APBRmetrics

[B Purist]

Four Factors - 3 Problems - Smart Basketball

Four factor ratings, numerous individual statistics and differentials (points) summarize how well teams and specific players perform the basics of the game. Statistical analysts are adept at examining team performance and breaking it down into the positive and negative contributions of individuals to teamwork and overall results. Those that look at the game from this perspective have many formulas and rules of thumb that can show the gains of better execution in the areas of offense, defense and rebounding. When the equations are manipulated to reflect improved execution and higher levels of efficiency, the contributions of more hoops, more stops and more boards to winning are irrefutable.

Theories that rebounding equals rings and defense wins titles miss the bottom line.

“Fundamentals Win Championships”
John De Francisco

Sound fundamentals and proper technique can neutralize the strengths and exploit the weaknesses of any team or player.

The quality of NBA basketball has regressed. NBA players of the Hip-hop generation have been influenced by ESPN dunk highlights and And1 street ball mix-tapes that have glorified style over substance. There are universal problems and glaring weaknesses in the current style of basketball.

A dozen years ago, I framed the three biggest and most repulsive problems in the NBA as:

1) Athleticism is at an all-time high and Basketball IQ is at an all-time low. Far too many players lack a fundamental understanding of how to play the game.
2) There is an epidemic of selfish and undisciplined play with poor shot selection.
3) Minimum Effort Basketball [(MEB), an acronym and phrase coined by John De Francisco] is repulsive and it disrespects the very essence of the game of basketball.

It turns out that Problem 1 is the be-all and end-all. Though Problems 2 and 3 are distinct, unique and serious, they can be looked at as by-products and consequences of lower Basketball IQ.

When I give coaching clinics and talk about the problems and my work on Basketball IQ, hundreds of coaches have tended to unanimously agree with the positions. It is rare that there is not dissent in the coaching community but the concept of playing smart, hard and together is universally accepted. Twelve year olds, amateur Red Auerbachs that never coached a team in their lives, and experts on bar stools across the land also concur.

LOW BASKETBALL IQ = NOT PLAYING SMART = LOSING
MEB = NO HUSTLE = NO HEART
PLAYING SMART = PLAYING HARD AND PLAYING TOGETHER = WINNING
John De Francisco

There are varying degrees of smart, hard and together, and presently no team in the NBA can lay claim to being the best in all the three areas.

It is possible for a team to be:

A.) the best executing and most fundamentally sound team
B.) the most intelligent and best prepared team
C.) the hardest working, most spirited, enthusiastic and toughest team
D.) the most unselfish and disciplined team with the best shot selection

These areas of the game are clearly difference makers that are independent of physical talent and basketball skill. A through D are components of intelligent winning basketball and as with problems 1-3, no NBA team is clearly the best in all four categories. The inclusion of Basketball IQ as a factor in almost all off-court (senior management) and on-court (coaching) decisions will yield better results.

The deficiencies of USA (NBA - lower IQ) basketball were exposed in the last three major international competitions. Since 2002, Team USA lost 8 games to 7 different teams (Argentina twice). What is most astonishing is that international teams from 12 different countries gave the NBA squads trouble and were in a position to pull off the upset. A through D played a role in execution consistently prevailing over talent.

Lesser athletes on the international teams used techniques of good team defense to effectively counter the NBA’s finest offensive players. When Team USA opponents ran their offenses, they repeatedly demonstrated how good shooting, passing and dribbling can capitalize on the mistakes of a more athletic (bigger, faster and better jumping) defense. The common denominator in the performances of the international teams was that they used intelligent play and sound fundamentals to shrink the talent gap and overcome disadvantages. The results were not a fluke or new phenomena but rather a testament to the significance of execution in the moving chess game of basketball.

The talent gap that international teams face when playing Team USA is astronomically larger then the talent gap that the NBA’s worst teams must overcome when they take on the NBA’s better squads in regular season action. One of the biggest nightmares that a coach can have is to be handicapped by a small, non-athletic roster with below average talent and substandard basketball skills. High quality execution is such a great equalizer that the worst NBA teams can overcome severe weaknesses and routinely win regular season games with consistent effective use of sound basketball fundamentals.

In the aftermath of the last three international competitions, there is new excitement and motivation among all NBA coaches and organizations to make upgrading execution an even bigger priority. The merit, value and evidence are so irrefutable that everyone is on a player development and basketball education mission. It has been shown that there is a practical formula to consistently defeating superior opponents. The failures of Team USA could be interpreted to mean the NBA does not have to be a “player’s league” or so called “talent league”. The belief that it requires a roster with two or three All Stars to compete for an NBA title can be questioned. NBA coaches realize that they can expand team and individual capabilities by raising basketball IQ. Teams can play better games and win more often without changing the people on the roster.

NBA teams do not face a stacked deck on the scale of the Team USA bomb squad that international teams took down. The NBA has successfully instituted regulations to promote parity and that parity represents opportunity. The league is more balanced than ever. Talent gaps are smaller and margins of victory are smaller. Miracle finishes and tight games are a common occurrence. The 2006 NBA playoffs had a historic number of close (1point, 2point and overtime) games. With parity, it does not take as much talent to prevail and prospects for busting the curve are increased.

If the coach of an NBA team can remedy the three biggest NBA problems and have success in upgrading areas A through D, then his team will make phenomenal progress. The benefits of the coaching adjustments and improved execution can be statistically quantified. The transformation of the team will show prominently in better efficiency ratings and they could win far more games than anyone expects. Issues of low basketball IQ and flawed fundamentals are a problem for every team in the league and even the very best teams in the league have weaknesses that can be exploited. It is conceivable that a team that is not in the upper tier (top 4 or 5 teams) of title contenders could shock the world and knock off a couple of giants to win an NBA Championship. Basketball is a simple game if it is played the right way and the day will come when a Cinderella team takes the crown.

When the problems are outlined at my coaching clinics, the coaches behave as though I am preaching to the choir. At the conclusion of the presentation, I shock them with a bomb that drops jaws and changes their tone. When examining the blame pie of accountability for lower Basketball IQ, it is apparent that coaches must accept a good share of the responsibility.

The NBA has the best coaches and finest basketball instructors in the world, but the Basketball IQ problem is a gigantic and complex coaching obstacle. NBA coaches are under pressure (self-imposed or not) to win right away and teams are handicapped by a shortage of complete fundamentally sound players. Coaching staffs have to work with or work around players with many flaws.

All teams (coaches, players, senior management, ownership etc) seek the ideal formula to maximize performance and surpass expectations. Team success and advancing to the next level or beyond is a top priority. Prior to the start of every season all teams hope to be the most improved team in the league. All teams want progress. They want more victories and are in a hurry to get them. Championship cycles and windows of opportunity can be short-lived, so the development process must be speeded up. Generally, slow and steady does not lead to a quick enough improvement to seize opportunities.

The dilemmas posed by current players have baffled and confused NBA coaches. Undoing bad habits is a challenging task for even the finest coaches. It is incredibly difficult to reverse deep-seated thought processes and patterns committed to muscle memory. There are reasons why the universal problems, damaging deficiencies and unmet needs have not been remedied. With little variance, organizations are essentially using the same formula. With minor differences, coaches are using the same systems, the same explanations, the same drill sets, and rely on the same old (key word old) teaching methods that have always been used. Conventional methods for undoing bad habits to improve flawed fundamentals and generate better execution are not producing the desired result. Traditional, tried and true approaches to coaching, motivating and disciplining are not working with this generation of NBA player. There are tremendous opportunities for advancement because business as usual has not negated the declining trends in NBA basketball.

If there are no secrets in basketball, then everyone is in the same boat and there should be no bigger priority than searching for better ways to coach under-educated and fundamentally deficient players. Success or failure in player development revolves around the total plan and the specific methods chosen. The need for basketball innovation is apparent. The manner in which players are managed, directed and taught must be adjusted and modified. New problems in the moving chess game will require new methods for solutions.

Team USA struggled and under-performed because they did not have an effective response to counter high quality execution. If an NBA coach can succeed at raising basketball IQ and improve execution to the level of the international teams that beat the US, he will have the keys to the candy store and his team will be transformed into the most improved in the league. The team will have a competitive advantage that translates into extra victories in the playoffs when the games are more meaningful.

An NBA Hall of Famer said that “a great coach believes he can come up with an offense or defense that nobody has ever seen before. He also believes that he can get more out of a group of players than anyone else can.”

THE SOLUTIONS:
NEW AND BETTER METHODS EXIST

The problems of low Basketball IQ, selfish and undisciplined basketball with poor shot selection, and minimum effort basketball (MEB) can all be remedied. Intelligent basketball, winning team basketball, and championship basketball can be taught. Individual skills and team performance can be improved and NBA teams can play smart, hard and together.

Raising Basketball IQ to improve execution is a function of what is taught and how it is taught. My obsession with the concept of consistently defeating superior opponents (CDSO) and maximizing performance in the areas of offense, defense and rebounding led to the development of basketball advancements. New paradigms in coaching are built around a pragmatic and systematic approach to perfecting execution. A comprehensive program for effective player development and education results in an intelligent and committed work force that strengthens the organization.

The program for raising Basketball IQ centers on innovations that result in unsurpassed instruction and development. The approach to teaching is unrivaled because the methods, techniques, explanations, drills and systems are new and better. In totality, they capture, depict and convey every necessary attribute of the skill that is being taught, while also showing the logic and benefit to the individual and the team. New and better explanations and drill sets break down issues into the essence of their elements in a step-by-step process. All material is simplified to the nth degree for clarity so that there is no room for confusion or misunderstanding. The messages are designed and delivered in a manner that makes it easy for players to grasp and master the desired techniques.

The time required to achieve results is an important consideration in all coaching and training programs. The innovations in unsurpassed instruction and development accelerate the process. The methods are so effective that they save time by requiring fewer supplemental drills and fewer repetitions. The practices are more fun for the players because there is less redundancy. The coach will have more available time to use on areas that he selects for special focus.

The Mastery of Offense Clinic is subtitled, The definitive solution to selfish and undisciplined basketball with poor shot selection. The golden rule of offense is the key to successfully executing any offense.

Unique and dynamic new drills in the hustle category are a major component in the elimination of MEB. Extraordinary change agents remove objections, resistance, negativity, and insubordination.

John De Francisco
The Basketball Purist Inc.
Bpurist@aol.com

[jkubatko]

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching an infomercial every time I read one of these posts?
_________________
Regards,
Justin Kubatko
Basketball Stats!

[supersub15]

[94by50]

Maybe it's to my detriment, but the chances of getting through any forum post decrease exponentially with the number of times I have to hit the "Page Down" button.

Don't "basketball IQ", selfish and undisciplined play, and minimum effort all go hand-in-hand, pretty much? At least, don't they all offer the same results?

Also, I get the feeling the Spurs would bristle at the idea that they aren't the best executing, most fundamentally sound, intelligent, best prepared - heck, just the best team in the league. If any team embodies those principles, it's San Antonio, because their best player (who also happens to be the best player in the world - purely opinion) embodies all those principles, as well.

USA Basketball seems to have gotten the message that "fundamentals" are important - or at least, that a well-rounded, carefully constructed team is important. Also, when we have sent second-rate teams to international competition, that was because the first-rate players all bowed out.

To answer the general point of the post - that basketball IQ in America is suffering. I have faith that the requirement that players be a year out of high school (thus resulting in all of them playing in college) will do a good deal to solve that problem. From personal experience, it's surprising how much a person can learn in just one year of college, away from home, trying to take care of one's self. I'm certain that most potential NBA players will be better off for having at least a year to prepare themselves for the real world, both on and off the court.

[gabefarkas]

[KeeneKaufmanWheeler]

I apologize for perpetuating this thread, but I do want to weigh in on the "fundamentals vs. athleticism" debate.

Is it possible that the athleticism of todays players has overwhelmed the fundamentals of the past? That a 2-handed set shot on today's NBA court would wind up in the 5th row more often than not? The players are so much bigger and faster today, defenses are so much more complicated and energetic ... that maybe the people who claim that nobody has any fundamental skill any more are trying to remember a bygone era.

Tim Duncan is always lauded as the best fundamental player in the game, but he also has a height and quickness advantage on almost everyone he matches up against. And those people stop mentioning Duncan's technical perfection as soon as he steps to the free throw line.

Other anectodal things I've noticed:

-- Has anyone ever watched Italian League or German League games on NBATV? They are awful! Talk about nothing but dunks and 3's -- although it is fun to see what happened to Vincent Yarborough and Dante Calabria.
-- If Europe was churning out fundamentally sound superstars right and left then wouldn't they overwhelm the US players in the NBA? The idea that Americans are more athletic than Europeans is a complete fallacy -- the talent pool in the rest of the World as a whole is much larger than in the US, and most of the world's big kids become basketball players once they become too tall for soccer. There should be an overwhelming flow of athletic giants running the picket fence like in Hoosiers pouring into the NBA. I wouldn't call Manu Ginobli a fundamental genius, he's as new-school as it gets.
-- Sports Illustrated had a feature a few months ago about Pete Maravich. I was struck by how he was completely unguarded in all of the action photos in the article. I mean, multiple pictures of him shooting while multiple defenders stood 4-6 feet from him. Stood there -- standing straight up, hands at their waists, watching him release the ball. No effort to block the shot or go after a rebound.
-- I saw a late-70's Blazers game on ESPN Classic once, and after a Bill Walton travel the color analyst starts lambasting him for not recognizing the double team and not playing team basketball. It was absolutely hilarious because it sounded just like Walton today. He may as well have been criticizing himself. So complaints about fundamentals aren't just a hip-hop era thing -- they've been around.
-- Everyone complains about USA Basketball while conveniently forgetting that our players have to adjust to a smaller ball, smaller court, different officiating and new rules while having a shorter period of time to practice and prepare for the international tournaments. And we send our B team every year since Kobe, Kidd, Garnett and Shaq haven't been going.

It just seems to me that when people complain about a bad fundamental play they ignore the effort from the opposition defense that forced the bad play. Aren't a lot of the rushed shots and bad passes that people call "bad fundamentals" are often the result of a player not seeing any other options?

I always hear the "nobody has any fundamental ability any more" and more and more I wonder how much of that is pining for a bygone era that may or may not have ever existed.

I apologize for ranting along and for keeping this thread at the top, but at least I refrained from attributing any direct quotes to myself.

[B Purist]

“Minimum Effort Basketball (MEB) is passive gutless basketball where often the effort level of players is lacking or inconsistent. It is the anti-hustle. MEB is most prevalent with defense (see matador) and rebounding (false hustle and atrocities of half-hearted attempts to pursue missed shots). It can also be seen in offensive players standing around as idle uninvolved observers spectating on the perimeter and sometimes even pouting because they don’t have the ball. MEB is lazy half-stepping that is inexcusable and unacceptable.

There are players that walk and jog in the moving chess game of basketball when they should be sprinting. MEB has nothing to do with talent and skill, it is a matter of determination and heart and it sometimes separates great players from average and underachieving players. MEB can be summarized as playing soft and not taking pride in one’s game. MEB is spineless and disrespects the very essence of the game of basketball”

Minimum Effort Basketball is a huge deterrent to execution. Lack of consistent intensity weakens teams offense, defense and rebounding by lessening basket pressure (offense), ball pressure (defense), and backboard pressure (rebounding). The net result is fewer hoops, fewer stops, and fewer boards.

Sound fundamentals combined with effort enable players to make productive plays and appear bigger, faster and stronger by obtaining good advantageous position more often. Unfortunately there are a lot of players with skill and knowledge that are not highly motivated when it comes to asserting themselves 100% of the time. Every time they get out-hustled they do a disservice to team performance.

The Spurs are a dynamite example of fundamentals winning championships. The greatness of Timothy Theodore Duncan is a function of his ability to execute sound basics in the areas of offense, defense and rebound. The Big Fundamental is appropriately named and he is a basketball genius on the IQ scale.

The Spurs do not dog it and Duncan’s presence in the line-up demands structure. It would be illogical for a Tim Duncan team to push the pace and play schoolyard (dumb) basketball. Parker and Ginobili are high energy players. Manu is especially noteworthy as an attacker when he plays offense and defense.

[94by50]

KKW, I can't think of a single rebuttal to your post.

I especially concur regarding the athleticism of today's players. Having seen enough tape of older games, there doesn't seem to be much comparison between then and now. The players are so quick today, or appear so quick, that I think a lot of what we perceive as "bad basketball" is simply a result of improved defense.

Defenses now seem to be way ahead of what they once were (from what I know). When I watch "classic" games, defenses look slower, and what's more, I never see anything more than a basic, ordinary, man-to-man in use (not that zones were allowed then).

EDIT: I reserve the right to be sharply rebuked by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

[Tim Lehrbach]

[MoBettle]

I didn't want to make a new thread, so I decided to post this here.

Instead of doing "shooting" and "free throws" separately and giving them different percentages (40 and 25 respectively), can you just use TS% and give that 65% value? or does that not work as well?

[HoopStudies]

[Analyze This]

[tsherkin]

Eew, did you just say Manu plays good defense?

He plays defense like a soccer player, flopping ostentatiously and hoping to draw a call, then moaning and complaining about it for a while after.

He does rotate pretty well within the system but he reminds me of Vlade Divac a lot more than Jason Kidd, if you follow.

Plus, he's also got a lot more energy to use on defense when he does play man-up D because he plays less than 30 minutes a game every season.

Yeah, he can get out there and man-up well enough but he's got Duncan behind him and one of the best rotational defensive squads in league history letting him lunge and gamble... and the refs not calling it when he hand checks, nearly as often as Bruce Bowen.

I'd be a great defender if I was allowed to get into my check's pants and control where his legs went, too.

[Analyze This]

[tsherkin]