one of your links show that the Brand/Thad/Iguodala/Meeks/Jrue line-up had the 3rd best adjusted +/- in the league?
That's not true. Jrue has matched up well defensively against some pretty good perimeter players. He defended Kobe his rookie year and did it pretty well. Lou obviously is just very awful defensively though. Hell, he can't even do the only thing he can do all that well either. He's a so-so shooter and that's really about it.