Jazz-Warriors

Whoa -- awesome!

I noted the other day that this is a terrible matchup from an NBA marketing perspective, but from a basketball perspective it looks to be absolutely fantastic. Which points us to perhaps the league's most annoying problem -- this tendency to market the matchups that are easiest to market (think Lakers versus Heat), rather than the ones that actually produce the best games. This seems to me like a classic example of short-term thinking, you see why people do it, but over time it erodes the credibility of your brand since your most-hyped games turn out to not necessarily be very good ones.

A different strategy would leave people primed to believe that if the league is hyping something enormously, that's because it's a quality matchup, and if you don't know much about it well, then, you should tune in and find out.

This is also, I think, relevant to the Democratic Party.

Comments

"from a basketball perspective it looks to be absolutely fantastic."

Damn straight.

I've got money on the Jazz, but in game 1, I found myself rooting for whichever team was down, which ought to illustrate what compelling hoops it was.

-----

Did Derek Fisher shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die? Given how thin Utah is in the backcourt, and given how deep GS is in the backcourt, the Jazz need to have Fisher back.

-----

And I love Matt Barnes. I loved him when he was with Sacto. I loved him when he was with the Sixers. I loved him when he was with the Knicks. And I could never figure out why coaches wouldn't give him run.

(When the Sixers acquired Barnes in the Webber deal, I was almost as excited about getting him as I was about getting Webber. And then Mo Cheeks proceeded to park him deep on the bench.)

Kudos to Nellie for figuring out the obvious - that the guy's got game.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 8:20 AM

And how are your pre-playoff predictions of unmatched successes for the Bulls doing these days?

Posted by bubba | May 8, 2007 10:30 AM

Interesting idea, Matt, about bringing politics to sports. I think there may be a team-vs.-game-loyalty analogy to partisanship and cooperation, though I'm afraid that this may make my fondness for well-played, high-scoring games the equivalent of High Broderism, in which one's preference for a particular kind of outcome outweighs one's loyalty to a particular team.

Posted by Chris | May 8, 2007 10:44 AM

Baron had a nice line, but he didn't seem quite right to me, health-wise.

If he doesn't get right, health-wise, this is going to be a short series, despite the closeness of game 1.

And Dee Brown's gotta be the happiest guy in Mormonville today.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 10:55 AM

let me just join with petey in saying that the most fun thing about golden state for me has been seeing just how good matt barnes has been: every time golden state is going well, barnes appears to be part of it.

as for marketing, look, i could be naive about this, but i don't think the league is doing all that much "marketing;" television is doing the "marketing."

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 10:58 AM

Baron had a nice line, but he didn't seem quite right to me, health-wise.

Oh, I dunno about that. There was some point at which Baron skied for a dunk and Reggie Miller said something to the effect "if he can do that, there's no way he's hurt". And I agree.

What struck me is that the Warriors perhaps ran out of gas a little bit in the second half. They put together an extraordinary first half, but their scoring was way down in the second half (they scored 66 in the first half, and only 46 in the second). I could certainly see that happening after the amount of energy they put out against Dallas, coupled with their style of play and the fact that their bench is pretty short now. The other explanation, BTW, is that it took about a half for the Jazz to learn how to defense the Warriors well; if that's true, it could be a tough series for GS.

Posted by Al | May 8, 2007 11:02 AM

Wow. Check out the plus/minuses.

Kirilenko on the floor was big for the Jazz.

And right after I'd been pimping for Matt Barnes, he's got the worst minus number for anyone, by far, despite a beautiful box score line.

It's highly interesting that the two guys who were limping for GS in game 6 against Dallas - BD and Barnes - were the plus/minus disasters for GS last night.

-----

I generally find single-game plus/minus numbers to generally be a pretty revealing adjunct to watching the game.

For example, watching the game, I thought BD was having problems. It doesn't show up in his line, but it does show up in the plus/minus.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 11:03 AM

"Oh, I dunno about that. There was some point at which Baron skied for a dunk and Reggie Miller said something to the effect "if he can do that, there's no way he's hurt". And I agree."

I saw that too. I'm not saying he needs a cane to get around. But he just didn't seem physically sharp out there to me.

I watch Iverson religiously, and there are often games where he's banged up in some way. He's still got amazing physical gifts when he's banged up, but you can see places in his game that suffer.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 11:07 AM

petey, i'm not one to say "my eyes are better than the stat sheet," but given my unfamiliarity with the source you linked to, i spent a moment on the help page, and there they say that "+/-" is more of a team stat than an individual one (which i certainly agree with: i'm most interested in +/- for each group of 5).

which is to say that i do say that your eyes and my eyes both see the same thing when matt barnes is on the floor: an important contributor to team success. i'm having trouble understanding his individual +/- score: since you follow the stat, how do you account for this disjunct?

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 11:11 AM

"And Dee Brown's gotta be the happiest guy in Mormonville today."

Shouldn't the NBA have a rule like SAG does that you can't re-use names? There's already been a Dee Brown, and he didn't use an initial when he played.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 11:13 AM

"how do you account for this disjunct?"

Being a team game, there is a huge amount of noise along with the signal in all individual hoops stats.

There's a lot of noise along with the signal in boxscores, and there's a lot of noise along with the signal in plus/minus numbers.

But you can take plus/minus just for what it literally says: for whatever reason, the Warriors did far better in the relatively brief stretches when Barnes and BD were sitting last night than it did when they were on the floor. In fact, those relatively brief stretches with them sitting were the only reason the game was close.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 11:20 AM

There's already been a Dee Brown

Not to mention the more famous Dee Brown.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 8, 2007 12:45 PM

Petey, offhand (and my general principle with a stat i'm unfamiliar with is to watch it for a while until i get my bearings) that suggests to me that the noise-to-signal ratio of +/- for individuals is too high.

certainly a great player on a shitty team is going to have a big negative number a lot of the time....

as i mentioned briefly, i'm interested in +/- for every 5-man grouping a team puts on the floor: does anyone that you're aware of track that?

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 1:09 PM

Matt's main point is my main reason for hardly ever being able to sit through an entire game of basketball. The NBA does not market teams as much as it markets its "superstars."

I do not want to sit and watch Kobe Bryant score on the other team at will. As a fair weather Sixers fan, I might feel differently if he played in Philadelphia but he doesn't. The Sixers experience in the Finals against the Lakers scarred me.

The series amounted to Shaq, the premier superstar, throwing his a$$ back into Mutombo until he got directly under the basket where he could dunk. This was before the advent of the area under the basket where blocking calls are automatic.

How was this not an offensive foul? Doesn't the defender have the right to stand his ground? If I remember correctly, the difference between a block and a charge depended on whether the defender's feet were planted. Moving feet meant a block and planted feet meant a charge. Unless I was completely mistaken about the rules, the NBA lets its superstars play by different rules.

Thus, the games might as well have been fixed. The teams that are the most fun to watch are the least marketed. Unfortunately, my former Knicks' fan wife won't watch basketball with me (even for just a quarter) because she doesn't recognize any of the player names.

Worst of all, people are talking about how baseball could be improved by marketing certain stars. Am I going to see a league where my Phillies' Ryan Howard isn't ever called out on strikes? I admit that it sounds appealing but I think it would poison the game.

Posted by John S | May 8, 2007 1:19 PM

"certainly a great player on a shitty team is going to have a big negative number a lot of the time...."

Comparing +/- across teams is obviously not the best use of the stat.

"i'm interested in +/- for every 5-man grouping a team puts on the floor: does anyone that you're aware of track that?"

82games does during the season. Not sure about individual playoff games.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 1:19 PM

john s, this came up in the ref's bias discussion recently: i can't say whether there is racial bias in nba reffing, but i can say there is superstar bias for sure.

petey, i'll have to take a look at 82games, thanks; meanwhile, i'll (as i noted) withhold judgement on individual game individual player +/- until i've tracked it further (but so far, i'm biased against!).

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 1:30 PM

"i'll (as i noted) withhold judgement on individual game individual player +/- until i've tracked it further (but so far, i'm biased against!)."

Again, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of noise along with the signal. There is, just like there is with boxscores. But it really does serve as a valuable adjunct to watching the games in the playoffs, where the matchups remain constant from game to game.

Watching the games, I think Jacques Vaughn is an utter weak link for the Spurs. I like being able to check the +/- and see if the Spurs are actually suffering when he gets run.

Or, I noticed the stat that in the final games of the Nuggets/Spurs series that Nene was racking up awful +/- numbers. That told me something in context of the games I'd been watching.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 1:36 PM

I think the hamstring is definitely bothering Baron. He appeared to be less quick than normal, and faded a little in the fourth quarter. (He reportedly didn't practice all week, and he and apparently some other Warriors came down with colds or flu.) I think that is why the quick Dee Brown had such success against him in the 4th and why he couldn't stay with Deron.

Barnes is an inspiration playing without fear, but makes some bonehead plays at times when he attempts to initiate a play.

Still a great game. Came down to a couple of key plays.

Posted by chew2 | May 8, 2007 2:05 PM

I was impressed that the Jazz went with the GS tempo from the get go and still were able to win. If I'm a Warrior fan, that makes me nervous: the Jazz can beat the Warriors in a run and gun game. What would happen if the Jazz enforced a slower pace that is more their style? You wouldn't think that would be good for GS.

Last night may have been the Warrior's best chance to steal a game in Utah.

Posted by Brian | May 8, 2007 3:09 PM

re shaq and blocking/charges, i share the confusion. on almost every play for years, shaq would just bowl his man over. yes, he'd move a bit, and sometimes the defender would move his feet. but generally it just seemed like shaq was charging on most plays. people call duncan boring, but somehow shaq -- who i find way more boring because he rarely uses much finesse -- pretty much escapes.

Posted by dj superflat | May 8, 2007 5:12 PM

The Warriors had a lot of things go wrong last night -- no contribution at all from Ellis, en erratic game from Pietrus, a so-so night from Jackson, whatever hammy problems BD and Barnes had, and Carlos Boozer getting 20 rebounds. The game still came down to the last twenty seconds, in Utah. I think they're in pretty good shape.

BTW, excellent point, Matt. Of course it's tough to tell which games will be good, but it's safe to say that any game involving the Heat or Lakers won't be, which takes care of 90% of the network schedule.

Posted by Alan in SF | May 8, 2007 5:15 PM

people call duncan boring

I don't think that many people call Duncan boring. People (including me) call the Spurs boring. Not really the same thing.

And I believe several of you scoffed at me when I said this would be the most entertaining series of the playoffs.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 8, 2007 5:20 PM

The Warriors shot too many 3's last night, and their shot percentage for the 3's was not good. Baron drove to the basket, drew a crowd, then tossed it back to Jackson who missed an open three with 17 seconds to go which would have put them up by one. Of course the way Boozer and Williams were playing, Utah may have hit a 2 with less than five seconds to go and that would be that. Prior to Jackson's miss,the previous time they had the ball, another Warrior missed an open 3. The local Chronicle writers, particularly Bruce Jenkins, wrote that this loss showed the Warriors needed to drive more and shoot less 3's. Nelson did not criticize Baron or Jackson because Jackson had an open shot, he just missed it. Utah was much stronger under the boards, Boozer was incredible and ferocious. Biedrens is so young, thin and not nearly as ferocious, clever, strong, or intelligent as Boozer is now. And Matt Harpring just kills the Warriors with his shooting every time. Not to mention Williams who is phenominal, outplayed the injured Baron who played very well, and was defeated in the most improved player by the very young high school grad Monte Ellis also, like Williams, in his second season who has disappeared in the playoffs so far.

Posted by Jim | May 8, 2007 6:45 PM

S-Jax trial upcoming ?...?...?

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 6:53 PM

"meanwhile, i'll (as i noted) withhold judgement on individual game individual player +/- until i've tracked it further (but so far, i'm biased against!)."

If you watched game 2 of Suns/Spurs, it should have been relatively obvious that Shawn Marion and Kurt Thomas were the difference makers.

Go to the boxscore, and you'll find zero evidence to back you up. But go to the +/-, and whamm-o.

Posted by Petey | May 9, 2007 10:26 AM