Saturday, March 29, 2008

Musing About the Future, Part II

Thus spake Thorn:

"I don't have any thoughts or ideas of replacing him at all," Thorn said yesterday. "He's done a good job for us, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so in the future."

So Frank stays, and with two years left on his contract, he gets another shot at turning the team around.

Yes, even if they don't make the playoffs.

"I don't see anything that can transpire that would change my mind," Thorn said. "I got a call from a writer the other day who said he's writing a column that the coach should be fired. So I know it's out there in the media, and from fan e-mails. But that's not going to influence me one way or the other. I know the job Lawrence does for us."


Okay, Rod. So, they vastly underperform, with our without Jason Kidd. So they don't make the playoffs for the first time in 7 years, even when 10 games under .500 in the East will guarantee you a playoff spot. So they have a losing record for the first time in 7 years.

Yeah, keep the coach, that's the ticket...

So, what if the Nets are 12-20 in December for the 3rd time in 4 years?

Aah, we knew this. We've said it in this very blog a couple of times. Ratner doesn't want a new coach. Even if he did, who'd take this lame duck job?

What changes can be made? Trade RJ? Dump Sean Williams so some other team can reap his considerable upside? Force Boone to shoot 500 foul shots a day in the off season? Dangle Marcus Williams to get a shooter?

Anything that happens, the Nets will be a young team looking for guidance. Can Frank provide it?

I don't see any hope if he remains coach, and according to Rod Thorn, he will remain coach.

His contract is up in 2 years, ie, at the end of the 2009-2010 season. That's supposed to be the last season in NJ.

Ratner is saying the bad economy means an indefinite delay in the Atlantic Yards project, except that is for the arena.

This is a team set adrift...

Game 73 - Ho hum.

As expected, a road loss.

Followed the script. Started falling apart in the 4th. Frank won't call time out. Game got away.

They lost.

Ho hum.

Game 74 - Don't know what to say...

Candidates:

1. Season in a nutshell. Coulda won, but made too many mistakes: missing 5 of 7 free throws in the last 2 minutes, shooting 3s on fast breaks when those possessions could have brought them within 2. And how many times are we gonna see 4 Nets standing around flat footed while THE ONE opponent gets the rebound?

2. Fire Frank. He waited too long to call time out in the beginning of the third. Weird subs.

3. Losing teams never get calls vs winning teams.

By losing, the Nets not only do mortal harm to their playoff "hopes", they ensure the first losing season since 2001.

They played well, but not well enough, or smart enough to contend.

The Nets have eliminated themselves. They have their excuses - RJ says JKidd checked out in training camp. Rod Thorn thinks it was all about the JKidd turmoil. Frank says it's all the new players joining a team seeking its "identity".

If this loss happened in December, we'd say, okay, not bad. Even now, even with all the disappointment, we still say, okay, not bad.

Our expectations have been lowered. No one wants to make the playoffs anymore. No one wants to win. Avoiding embarrassing losses are the highest virtue. That and glimpses of what the team might be next year.

What can one say?

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Game 71 - Oops! Forgot!

The Nets dominate the embarrassing Knicks. It wasn't close. This is the way the Nets should have handled the Knicks all season. If they had won 2 of the 3 they lost to them...

Oh well. Atlanta was idle. The Nets pick up half a game.

How's THIS for a short blog entry, Steve?

Game 72 - A Win...

I turn on the TV (didn't go tonite) and RJ sinks two free throws to make it 68-52 with 1:45 left in the half. 68 for a half is their season high, made just recently. There's 1:45 to go in the half...

Marv and Jim patter about the bulge. Spanarkel opines that if Indiana can get to to within 10 by the end of the half it'll be a lift for them. Marv observes, well they have a 14 point lead....

Score at the half - 68-60.

Number of timeouts called by Frank during that run - 0.

Wait! It gets better.

To open the third the Nets get the ball. No matter. Indiana scored the first 6 points of the half to cut the lead to 2, 68-66. With just under 5 minutes to go in the quarter, it's all tied. To be fair, the Genius calls a timeout at the 8 minute mark. Of course, the Pacers are down only one at that time...

Here's the kicker - the Nets are shooting 54%! And it's tied!

I've never seen a coach do less with more. I can't stand to look at him. Even if they make the playoffs he should be fired. He's that bad.

And it ruins my enjoyment of the game. I watch in dread as they commit stupid fouls, giving Dunleavy, of all people, a 4 point play. A 4 point play!

Then with about 4 1/2 minutes left, Indiana, intelligently, starts the hack-a-Boone strategy. Boone misses both. Hack again. 1 for 2. Hack again. 1 for 2 again!

God, boob! Substitute him out! Any fool rec coach knows that! Put in Sean Williams. Put Diop back in. IT ELIMINATES THE PACERS STRATEGY, YOU BLITHERING JERK!

Luckily, and I do mean luckily, Indiana can't buy a shot, and with 2 minutes left, Frank can determine who shoots if Boone is hacked again.

No harm, but still foul coaching.

I give a lot of credit to VC - 14 rebounds, but the best part was watching him do what no other Net does - BOX OUT. It was a pleasure to watch him exert his will on the game.

I also like the fact that 4 guys scored 20 or more, with Boki contributing 18. Good balance. Like to see that.

On the other hand (another hammer of the coach), why didn't Sean Williams play? Where was Swift? And why did Hassell get minutes? 1-2 with 2 rebounds and 2 points in 15 minutes is not exactly what I would call a quality outing... You mean to tell me that SWill or Swift couldn't do better? I just don't get this fool...

OK, they're 1/2 game behind Atlanta, which cruised and crushed the Bucks. Saturday the Nets play Phoenix, so, as Spanarkel just said on the post game, winning in Indiana is crucial.

I'm sorry. I just have no faith in Frank's ability to get the team up and focussed, and we all know he can't coach in the game.

This stinks.

And we freaking WON!

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Musing About the Future, Part I

The Nets are not going to the playoffs, of this I am thoroughly convinced. Thus, on a night when I am not particularly angry about their most recent loss, I thought it would be constructive to begin speculating about the future of the team...

1. Forget draft position. Since they won't make the playoffs they will be a lottery team. But what do they need?

At every position they have either youth with rough talent or stardom. 1 is Devin Harris and Marcus Williams. There is not a 1 out there of NBA calliber sufficient to leapfrog ahead of both of them. 2 is VC, who is a star. They might get some strength there, but it is not apparent who that would be. 3 is RJ, a star, and Boki, as good as anything outside of Beasley, but why would you get Beasley just to sit him behind RJ? 4 is Boone and SWill, youth and talent, and I might add, intelligence. 5 is Krstic, who is coming back to form, if slowly (he had a creditable game last night), Stromile who is serviceable and Diop who is a question mark. Ager might surprise if given the chance. Hassell is expendable.

So what is really weak that any of the current crop of players can fix?

Whatever, whoever they get is not gonna turn a franchise around like a Magic or Duncan or Ewing or Olajuwon, LeBron or MJ or Bird. It would at best be more young talent.

With Kidd gone, RJ and VC are the leaders, and likely to be the only leaders, as Armstrong is almost definitely gone. Any trade of those two stars would just make the Nets even less able to mold their suddenly youthful roster. There are not blockbuster trades in the offing involving those two.

Even if the Nets get #1, don't expect much to come from it.

2. Fire the coach. Right at this moment, Frank is 186-170 with the Nets (which is to say all time). If they do indeed go 2-10 to finish the season, or even 5-7, aside from the 14 game winning streak he got as his honeymoon in 2004, he would be dead even. And that includes the 49-33 season of 2006. His last two seasons would put him somewhere between 15 and 20 games under .500.

He is not great at molding or inspiring talent, and aside from RJ and VC, this team will be nothing but young talent next year. Frank is not a great in-game coach, and does not show signs of great preparation either. Read this blog for a litany of his foibles. I'm tired repeating them.

Young players today respond to those coaches who played - the Mo Cheeks of the world. The Eddie Jordans of the world. The experienced teams like guys like Popovich, guys who have deep benches and know how to handle them. The Nets, however, are not going to be an experienced team next year.

More than Jason Kidd's supposed bad attitude, Frank has run this team out of contention and into the ground. A month into the post-Kidd world and it is clear that JKidd's "checking out" was not the source of the Nets' woes.

So Frank must go.

The problems, then, are twofold:
- Who'd wanna come an replace him in limbo?
- Would the apathetic owner expend the effort needed to find, woo and hire a new coach at this juncture?

3. The owner. My wife used to be a big Knick fan. The Dolans made sure that that ain't gonna happen any more.

I used to feel for Knick fans - bad coaching, bad player personnel decisions, but no change possible because the owners were that clueless.

Now, however, I feel almost as bad for myself. At this point, we still have Rod Thorn, thanks be to god! Were he to leave, all bets would be off.

I firmly believe the Nets have as much or better young talent than any team in the league. All they need is a decent in-game coach. At least, that's all they DID need. Now they need a good in-game coach who knows how to teach and motivate and integrate young players.

Problem is, Frank still has a year on his contract. No one is gonna pick him up, so there is no motivation to re-up him this summer to avoid him being a lame duck. Until very recently, I didn't see Ratner parting with the $1 million or less that he would have to eat to fire Frank.

But with the recent admission by Ratner that the larger Atlantic Yards project having to be postponed due to economic conditions, but still keeping to the plan to build the arena "on schedule" (ie, meaning just one year late), he should be more motivated than ever to keep the Nets as cogent and competitive a team as possible.

If he truly (and who really knows?) thinks that building the arena and moving the Nets is the best way to keep his wet dream alive, then it will become crystal clear that he needs to keep the Nets a happening thing - return them to being a perennial playoff contender. And Rod Thorn has already made sure that there is a nucleus of young talent to make that happen. All that would be needed is a better coach.

The idea of that coach bring his playoff team into a sparkling new arena as a conquering hero would be a tasty morsel to drop on the lap of someone. He could turn it into a selling point.

Assuming, of course, that he is serious about keeping to his plan to build the arena...

If not, if he sees that even with the arena already in situ, his larger project is doomed or delayed beyond all reckoning, he will sell the team. Post haste.

Imagine the potential wreckage from that!

Even if Ratner did decide to fire Frank and get the next guy, whom indeed would he get?

One could envisage Larry Brown being the conquering hero coming back to NY, this time with a decent roster and a great GM. But two years in limbo is a lot to ask of a Larry Brown.

Brian Hill could take over. Enh. He's actually coached in the finals. Of course, he had Shaq. Without Shaq he has not done very well. Especially in developing young talent.

What about a Mike O'Koren, or some other ex-Net, willing to take a chance on romance? Or (gulp) Mark Jackson..?

Whoever it might be, they would be consigned to 2 years in purgatory, with no guarantees that they would ever get out. The arena could be further delayed. Ratner might decide to cut losses and sell the team. The new ownership might be wooed by the NJSEA to stay in the swamp. It could be a mess for a decade to come.

Bad basketball and back to being the East Coast Joke (along with the West Coast Joke Clippers) of the NBA...

Without Ratner punting and selling the team, without him giving up the ghost of Atlantic Yards, Lawrence Frank is safe, simply by default.

And we can look forward to two or more years of bad basketball...

Game 70 - A Loss, Just a Loss

I have seen almost every game this season. I suspect there is one, but tonite's game at Philadelphia is the only one that comes to mind as a regular loss. Nothing more.

The Nets lost tonite, not because of bad defense (they held the red hot Sixers to 91 points at home), not because they gave up (they came back from 10 down and took the lead going into the 4th), not because of dufus coaching (Frank was essentially invisible, which coaches should be if they are coaching well), not because of a hangover, or injury, or disgruntled players or what all. They shot 25% in the fourth, and lost the game.

And that's perfectly fine. They shot over 60% in the third to take the lead, then could not buy a shot in the fourth. They lost by a mere 4 points. They had their shot, but their shots didn't drop.

There were a lot of hard fouls that were not called, but unless you're the Spurs, the visiting team, especially a sub-mediocre team, is not gonna get calls in a close game. Devin Harris cost the Nets a point, which Kidd never would have done.

But that's not why they lost. They did not lose heart, they did not mail it in, they did not show signs of a team collapsing, as they did in Chicago. They did not look beat before they stepped onto the court, as they did on the Southwest swing. They lost because they could not buy a shot down the stretch.

And that's ok.

It happens. It happens to the best and worst teams. A truly bad team (like the 99 and 2001 Nets) has it happen a lot. Those teams barely averaged 40% for the season. This team is not bad. They just had a cold shooting night.

True, they dropped a game and a half behind Atlanta, a team they manhandled just two games ago, and into a tie with mighty Indiana, a true bottom feeder. But not because of last night.

Every team is gonna lose games. Every team is just gonna get beat - not clobbered or destroyed, just defeated - during the course of the season. The team usually that beats itself the least generally winds up on top.

The Nets are in bad playoff shape at this point because they are the leading team in the NBA at beating themselves. This blog has been a chronicle about all those malaises itemized above - bad coaching, bad defense, "letting go of the rope", disgruntled star, key injury (the six game skid in mid-November when Carter went down), mistake after mistake, mailing it in. The Nets lost the vast majority of their losses this year to one or another or combination of those reasons.

Perhaps as high as 40. But last night was a genuine L. No shame in that.

Their record, unfortuately, bears the shame of those other 40 losses. It is those 40 that puts them in their current disadvantageous position. Ironically, last night's loss, which put them now more than a schedule quirk behind the truly bad Hawks, might do more to hurt them psychologically than all those abysmal no-shows and Frank-ensteins.

The remaining schedule is unkind. They play 5 at home, 7 on the road. I don't expect to see another road win all season. Of their 5 home games, two are against Phoenix and Toronto, teams the Nets have shown they just can't beat. Another is against these self-same 76ers.

2-10. That would bring them to 31-51, worst record since... Well, you all know the end of that sentence....

At this point, the best we can reasonably hope for is losses like tonite. Just losses - not routs, embarrassments or mail-ins. Good, honest hard-fought losses.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Game 69 - The "F" Bomb

Y'know, the NBA nowadays is run like the old Soviet Union, in this respect: You can't get the truth, you can only get the acceptable party line.

Here's a few of those studied myths that passes for "analysis" nowadays:
- "We spent so much energy catching up that we had nothing left in the tank"
- "Well, you gotta give him a blow at some time..."

The Nets were down 12 at the half. Vs Utah they were down 10. Vs Atlanta they were down 7. In the latter two games they came back, took the lead, and kept on going, winning easily. Last night they did not.

So, does party line 1 above make any sense? Didn't the Nets expend, ostensibly, just as much energy if not more coming back and winning those two games, rather handily?

And last night - what about Denver? Didn't they expend as much energy if not more building up an 18 point lead?

No folks, this is just plausible deniability.

The Nets came roaring back in the third last night, just as they have in their two recent good looking wins at home (which is redundant, since they haven't won, or even tried to win, on the road since early February...). Here's the difference:

Vince Carter spent the first several minutes of the 4th quarter on the bench.

Which leads us to plausibly deniable myth number 2, above. Well, you gotta give him a blow some time...

Okay. How about at the end of the game, when it's out of reach, one way or the other? How about at the end of the season? How about next game, you know, the one you're gonna throw in the towel in the 2nd quarter, on the road?

Lawrence Frank happened last night. That's the difference. The F-bomb. Period. Space space.

The Nets took the lead, 88-86, after being down 18, in the very same 3rd quarter, and there was still 2 mins to go in the quarter. VC was the reason, pure and simple. And not just scoring - defense, passing, leadership. They (as is their wont in the Frank error) didn't finish well in the last 2 minutes, but they're only down 93-90.

So what does F-boy do?

In the 45 years I've been watching the NBA, I have only seen one other coach be so tone deaf to the game at hand. His name was Byron Scott. F-twerp was his ass-istant.

As I have repeatedly mentioned here, Scott took an on-fire Kerry Kittles and a 9 point lead and benched them both to start the 4th quarter in Game 6 in San Antonio in 2003, the Nets best chance to win it all. He personally hamstrung his own team by being tone deaf to the game at hand. Any fool (or, as Kidd said, "my own son" (who was like 5 at the time)) could coach that game better. This is not even to mention Scott's inexplicable non-use of Dikembe Mutumbo during much of the series.

F-brain took a page right out of that storied history, benching Vince at the very time he was hottest, at the very time he was in the flow, at the very time the young players on the court needed his leadership. Benched him.

Result? The Nets are down, once again, by 13 with 9 minutes left. Game the F over.

What game was the screaming marionette watching? Why does he bother showing up? Print out the game plan, the sub plan, the timeout plan, and stay in your office and watch tape.

When it got to 97-90, you have to know - Hey, if they score again, unanswered, they're up by 9 and (listen now, Larry, you might learn something here) IT'S THE FREAKING FOURTH QUARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the game that's happening on the floor, Fool. Coach THAT game, not the one in your robotic brain. COACH THE GAME IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.

Call time. Put Vince back in, pronto. Set up a play. Get fouled. Chances are, it's 97-92. Five points is nothing with 10 or 9 to go.

Nope. Vince sits. The lead goes up to 9. Frank watches. Tim Capstraw, the agitprop mouthpiece, I presume under constraints not to criticize the obvious, tries to mollify a 10 year old fan in the post game by saying, well, YOU GOTTA GIVE HIM A BLOW SOME TIME, and besides, VC was kneeling at the scorers table before F-jerk called a time out, he says, contradicting himself like the guilty criminal - I don't beat my wife, and besides, she likes it. Sometimes you got to call a time out just to get a guy in the game.

Well, Tim, of course, you and I both know that you wouldn't have to call the time out IF THE HOTTEST PLAYER ON THE COURT IN THE THIRD STARTED THE FOURTH AS HE SHOULD HAVE.

What Jason Kidd did not like the most about Byron Scott was exactly this - he was tone deaf to the game at hand. I saw Kidd seething in 2003-2004, sitting on the pine to start the 4th as the team unraveled. The leader of the team, sitting on the pine at that juncture. Seething.

Last night, for perhaps the 30th or 40th time this season, the leader of the team sat on the bench as the game slipped away in the beginning of the 4th.

Imagine - VC starts the 4th. The Nets keep close and win. Vs Denver. Third quality win at home. Something to build on.

Or, they keep it close but lose in the last minute. Still, okay.

Instead, the F-bomb is dropped on the Nets. MVP for the Nuggets? The Nets clueless and complicit coach.

Had Vince started the 4th and played its entirety, he would have played 42 minutes. That would not have led all players. AI played 45.

Wilt Chamberlain AVERAGED 49 minutes one year. 49! And there's only 48 in regulation!

This was game sixty F-ing nine, not game 10!

Which leads to another myth that F-clown subscribes to:

- This is just one of 82 games.

If you believe that, F-dolt, with 13 games left in the season and your team fighting for the last playoff spot, you belong elsewhere.

Like, on the F-ing unemployment line.

Friday, March 21, 2008

"Slow Economy Likely to Stall Atlantic Yards"

So pronounced the NYT today, Good Friday, as the lead story on the front page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/nyregion/21yards.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

"The slowing economy, weighed down by a widening credit crisis, is likely to delay the signature office tower and three residential buildings at the heart of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, the developer said.

“It may hold up the office building,” the developer, Bruce C. Ratner, said in a recent interview. “And the bond market may slow the pace of the residential buildings.”

Mr. Ratner, chief executive of Forest City Ratner, did not specify the kinds of delays possible, but suggested that construction could be put off for years. His comments are his first public indication that the darkening economy has slowed the ambitious project, spanning 22 acres at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues.

The developer did say he was confident about starting construction on a $950 million basketball arena for the Nets by the end of the year...

Atlantic Yards began with Mr. Ratner’s purchase of the Nets in 2004 and the idea of moving the team, which currently plays in New Jersey and loses about $30 million a year, to the railroad yard."

Back in 2004, right after Ratner, and old client of mine, bought the team, I predicted that the Nets would never play a single game in Brooklyn. It was crystal clear that buying the Nets was a move that Ratner needed to get his project done. He had been planning it for at least 10 years before - a cardboard mockup of it's early conception lay in a glass case in his foyer in the 90s. But it was met with a great amount of resistance.

Getting a pro sports team to come into Brooklyn, stirring the borough's odd singularism and civic pride, might be just the trick to overwhelm the annoying indigenous resistance to the monument to his outsized ego. Jay-Z was just the most prominent of Brooklynites to lend support to the idea.

And it looked like it was working. Challenge after challenge, which previously had hamstrung the project, were now batted away by an abetting court system emboldened to use eminent domain in support of the oligarchist du jour, which in this case was our boy Bruce.

Yet, at around the same time that the most serious legal challenge was quashed last fall, the team announced that, well, they weren't gonna be opening the 2009 season in Brooklyn after all - it would be 2010.

That would make 6 seasons in limbo. No wonder Jason Kidd, when asked about the deal back when it was first done, said it didn't matter to him because he would be retired before they played a game in Brooklyn.

New Jersey constantly trades places with Connecticut as having the wealthiest residents in the nation. The Garden State routinely supplies many of the best basketball players in the world. It has one of the largest percentages of African-Americans as residents. Its largest city, Newark, conveniently placed at the crossroads of several modes of public transportation, now sports what is being hailed as the finest new arena in the country, two blocks from a major train station that serves a population area of 10 million souls. And Newark, which has had a black mayor since 1968, would be a natural location for a basketball team.

So why is it that the Nets are a team that "loses about $30 million a year"?

Can you spell A-t-l-a-n-t-i-c...?

The history of this franchise has always been about how to shoot yourself in the head while aiming at your foot. While in the ABA in the Nassau Mausoleum the Nets somehow grab Rick Barry from the NBA and win a championship, then pluck the greatest talent of his day in Dr J, the man who most revolutionized the game outside of Wilt Chamberlain, and win another. The league collapses, but the new owners, probably looking at the same demographics as I noted above, decide to move the surviving franchise to NJ, and Central NJ at that. The 76ers freak out, as do the Knicks, and to mollify them, the J is given to Philadelphia.

Funny thing is, it is soon revealed that the team will not be playing in CNJ (at the RAC) but in North Jersey, no threat to the 76ers market at all! However, the State of NJ builds their arena far, far away from any part of one of the largest public transportation system in the country. It's one thing to drive out in the middle of nowhere to watch a football game, given the tailgaiting that surrounds the spectacle and does not lend itself to using public transportation. But nobody's gonna tailgate in January before a night time basketball game (or hockey game, for that matter).

Nonetheless, in 8 years the Nets upset the defending NBA Champion Sixers (with Dr J, no less) in the playoffs and look like they are the up and coming team in the league. But substance abuse and a revolving coaching carousel kill the team again. The trade of Buck Williams for the oft injured flameout Sam Bowie did not help...

After another 8 years of abysmal play, the Nets at least get some very good young players because their draft position is so low, and also get the first European player of any note in Drazin Petrovic, and before you know it they have Chuck Daly as coach. They win 45 games and get into the playoffs 3 times in a row, not being able to get past Cleveland two of the three times. Still, the future looks bright...

But management instability and a literal haggle of owners force Daly into "retirement" (which lasts exactly two years). His replacement? Butch Beard...

Then they get John Calipari in a Rick Pitino copy cat move. The team essentially swaps rosters with Philadelphia, but somehow they end up with Sam Cassell, and they make a creditable showing, returning to the playoffs to be sacrificed to the Bulls, altho they lose three close games. People are talking about coming to play for the young talented Nets and their high profile coach, altho some are worried about Calipari's "yelling"...

Coach C lasts 20 games the next year before being fired on a plane flight back from a game...

The Don Casey era (error?) begins...

But all that bad play gets the Nets 3 quality draft picks, yet again - Kerry Kittles, Keith Van Horn, Kenyon Martin. Jayson "Shotgun" Williams is one of two premier rebounders in the NBA, and has an outsized attractive personality. And soon we learn that Stephon Marbury is homesick, and since the Knicks can't take him, he comes to the Nets. Looking pretty good.

Three broken legs and a bad knee later, the Nets have endured three consecutive .300 seasons, keeping the Swamp dismal yet again.

Then comes THE TRADE. Finals back to back. Byron Scott miscoaches away the Nets best chance at a title, but "the Nets' future is bright" says JKidd, even as Scott is replaced by Lawrence (Seriously, I'm Not Jeff Van Gundy's Evil Twin) Frank and Kidd's knee needs major repair, as he refused to join San Antonio for a slam dunk shot at a ring.

Then comes the Ratner deal. Kenyon and Kittles are flushed. Kidd gets mad but gets Thorn to take a chance on romance with Zo Mourning. We all know how THAT worked out.

Somehow it results in getting Vince Carter, Mr Vinsanity himself, to come to the Meadowlands. The Big Three is coined. They win 49 in 2006, and despite a mediocre (exactly) 2007 season, get to the second round for the 5th time in 7 years, pushing the eventual NBA Finals representative from the East in a hard fought series that they could have won. (In those 5 seasons, they lost to the eventual NBA championship team 4 times, the other losing to a finals team and runner up.)

Then it falls apart again, as it becomes clear that Ratner really doesn't care and then Kidd really doesn't want to play in limbo any more.

I want to see Ratner fail. I want to see the team play in Newark, where they belong. I want to have an owner who will let Rod Thorn do his thing. I want Rod Thorn to stay, to become the Lou Lamoriello of basketball. I want to see these young players blossom.

I'm tired of this team being played like a pawn in some egotistical game of development chess.

And I want a new coach.

And I'm sticking with my prediction - this team will not play a single game in Brooklyn.

Which leads to this irony: Rumor has it (Selena Roberts in Sports Illustrated, no less) that Jay-Z and LeBron are very close, and that IF the Nets actually DO make it to Brooklyn, LeBron will come to the Nets:

http://fannation.com/blogs/post/167195

Wouldn't it be just like the Nets to NOT move to Brooklyn, thereby undermining their best chance to grab the best young player in the league, and maybe, just maybe, win it all??

Game 68 - Dr Jekyll Doesn't Hide

This is the most schizophrenic professional sports team I have ever followed. I just don't get it.

After the Nets refused to get off the plane in Chicago, squandering a chance to put some distance between themselves and the sub-par teams it is fighting for the chance to be ritually sacrificed to the juggernaut that is Boston, after showing no heart whatsoever, here they come home, a house of horrific play, where they are dead (and I mean dead) even 17-17, and take apart Atlanta, winning the season series against the nearly as schizo Hawks, and looking very good doing it.

I mean, VC exerted his will on the game. RJ gave 100%, at the very least in the 2nd half. And LFrank coached the kind of game you expect from an NBA coach - ie, you wouldn't have to talk about how is lost-ness contributed to the loss-ness.

Tonite and vs Utah they looked like the team they have always looked like on paper - when you have VC and RJ going full bore, this is a hard team to defend, a hard team to beat. A team that's never out of it. When VC and RJ lead, the young guys feed off of it. Sean (Remember Me, Coach?) Williams and Josh (The Big Upside) Boone all elevated their games, caught in the tail wind envelope of the Big Two. Devin Harris is never gonna be JKidd, but that's because Devin Harris is gonna be Devin Harris - a different kind of player, one who can score and altho he cannot yet exert his will on a game like Kidd can (or on an entire season, as Kidd thrice did), he doesn't have to if VC and RJ decide they will. He, too, can be swept up in their jet trails as well, and when he does, you have another Big Three.

Commentators complained that not much defense was played, but I disagree. Sean Williams continues to shine in my estimation, with several key blocks. RJ shut down his man. VC got key rebounds and contributed to several key stops, keeping things from being worse than a 10 point deficit at the half.

Let's not lie - the Meadowlands cum Brendan Byrne cum Continental Airlines cum Izod Arena is barely half full most nights, and that half is not exactly enthusiastic basketball afficionados. Most nights the actual crowd would barely pack the RAC, and half the time most of the fans are there to see the opposition, be it LeBron or KG or even Hedo Turkoglu. It's hard to attribute the play of the Nets last night and vs Utah to the crowd lifting the team. And that's not to mention those ugly, ugly wins the Nets have on either side.

Last night, this Jekyll/Hyde team was solidly Jekyll and a pleasure to watch. So, why doesn't the good doctor show up more often?

I don't think anybody knows. I don't think VC knows why his play has been so bipolar, why it took til Game 68 for him to score near 40. I don't think RJ knows why he has been disappearing in the 4ths of late, only to catch fire the last couple of homestands, only to disappear in between on the road.

And I don't think the estimable Lawrence Frank knows why he steps outside his box to coach like a real coach some games, only to recede to his robotic substitutions and timeout patterns most other games.

I've seen some really, really bad Nets basketball over the years - the Butch Beard Embarrassment, Sam Boo-ie, Yinko Dare, Don Casey's not even walking wounded. Bad, bad basketball. Those teams didn't have games where they put it all together and you said, There - that's what we expected to see all season. No, how they played in those years was what we expected to see - cager crap.

But this team... Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Richard Jefferson, Nenad Krstic... So much talent you could afford to start Jason Collins as your 5th man, to take an occasional charge and to launch an occasional flat footed three. Two years ago this team won 49 games and had to collapse at the end of the year in order not to exceed the franchise record 52. They spit the bit (or the roach, as it were) vs Miami, the eventual NBA Champs, but still, they looked like a team that could contend for years to come.

Instead, for two years now, we've had nothing but underperformance.

Some of that, as I have documented this season, is attributable squarely on the slight shoulders of Frank, whom I hold responsible for at least 10 losses this year. Nets win them and they're 39-29 and 4th seed in the East, exactly where the Celtics players said they should be after their last meeting with the Nets. And that only assumes them winning 50% of games they lost at the end. They could be 49-19 at this point, with a little luck.

But some of those 20 losses are attributable to a lack of heart, or initiative, or what? On the FAN today, Benigno and Roberts were talking about Isiah and what a crappy coach he's been, about which they expressed some surprise, given how great not just a player but a field general and example he was in the Pistons' glory years. How come he can't seem to get that across to his players as a coach? Joe pointed out that it might be because Isiah as a player was a self starter - he needed little coaching, and thus lacks the ability to identify what it is that motivates those who are not by nature self-starters.

JKidd was a self starter. VC, when he first came over from Toto, was a self starter. RJ can be a self starter. Devin Harris can be a self starter. And some nights you can see it. VC took the team on his extravagantly talented shoulders last night, and so did RJ, and so did Harris. And you can't blame it on Atlanta not being that great, because they proved it against Utah a few nights earlier.

But then you have a game like the one vs the Bulls... "Game"?? No one on the Nets showed any game that night. I expected to see Armond Gilliam coming off the bench...

These guys are pros. VC and RJ have been around long enough to know the value of consistent professional play. Especially when you have so much young talent that is looking to you for their cues.

The Nets are showing that they can actually be better with Devin Harris than they were the last couple of years with JKidd.

The problem is, we never know if they're gonna show us they ARE better on any given night... Or just plain good, for that matter.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Game 67 - No

Listless, careless, diffident basketball. When I turned it on, the Nets were down 37-30 in the second. When I switched back to PBS (yeah, it's that bad), they were down by 10 and shooting over 50%. When I turned back, it was halftime and they were not displaying the score, but soon it was mentioned that the Bulls had gone on a 16-0 run to end the quarter.

Game over.

Even if the Nets had the character to come back from something like that (why don't the Nets ever have 16-0 runs?), their coach doesn't know how to help them.

They lose by (you guessed it) 16.

Up down up down up down down down down down down up up down.

Now End The Season...

Game 66 - Finally, a quality win!

So, 66 games into the season, count 'em, 66, and the Nets finally get a quality win!

Utah had just beaten the vaunted (and overrated) Celtics in Boston and had come down to play a diffident Nets team. The expectations were, hey, let's just have a competitive game.

Up by 3 after 1 (and scoring 32 points), they were down by 7 at the half, and 5 after 3. Usually they would pack it in.

Instead this time they showed grit, selflessness and one had a view of what the team could be like if it tried.

There is enough talent on this team to win 50+ games, easily. Even without Kidd.

Can they keep it up?

This week coming up is key - Chicago on the road, Atlanta at home, the two teams they are competing with for the 8th spot.

We'll see...

Game 65 - A Needlessly Shaky Win

Cleveland is a mediocre team, but in the anaemic East they qualify as a good team, even if they swapped 1/3 of their roster with the Bulls. Even still, Ben Wallace did not play, nor did Ziggy.

So it should be an easy Nets win, right?

Looked like it would be - 38-20 after 1. Ok, I've seen many teams cough up a 1st qtr bulge like that before. But 58-47 at the half, looking pretty good.

Well, of course, "teams in the NBA go on runs", the Magnificent Frank has intoned, excepting of course his own club, and so here we are, with 5 1/2 to play, and the Nets are ahead by 1. ONE! Cleveland goes on a 22-10 run, and Frank calls one time out, has a TV timeout, but still hoards them.

I'm sick of such coaching. Just sick of it. I can't even enjoy a gutty win at the end.

Please fire him...

Monday, March 10, 2008

Game 64 - Houston, we don't have liftoff

Same things continue to apply:

Last two minutes of 1st: 2-7

Last two minutes of the half: 1-5

Shooting pct 1st half: 22%

3pt pct in 1st half: 0%

28 points total in the half. That's LESS THAN 50% of the point total when they beat the Bucks and scored 68 in one half. They got only 2 points more than that in the ENTIRE GAME vs San Antonio. And the Nets would need 42 points in the second half just to make that humiliating total...

What's the point?

ADDENDUM:

Okay, game over. The lost by effectively 20. They scored 45, count 'em, 45 in the second half to finish with 73. They broke 20 only in the last quarter. They shot 30% for the game, and ZERO from 3pt land. ZERO!

They let a 41 year old Dikembe Mutumbo (remember him, Byron?) dominate them inside. RJ and VC combined for a whopping 25 points. They should be AVERAGING 25 a game, EACH of them.

Frank's postgame comments were worthless, as were Carter's.

This is a sad, sorry team.

I made a prediction that the Nets would be 28-36 at this point, and even that proved to be optimistic.

Fire Frank, please, Rod.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Game 63 - Mailing it in

No, I'm not talking about the Nets, altho they, too, mailed it in.

I watched the Devils, then UNC vs Duke, and only at the end did I flip over to the Nets g(sh)ame. 100-81 with 5:00 to go in the 4th. I checked Sportsline to see the box score. Down by 9 after 1, 18 after 2, 22 after 3...

I'm not very interested in this blog any more, playing out the string, just like the Nets. I have nothing new to add or say. Frank can't coach in game. The team has stopped listening. They don't care. Thorn has done his job. The owner could give a Ratner's ass.

BTW - the lowly Hawks picked up a game and a half on the Nets tonite, to bump them out of the 8th ("and final") playoff spot. The Nets have yet to lose to Houston on this "brutal" road trip.

The only thing brutal about it is the level of play of the Nets.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Game 62 - Alley...Oops!

This is flat out no fun any more. This is drudgery...

That's how the Nets must feel.

I watched the Devils tonite, then Bill Moyers. By the time I turned it on it was the 4th quarter and they were down 15. Ho hum.

They had a 3 point lead at the half. NO opens up the 3rd with a 16-2 run. The Talented Mr Frank didn't call timeout until it was a 12-2 run. He was actually challenged by a reporter in the post game - why didn't you call another one. Well, you wanna have a few in the bank, at least one, for the last 20 seconds of the game... Brilliant...

I watched the highlights on the postgame. Alley oop! Alley oop! Alley oop! Nets standing flat footed... Alley oop! Alley oop!

Remember 2002, 2003? It was the NETS who were the running team, the fast break team, the JKidd to Kmart alley oop! team. Now the Nets are the Washington Generals of the NBA.

Alley oop!

At one point as they break for commercial they show Tyson Chandler running off the court laughing at the Nets.

I can't imagine this team winning another game all season. Frank is depressed and dejected - he has no solutions, won't change his rigid approach, and the team is not listening. They are incapable of playing a full 48 minutes. Alley oop!

Frank's postgame assessment was right on and very perceptive - they got a lot of fast breaks off our long perimeter jumpshots. Profound, really. So, brain boy, WHY CAN'T YOU COME UP WITH A WAY TO STOP THAT???????????

Ratner doesn't care. Thorn has done his job in the best way that can be expected. Frank cares but is incompetent. The team senses all this and doesn't care anymore.

I don't care any more.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Game 61 - Two vignettes

At one point in the 3rd, the Nets are up 71-63. You got the sense that they were beginning to pull away from this decimated 14 point win.

The Griz hit a three. 71-66.

Then this:

- Memphis misses a layup, but gets an offensive board.
- Kickout for another 3. Hits. 71-69.
- Lawrence "the marionette" Frank is signalling for a timeout.
- Krstic has the ball out of bounds. It looks like the refs have called time. He steps on the line while throwing it in. Doh! The refs do not recognize the timeout. Turnover on the Nets!
- Griz miss a shot but loose ball foul on the Nets.
- Memphis inbounds it. Swatted out of bounds by Memphis, but refs say, no, Memphis ball.
- Foul on Nets. Two shots drained. 71 all.
- Timeout Nets.

I have seen the inbounding team turn it over by stepping on the line called in the NBA exactly twice - both this season, within a week of each other, both on the Nets.

Vignette two - Nets down 4 (of course) with a little over a minute left (of course). Miraculously Devin Harris steals the ball! He throws it down court where he anticipates VC will be, but the ball is just too long and winds up going back over to Memphis.

On the replay, there is Frank, jumping up and down, waving his hands and even legs wildly. He looks like a marionette on crack.

Mark Jackson mentions this stat as the seconds bleed away. The Nets are about to be swept for the season by the 14 win Grizzlies. They were swept in the season series by the 19 win Clippers. They have lost 3 so far to the 18 win Knicks. They are 0-7 against 3 teams that have not won 20 games. And this is not to mention their losses to Minnesota and Miami.

At 9:52 in the 4th, as Hakim Warrick finishes a 3 point play with a foul shot, I tell my son, they are going to lose again. He says, there is 9:52 left in the game. I told him, unless Frank calls a timeout right here, right now, they will lose.

He did not. They lost.

My rather dour prediction for the next several games had the Nets be 2-1 at this point.

They are 0-3.

Can we please just fire this guy??

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

How much can Lawrence Frank be making?

You've got a team here with Vince Carter on it, a guy who was a premier shooter, a guy capable of taking over a game and scoring 40 points. You've got Richard Jefferson who is capable of driving the lane and scoring 30+ on any given night. You had a point guard who was in the same class with Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson in triple doubles.

You've got talented young big men, talented young guards. You've got depth at every position.

Yet if this team gets down 10, even in the first quarter, it's over.

I've never seen anything like it. Never in my 45 or so years of watching basketball.

The Nets make the same mistakes over and over. The coach coaches every game the same way, and does not make adjustments. For the last 2 years the Nets have played the same way, except for when Jason Kidd decided to exert his considerable personal will to win, which apparently VC and RJ do not have.

And neither does Lawrence Frank. Have you ever heard him take responsibility in other than a pro forma way? He does not. I don't think it's because he's egotistical. I think it's because he's lost.

The Nets do not come back from a 10 point deficit because they know they will not get help from the bench, and I'm not talking substitutes.

Why not just fire him? How much can he be making? A mil? Half a mil? Two mil? Why not fire his sorry butt and buy him out?

Really, I'm serious. He doesn't know how to coach in game. Rebounding woes continue. Their offense is a joke. They allow the opponent to have extended multiple runs, while they have 5, 6, 7 minute scoring droughts. Game after game after game.

Doesn't the red headed wonder get tired of Groundhog Day? Doesn't he ever tire of it?

Doesn't he ever tire of poor finish to quarters? Doesn't he ever tire of watching his team pull to 8 and get the ball, only to launch an ill advised three with 20 seconds left on the shot clock? Does he ever call a timeout, put his face in RJ's or VC's and say, DRIVE THE BASKET!?

If he is not, he should be fired for being incompetent. If he is, then his team has tuned him out, and thus he should be fired.

And it's not like there isn't talent out there - I bet Jeff van Gundy, who is from the NY area, would take the job, especially if it meant being the man who goes to Brooklyn...

Bruce Ratner - I know you don't give a crap about basketball. I know the Nets are just a pawn in your real estate development scheme. But hey - doesn't it make sense to try and make something of the last 2 or 3 years before the move to Brooklyn? And if it only costs you a mil or two, why not? You just locked up VC for several years at $15 million per. What's a couple of mil in a buyout?

THIS TEAM CANNOT IMPROVE WITH LAWRENCE FRANK AS COACH. They cannot grow, they cannot improve. They can only get worse.

How much can he be making?

Just fire his sorry ass...

Game 60 - Deja vu, only less

At the end of the 3rd quarter, the Nets were losing to a team shooting 35%. By 12.

Funny enough, the Nets were shooting 40%. And losing. By 12.

At one point in the second quarter it was 37-37. The Nets got their 38th point 5 minutes into the SECOND HALF.

So many times in these past two games the Nets got it to 8 and had the ball, but every time they could not close the gap. Turnover, needless 3 with 17 left on the shot clock, offensive foul, jumper with nobody under.

Once the Nets get down 10, AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME, they are done for. First quarter, fourth quarter, any point in between.

The Nets give off an aura of patsy, from the coach on down. The refs pick up on this. With 6 minutes left in the game the Nets have taken just 8 foul shots. SA has taken 24. A difference of 16. At 75%, the NBA average, that adds up to 12 points. Sound familiar?

Tim Duncan scored on a play where he took 4 steps. Ginobili made an assist where he tucked in the ball, "like Ahmad Bradshaw", Marv Albert helpfully added, ran four steps, then passed it. No whistle.

I am sorry, then an NBA game has such a differential in foul shot opportunities, you're not calling a fair game. Three times as many proves bias, period. Space space.

Stat just went up - Nets scored 29 points in the first 15 minutes, 27 points since. Their shooting pcts, by quarter:
1 - 67%
2 - 26%
3 - 33%
4 - 17%

At this moment, with less than 3 minutes left, the Nets are losing to a team shooting 33% - by 17! I have never seen anything like it.

Frank can't help this team. The refs sense the kill and abet it.

What's the point?

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Game 59 - Oh well...

The good news is that from the 6:00 mark of the first quarter on, the teams played dead even.

The bad news is, they were down 10 at the time, 16-6. That proved to be the margin of loss.

Here's some more bad news:
- 35% shooting
- 27 field goals, only 8 assists. For the entire team.
- Out rebounded 51-42

The Nets fell in love the the jumper a couple of games ago. Last game they shot 68% in the first quarter, twice the rate as tonite. They finished at 51% last game, 17 points higher than tonite.

The Nets pulled with 4 a few times, but couldn't make it stick.

And then there's the old standbys - end of quarters:
Last 2 mins of 2nd: outscored 4-9, -5

Here's their record since the trade:
W
L
W
L
W
L

My prediction thus has to be revised down - 28-39 at the end of the trip.

The Nets cannot move forward with this coach. .500 is the best expected outcome.

.500 ain't gonna cut it.

The Upcoming Road Trip - Predictions and Results

So here we are again - 6 games under .500, with the "Texas swing" in the offing. Here are the next several games for the Nets:

Tonite - Spurs
3/4 - @ Spurs
3/5 - @ Memphis
3/7 - @ New Orleans
3/8 - @ Dallas
3/10 - @ Houston
3/12 - Cavs
3/15 - Utah
3/18 - @ Bulls

The Spurs have now won 8 in a row. They play tonite at the Meadowlands. Let's say the juju of the new team make-up, and Tony Parker's relief at Harris getting out of the division is real, and perhaps the Nets win that one. 27-32.

Then they play the Spurs in San Antonio. The probability of the Nets winning there, based on recent history, is essentially nil, but if we have given that the Nets just beat them in NJ, this probability decreases further. 27-33.

At Memphis. The Grizzlies have been decimated, but the Nets will be coming in one night off a bad loss in SA. However, so will the Griz. Tight, losable, but let's say they prevail, narrowly. 28-33.

At New Orleans. Hornets have the one of the best records in the NBA, have just beaten the new look Suns and Utah, and will have tuned up against the sub .500 Wizards, Knicks and Hawks. No chance. 28-34.

At Dallas. Kidd faces his old team, who, when not auditioning him, crush the Nets, especially in Dallas. 28-35.

At Houston. Houston is the hottest team in the NBA. 28-36.

Cleveland is now stacked to win, even on the road. 28-37.

Utah. Best team in the Northwest. 28-38.

At Chicago. The Bulls are way too decimated to contend with a demoralized Nets team, now certainly out of the playoffs, but it will be close, maybe OT. 29-38.

Nets net: Two more weeks down, three more games in the hole.

I just saw the Sixers beat the Suns, and have now passed the Nets as the 7th seed. Just behind the Nets are now the Hawks, Bulls and Indiana. That game on the 18th in Chicago could be for the 8th and final spot, even tho the Bulls have been dismantled. The Hawks could turn it around during the next two and a half weeks, playing as well if not better than the Nets and with an easier schedule during that span, featuring games against the Knicks, Heat, Wizards and Clippers. And guess who the Nets play right after the Bulls - Atlanta.

It is possible that the Nets could catch fire, but with San Antonio in a playoff race for the first time in years, and with an 8 game win streak, the best that can be hoped for is a split. Not exactly the best way to catch fire. The games are set up not to be conducive to streaks, at least not win streaks. They could get demoralized and swoon again and come back from Chicago with less than 28 wins. I'm being optimistic and predicting 2 road wins and a triumph over SA tonite. But wild optimism might have them win 2 more games than that, which would only put them at 31-36, a net increase of just one little game in the standings.

The Nets, with Kidd, with Frank, with the other Big Two, have dug themselves an inconvenient hole. After March 18 they will have only 15 games left, during which they will have to go 11-4 just to make .500. 11-4 while having to play Denver, Phoenix, at Detroit, Toronto, at Cleveland, at Toronto and at Boston. They will need to win at least 3 of those games and sweep the rest, including resurging Atlanta and at Philadelphia, just to break .500. Some of those games against the tougher teams might be easier since they would have clinched their playoff spots. But then some of the games against the "second division" teams might be tougher as they all claw for the privilege of getting destroyed by Boston or Detroit in the first round.

Things look bleak.

I can't possibly expect the playoffs this year. All I can hope for is for this team to play creditably and for Frank to learn some things, and hope for the best in what looks like several years of rebuilding.

Hack a Whomever - Why It Never Works

I hammer my boy Lawrence Frank for his poor in game coaching a lot, it's no secret. He can be a good coach in the NBA if he would leave his Byron Scott ideas about substitution and timeouts behind and just coach the in game situations as they arise.

So this little post is yet another attempt to dissuade him from the error of his ways. This time, however, I wish to appeal to his obvious respect for statistics and computing. This time, I have proof that what he is doing is essentially futile.

Frank, like Scott, is inordinately fond of hoarding timeouts for use at the end of the game in case he has to micro-manage it to erase a moderate lead late, say 7 points or less. This is essentially a self fulfilling strategy - IF you thus hoard, then you are almost ENSURING that you will need to use them, because your failure to use them earlier, to throw water on the other teams' runs or to settle down your own team when it is in disarray, guarantees that your leads will evaporate or close games will widen against you by the time the crunch arrives.

Frank does not see this. His strategy is akin to the Invasion of Iraq - there were no terrorists there, but your invasion gave them the opportunity to be there, and so they are there now. Similarly, the game was not close, but your coaching as if it would inevitably be close forced you to make it close, and thus it was.

There are a lot of time worn strategies in baseball that have never been challenged, such as playing the infield in. In this case, however, it occurred to me that we could indeed mathematically test the validity of the Hack a Whomever strategy at the end of the game. This blog is the results of that study.

Let's set the stage:

The Hack a Whomever strategy is one where one finds his team down by more than one score with less than 2 minutes remaining in the game. The idea is to foul the other team right away when they get possession, put them on the line, hope that they miss occasionally, and score as quickly as you can when you have the ball. If you get enough possessions, and the other team misses enough foul shots, you can narrow the gap to one score. Then "it's anybody's game".

Frank (and other coaches) further refine this strategy by relying on 2 point baskets, gambling that they can drive to the hoop and score 2 with greater percentage than 3s because the other team is not going to foul them.

There are various fallacies of this strategy, such as the unwillingness of the other team to foul you and make you earn it at the stripe. But without going there, I posed the simple question - Given this strategy, what is a reasonable expectation of points differential by using it?

I broke down the strategy into 6 identifiable and quantifiable variables:
SLG - Number of seconds left in the game
SYP - Number of seconds of your possessions
SFO - Number of seconds before you foul your opponent
YSP - Your shooting pct
OFP - Your opponent's free throw pct
COS - Whether you shoot 3s or 2s

Clearly, by the way, shooting pct varies with your choice of shooting 3s or 2s.

I began by constructing the formula. Given so many seconds left in the game (SLG), and given the amount of time in seconds it takes you to score (SYP) as well as how many seconds it takes you to foul the other team (SFO), the number of opportunities that both teams together within the time remaining will be:

SLG/(SYP+SFO)

For example, if there is 90 seconds left in the game, and it takes you 20 seconds to score and 10 seconds to foul, there will be at most 3 such exchanges of possession. If you can get your possessions down to 10 and can foul on average at 5, you can get 6 such exchanges.

Clearly, the number of possessions will not be an integer, so I modified the expression to take that into account, using the Greatest Integer Less Than function, or FLOOR:

FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)

So if we plug in 12 seconds to score and 7 seconds to foul, say, we'll get an integral value for the number of possessions.

Now, how many points can we expect to score? Take the number of possessions, take the kind of shot, and take a shooting pct for that kind of shot. Thus:

YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)

So, if we're gonna shoot 2s, and we have 3 possessions, and we shoot 67%, we'll should expect to score 4 points. If we shoot 3s, have 6 possessions and shoot 50%, we should expect to score 9 points.

Of course, the other team is not standing still. They're getting fouled (btw, it is assumed that you are over the limit, which, in this scenario, is the best case - otherwise more time will have to tick down as you foul repeatedly with the other team not having to shoot free throws) and sinking some shots. Remember, they shoot 2 shots. Thus they are scoring:

2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)

Given the NBA average of FT pct of 75%, and given those 3 possessions, the other team will score at least 4 points. If they have 6 possessions, they will score 9.

The expectation, therefore, of the strategy, is the difference between these two scoring expectations:

YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1) - 2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)

or, distributing out, we get:

(YSP*COS - 2*OFP)*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)

This is mathematically the expectation for the net points you will get from such a strategy. Like it or not, this is the formula.

All that remains is to plug some values in.

As we can see in our above examples, their net scoring is 0. That is, nothing is gained from this strategy.

Well, a coach might argue, that assumes an NBA average for free throw shooting. But at the end of the game there is more pressure, especially if the team you're facing is on the road (ie, you're at home) and if you foul the right person, ie, one who's a bad foul shooter.

Okay, lets use these numbers, then:

SLG - 90
SYP - 15
SFO - 10
YSP - .500
COS - 3
OFP - .400

This says there's a minute and a half left in the game, it takes you 15 seconds on average in a possession during which you score half the time and when you do it's a three, while it takes you 10 seconds to foul the duffer at the line who only shoots 40%.

Expectation? +2 points.

That's it? That's all I can expect?

That's it. So if you're down 3, you can expect to lose. You're far better off letting your team play.

Of course, no coach is gonna go into the Hack-a-Whomever down by 3 with 90 seconds left. They'd more likely use it if they were down, say 5. But if your expectation is net +2, why in the world would you do it?

Even more to the point, this scenario assumes you shoot 3s. LFrank, and many other coaches, would say, well, we don't have to shoot 3s. Oh no? Clearly, given 50% shooting, and shooting 2s, our expectation should be LESS. Ie, we'll lose by a larger deficit!

Even if we crank up our shooting pct to 75% shooting 2s, our expectation in the same situation with the duffer and the time allotted yields:

Expectation? +2 points!

See? Altho the 2, given matador D due to a reluctance of the other team to foul, has a much higher percentage of success, the net comes out EXACTLY THE SAME because the 3 pointer COUNTS AS MORE POINTS!

This only makes sense, after all. The other team is shooting foul shots and will sink some of them. You're making up the difference, but at a rate so slow it can't possibly ever shrink to zero within the allotted time, ie, the time that's left when you elected to use the strategy.

Thus Frank's strategy of Foul-and-go-for-2 is just as futile as if he let his guys bomb away from downtown.

Wait - the coach might say - we don't use this because it is guaranteed to work, or even likely to work. We use it in the hope we get lucky.

Fair point. So then, exactly how lucky do we have to get?

Let's be generous and very optimistic with our luck, and reasonable about when we're gonna use it.

Let's say we're down by 7 with 2 minutes left. This is the earliest we would use the strategy, and we would have to be awfully alert to decide to use it with that much time left. Let's further say that we're gonna go on a roll and shoot 75% from 3, only take 10 seconds off the clock, and foul a 40% duffer (say, like Josh Boone) from the line with 5 seconds EVERY time.

Expectation? +11.6

So this WOULD work - BUT there are other considerations.

For example, not only would you need to be lottery lucky, the lead will evaporate long before the 2 minutes is up. In fact, you will tie it in 0:40, and take the lead with 30 seconds left. Will you continue with the strategy after then?

And what if the other coach, sensing your use of the strategy early, puts all guards out there, all of whom are at least 65% free throw shooters? The best you can hope for is a tie. And that's assuming you have the perspicacity to start using the strategy with 2 minutes left. If you waited until only a minute and a half left, you lose.

I did see this strategy work exactly once, and it was at the college level. Stanford used it with a little over 1 minute left vs Rhode Island in the 98 NCAAs to advance to the Final Four. But they were even luckier than the improbable scenario posed above. And again, they were young college players, not professionals used to playing tight games on the road in packed houses.

Frank, however, does not get this. He robotically uses it, uses the version less inclined to success, and uses it so often without positive results that he actually undermines his authority by demoralizing a team that sees what every other person in the building sees - IT NEVER WORKS. WHAT'S THE POINT??

Take Tuesday's game vs Orlando. With 1:31 left the Nets foul, down 8. They are shooting 43% for the game, 42% from 3 land. Orlando is shooting 67% from the line.

Let's be optimistic and hope that we can score in 10 and foul in 5.

Now, I have, at this moment, not figured out what the expectation should be. Let's plug in these numbers and see what our expectation should be, both shooting 2s and 3s.

Expectation shooting 2s: -2.88
Expectation shooting 3s: -0.48

Either way, and anything in between, the Nets should expect their deficit to WIDEN, not close. In fact, they lost by 10, an increase in the deficit by 2 points, EXACTLY AS PREDICTED.

In fact, in order to have won, the following numbers would have had to apply:

SLG - 90 (fixed)
SYP - 10 (optimistic)
SFO - 5 (very optimistic)
YSP - .750 (wildly optimistic)
COS - 3 (which Frank would never do)
OFP - .400 (wildly optimistic)

and EVEN THEN all they would have done is FORCED OVERTIME!

Even if they just played it out, held Orlando scoreless, kept them to 20 seconds per possession and scored a 3 every time down, they'd win by just 1. BUT AT LEAST THEY'D WIN. And how improbable is that scenario compared with the wildly optimistic Hack-a-whomever scenario above?

Of course, the best scenario is to NEVER HAVE LET THE DEFICIT GET TO 8 WITH 1:30 TO GO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The score had seesawed all game with no team having a lead bigger than 6 until the very end, when Frank's inability to call a well placed timeout let it get out of hand.

The bottom line, then, is this:
- The Hack-a-Whomever strategy is theoretically set up for failure in almost all circumstances when it would be used.
- The Foul-and-Go-For-2 variant is EVEN LESS LIKELY to succeed.

Thus it would appear, to any rational coach with a desire to win, to NOT HOARD TIMEOUTS for this eventuality and JUST KEEP PLAYING THE GAME.

I will try to communicate this to Frank and Rod Thorn, in the hope that perhaps, just maybe, if the facts are laid out for him, he will change his approach and COACH THE GAME THAT PRESENTS ITSELF, not the game he has a priori decided on.

Game 58 - A New (if odd) Hope

There is this idea, described most recently in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, that when people are in shock they are more likely to suggestion. Despite the dark tone of her work, it seems to be just what the Nets need...

The Nets beat a bad, but hungry and recently successful Milwaukee team by 14 (!) points, just the 6th time ALL SEASON that they've won by double digits, albeit the second of three since Kidd left, and the other was an 8 point win. (Contrast that with their largest win skein of the season, when they won 7 of 8 in December with an average margin of victory less than 2 points...) The only time it got a little dicey was at the end of 3 when they led by a mere 6. The Nets then went on a spurt in the mid 4th to put it out of the realm of question.

They scored 68 points in the first half, easily a season high, on 64% shooting, also easily a season high. Still, with Milwaukee shooting only 45%, the lead was only 13. One would expect at the very least that the Nets shooting pct would come down from the stratosphere, leaving us with a tight game, and at the end of the third it looked exactly that. In fact, the Bucks were outshooting the Nets 51.7% to 51.3%. (They tied for the game at just over 50%.) And from the middle of the second to the end of the third, the Nets got only 5 stops, 4 of them in the third, with the Bucks driving the lane seemingly at will. Luckily, altho Milwaukee's shots were mostly layups and dunks, the Nets shot incredibly well from the outside, and managed a double digit lead that proved insurmountable.

(One yearns for the kinds of wins they had in the 2002-2006 era, when fast breaks and back doors led to solid leads that did not depend on one or another jump shooter being hot, but at 26-32, we'll take what we can get.)

The entirety of the media gave credit almost exclusively to Devin Harris (CBS Sportline headline - "Jason Who?"), who was playing his first game as a Net, but closer inspection reveals another story.

In the first game after Kidd officially left (because the first game without Kidd was in Toronto with him in streets as the Raptors blew their socks off; we're not counting that one...) the Nets similarly cruised to a victory over a team in a similar position in the playoff race - the Bulls. There was no Devin Harris then.

What both victories had in common, and what the two losses and the squeaker win that intervened did not have, was this - Lawrence Frank did not coach the game in his usual robotic fashion.

I remarked within this blog about that first game back that Frank did not substitute according to plan (and anyone who watches all the games knows it's a predetermined plan and that he NEVER wavers from it) and used up all his timeouts with more than a minute left in a close game. Remarkably - and since I have predicted it all season and longer, predictably - he did not need them. The Nets won comfortably. Marcus Williams shined without the Damocles' Sword of LFrank's rigid substitution pattern.

Frank then went back to his old ways, and so did the Nets, losing 2 out of 3 with the team having to suffer thru the inane and never successful (see the more recent post about this strategy above) hack-a-whomever strategy at the end.

What do these two impressive victories, last night and vs Chicago, have in common? Conditions presented themselves wherein Frank was not in his comfort zone and was forced to coach the game within the context the game, NOT according to some predetermined plan. That is, he was shocked out of his automatic responses and actually had to think on his feet.

The result? Two victories that really weren't close. Two victories where the team's deep talent shone. Two victories with balanced scoring. Two victories where the team felt good about itself.

This is no coincidence. Despite his impressive record this year, Byron Scott clearly was not an effective big game coach in the NBA when he was with the Nets. Commentators noticed this in 2003, questioning his substitution patterns and bizarre use of timeouts (sound familiar?), chalking it up at the time to Jason Kidd's putative demands to play less time than the previous year, even tho his average minutes played wound up being essentially identical. Scott's failings became painfully obvious when he benched an on fire Kerry Kittles to start the fourth in Game Six in 2003 and failed to use timeouts properly to preserve the 11 point lead his team had during a Spurs 19 point run. Kidd sardonically joked about this abysmal coaching performance, and by the middle of the next season, Scott was gone.

In his place stepped Lawrence Frank, and despite his fine job to finish the 2004 season (in which only Kidd's lame leg prevented them from finishing off the Pistons and probably moving to their third straight NBA finals appearance), he soon revealed himself to be a Byron Scott disciple in the two areas where Scott was weakest - substitutions and timeouts.

The media are respectful of coaches, more than players, more than they should be. There are loads of reasons for this (race, respect for authority and age, pressure from team management, the prevalent (and I claim mistaken) belief that only talent matters in the Nothing But Ability NBA, flat out lack of sophistication, etc) but commentators spend a great deal of time making excuses and using explanations for odd coaching that stretch credulity. So for 4 years LFrank has been given copious passes regarding his rigid substitution patterns, with most speculation centering on the "contract demands" of one Jason Kidd.

Well, Kidd's gone. What's the excuse now?

Five games is really not enough time to assess what Frank has learned or how he might or might not have been freed from the presumably self-centered and pernicious demands of Number 5, but the early results are in: When Frank deviates from his preconceived notions, the team plays very well and wins handily. When he does not deviate, the best outcome is a squeaker.

The shock of no Kidd forced Frank into a situation where Williams had to play a lot of minutes and where Frank had to keep his team in it because of a reduced roster and no obvious method of coaching to that. Williams, along with the Big 2 out of 3, responded. Frank used timeouts early to preserve a big lead. Easy Nets win. Well, relatively, for them.

With Devin Harris sidelined, Frank settled into his old ways, and the team lost embarrassingly to Indiana, shakily won over mediocre Indiana in the second leg of a "home and home", and lost to Orlando, with Frank allowing the Magic to go on a run with little time left in the game, then subjecting his team to the humiliation of the foul and two strategy (again, see an analysis of this strategy above).

Then Harris is ready. Now Frank can't merely designate one of them as the Kidd-heir-apparent, so he cannot revert to his mechanical substitutions. Result? Comfortable Nets win.

Frank even called a key timeout when he needed to, in the first half, when his team was dissembling with bad shots, stupid fouls and even sillier turnovers, like Swift stepping on the line during an unchallenged in bounds pass. It took a while, but with a 5 point lead (down from 9) and the potential of it becoming a 3 or even 2 point lead, he did call a timeout and settled the team down. Nets then went on a 12-0 run and essentially put the game away.

Lawrence Frank - Are you listening? Are you paying attention?

You CAN coach in this league if you can get over being Byron Scott the Younger. You DO have enough talent to make some noise this year and even contend next year if you can get over being Mr. Roboto, thank you (ie, domo arigato). Your team CAN find the same level of success as with Jason Kidd if you would only TRUST YOUR FEELINGS.

In summary, there is hope for the Nets, as long as Lawrence Frank is shocked out of relying on unsuccessful and mechanical modes of in game coaching. It's an odd hope, but their best hope. Byron Scott is not your Obi-wan, Frank - not your only hope. Use the force, Lawrence.

And leave the computer at home.