In the 24 games beginning on January 12 (the same starting point as my prior article), the Knicks’ worst scoring quarter has often been the 3^rd.  On top of that, it’s the quarter they’re most likely to score fewer than 23 points (I picked this test based on expecting 100 points per game from a Mike D’Antoni offense and then expecting roughly 25 points per quarter to achieve it).  And it’s the quarter least likely to be their highest scoring quarter.  All in all, the third quarter hasn’t been a good one for the Knicks.

But further research showed that the 1^st quarter is the next most likely to be their worst scoring quarter; the next most likely for them to score fewer than 23 points; and the next least likely to be their highest scoring quarter.

While many teams do well coming out of the locker room and then taper off late in the half, the Knicks are the opposite.  One thing that is common to the first and third quarters?  The Knicks are coming from the locker room before they start to play ball.

Pre-Lin / Post-Lin: it doesn’t seem to matter.

Before I propose some reasons and solutions, here are the numbers for the past 24 games:

Qtr          Lowest Scoring Qtr**      Scored < 23 points     Highest Scoring Qtr**

1^st            4 gms(outright) &                         12 gms                4 gms (outright)
                 2 gms (tied w/other qtr)                                            2 gms (tied w/other qtr)

2^nd           3 & 2                                                  6 gms                9 & 1

3^rd           9 & 3                                                 13 gms               2 & 0

4^th            4 & 1                                                   7 gms               7 & 1

** Is greater than 24 games because of ties with other quarters in some games.

Possible Problems and How to Solve Them

Physical

This could be that they’re not stretched out enough; they’re not resting enough; not drinking the right energy drink (some are for “during competition” and others for “after competition”), etc.

More importantly, with new construction and last season’s November Orlando game postponed because of asbestos being released into the air during renovations, could there be something in the Knicks’ new locker room that is affecting the players?  This could be varnish, some type of plastic, mold (possibly released during construction), asbestos (same), etc.

Psychological – Part 1

Something could be used as a slogan that isn’t having the expected impact.  Or being said in a way that gives it the opposite impact from what’s intended (“don’t think about all the missed shots in the first half…”).

Habit

While any one of the items listed above could be the problem, perhaps that problem no longer exists.  It’s very possible for a person or team to repeatedly fail after a problem is solved because they’re used to failing and they’ve linked certain behaviors to making that failure happen.  Since the Knicks 1^st and 3^rd quarter issues happen both home and away, it’s very likely that a habit is now part or all of the problem. 

Psychological – Part 2

It’s possible that this scoring problem has become a team belief (“We don’t score a lot of points in the 3^rd quarter”, etc).  Team beliefs happen quite a bit during the season and they are very hard (and very easy) to break.  Whatever beliefs an athlete and/or team has affects performance.  Dealing with this type of challenge will be addressed in part 2 of this article, to be posted at a later date.  That article will include some real-life examples and solutions, including one from the ’99-’00 season when Latrell Sprewell returned to Golden State for the first time since trying to choke his coach. 

Solving the Problems

All aspects of the “physical” section of this article should be checked (certainly, at least, the air quality in the locker room).  I’d be surprised if anything like “stretching” or “energy drinks”, even if they were once a problem, continue to be problems.  Still, it’s worth making sure that none of these are issues now.

As far as “psychological – part 1” goes, although poor languaging is almost a given due to the lack of training in the topic in the US, it’s unlikely that it’s still causing problems.  Improper languaging most often affects performance when it’s done from the sideline during the game and I’ll devote an article to that in the near future as well.

Since I’ve already indicated that I’ll deal with “psychological – part 2” in a future article, that leaves “Habit”.  Without knowing what the original cause of the problem is, as long as the Knicks haven’t wandered into “team belief” mode, these techniques can fix things as quickly as tonight’s game.

Breaking the Cycle – Sequence

The first thing that can be done is that the team can change the sequence of events.  Doing this will often be enough to break a poor performance cycle.  Let’s say, for example, that before the game, the Knicks’ sequence of events looks like this:

1-Players gather for last minute instructions
2-Coach Weber speaks on special situations (inbounds plays, end of quarter, etc) for this game
3-Coach Woodson speaks about special defensive focus
4-Coach D’Antoni speaks on special offensive focus
5-Team prayer
6-Take the floor for warm ups

If the players’ brains have linked this sequence with their poor performance (and they could easily do it, even though it probably has nothing to actually do with their performance), then continuing with this sequence will continue the poor performance.

A simple change like this could break the cycle:

1-Players gather for last minute instructions
2-Coach Woodson speaks about special defensive focus
3-Coach Weber speaks on special situations (inbounds plays, end of quarter, etc) for this game
4-Coach D’Antoni speaks on special offensive focus
5-Team prayer
6-Take the floor for warm ups

Something easy to do and well within the control of the coaches.  It shouldn’t hurt, based on the patterns of the past 24 games.

Breaking the Cycle – Point of View

We’ve all heard the expression “point of view” but rarely is it known how important physical point of view is to our results.  On a personal note, I spent most of high school sitting in the back row telling jokes, making my classmates laugh, and getting thrown out of class.  When I was paying for my own classes, I sat in the front and was more quiet and focused.  I still find, to this day, that if I sit in the back of a seminar or meeting, I’ll interact more, make people laugh, and be grateful that they don’t have detention at professional events.  But when I sit in front, I learn more and am more quiet.  I also get annoyed at those people who keep telling jokes from the back of the room (hhhhmmm).

Another example is Charlie Weis, former New England Patriots offensive coordinator and Notre Dame University head coach.  Weis did not have the type of success that he and everyone expected when he left the NFL and went to Notre Dame.  I had suspected that it was, in part, due to the change to his “point of view” – as the offensive coordinator, he sat in a booth high above the field and relayed plays via walkie talkie.  As the head coach, he patrolled the sidelines.  Very different angles, very different sized players, very different “points of view”.

My suspicions about Coach Weis were confirmed (to me, anyway) when he injured his knee, had surgery, and had to sit in a booth above the field and relay his instructions via walkie talkie while he recovered.  All of a sudden, the Fighting Irish were playing better, going for more yardage, and scoring a lot more points.  The players’ skill levels didn’t go up.  But Weis started calling better plays for the situation, something that was easy for him to do because his “point of view” was the same as it was when he was the OC of the Super Bowl Champions.

How can the Knicks change their points of view?  Easy.  First, change where they’re sitting when they meet before the game and at the half.  Players who sit on the left side can sit on the right side.  Players who sit in the back can move to the front.  It’ll seem strange at first and that’s a great thing.  Feeling “similar” may be what’s causing them to continue bad performance streaks.

When can they do this?  Tonight.

In Conclusion

There are things in play which affect performance that we never knew were part of the equation.  Some simple solutions are possible.  And these solutions will work for us in our regular lives as well as for the Knicks on the court.  Wait until you see how much beliefs affect performance.  You’ll be amazed.

In the meantime, these simple changes can make a major difference for the Knicks if they give them a try.

It’s the type of story that inspires those legions of people who have had to overcome adversity on their way to reaching their dreams.  It’s a story that Hollywood has told before and, I’ve got to believe, will be telling again very soon.  And it’s happening at a Garden near you!

Sylvester Stallone wrote and starred in Rocky and it won the Academy Award for Best Picture.  What some people may not be aware of is that Stallone, pretty much broke at the time he was shopping the script, turned down offer after offer because the studios would not agree to let him play Rocky in the movie.  Those last two sentences relate to the Jeremy Lin-led Knicks as well.

First, Stallone was not the best actor out there.  He wasn’t a “bankable” talent; the best looking actor; the smoothest actor; nor the (your superlative goes here) actor.  But Rocky wasn’t the Best Picture in spite of Stallone, it was the Best Picture because of him.

Second, a lot of experts at the studios that Stallone turned down didn’t see in Stallone what, by the time the movie hit the theaters, was apparent to many.  Stallone was the right guy for the part.  Sometimes, making the “smart” decision isn’t so smart after all.

In watching sports on the tube and reading newspapers, blogs, and tweets, amongst the positive stories about Jeremy Lin, I’ve seen a lot of people say that, for the Knicks to keep winning, they should get rid of this player or that player and bring in this other one – some guy who’s considered an “upgrade” at the position or better fits the model of the type of player who normally plays the role.  Looking back at Rocky and the studios’ decision about Stallone, an “upgrade” now is most likely the wrong way to go.

The Knicks aren’t winning in spite of the players around Jeremy Lin, they’re winning because of them.  Lin has been amazing and this article in no way intends to minimize that.  But remember that these players have embraced Lin and their efforts have helped him adapt to and thrive in this new situation.  These teammates have been vocal in their support of Lin, have let Lin sleep on their couches, have sacrificed minutes, etc., etc., etc.  Although team chemistry is hard to quantify, it does exist and it surely exists with the current version of your New York Knicks.  Disrupt it at your peril.

To address one very specific and prevalent roster suggestion, there’s a lot of buzz that the Knicks should add JR Smith.  Now I know JR has some serious talent and that he can light up the scoreboard.  But being able to go for 40 or 50, as he’s done in China, is not what this Knicks team needs.  The Knicks have just gotten away from running an offense where this player or that would take a bijillion shots.  If the Knicks need it, they’ve got guys who can do that right now.  But with Jeremy Lin fitting the mold of the point guard required to run Mike D’Antoni’s offense efficiently, anyone on the current roster can be the high scorer in any game.

If you bring in JR, who do you cut?  Even if it’s someone who’s not playing any minutes, can you say for sure that he an electron that’s crucial to this atomic rise of the Knicks?  And do you take that chance for a player who’s had the problems that JR has had in his past, even this season in China?  Do you introduce those potential problems into a team that currently doesn’t have those kinds of issues to deal with?  If you’ve answered “yes”, step back and think it through some more.

Stop for a second and ask yourself – how much will the Knicks’ coaching staff embrace a player whose mentor is Stephon Marbury?  And how much would JR embrace them back?  Certainly there’s an upside to a player with JR’s talent.  But when the potential downside includes popping the Linsanity balloon?  No way.  Better to let Stallone play Rocky and aim for another Academy Award.

We hear that a team should be greater than the sum of its parts but we rarely get a chance to see such an outstanding example of that as we’re seeing in this year’s (this month’s?) NY Knicks.  Yes, the parts need to improve if the whole is going to go deep in the playoffs, but improve they will.  There’s time for that.  At least there is if we allow them to make the best use of it.  But adding a player who doesn’t know D’Antoni’s offense and potentially brings a lot of baggage doesn’t qualify for “making the best use of it” status.  If Steve Nash gets put on waivers, then we can talk…

It’s okay to believe that the Knicks can make a serious playoff run because, with these parts and this whole, they can.  Mike D’Antoni and Tyson Chandler weren’t delusional last December when they talked about this team being of championship caliber.  They were just ahead of their time.

Whether we’re witnessing an actual miracle or we’re just observing a lot of low probability events happening at the same time, we’re seeing history in the making here, folks.  Let’s not mess it up by lobbying Knicks management to take actions that they’d be vilified for if they took them on their own and they didn’t work out.

If last lockout’s Knicks were “Rocky” (and there were a lot of similarities back then, too), then this year’s Knicks might just be “Rocky 2”.  You know, the one that ends with Stallone holding the championship belt over his head and shouting “Yo Adrienne, I did it!!!”  Linsanity indeed.

Tonight, he’s started 0-for-2 from behind the arc and 0-for-3 overall in the 1st quarter.  Although it may disappoint the fans, the slow start was very predictable.  That’s based on a study by the Israeli Air Force in the late 1960s.  Just so it won’t look like I’ve pulled this out of nowhere, I discussed the study with the NY Post’s Marc Berman years ago and have sent him e-mails over the subsequent seasons when it was likely that the study’s results would be apparent for a player or team.

The study showed that when Israeli Air Force pilots set a new high score in the flight simulator and that high score was substantially higher than their average score, almost invariably their next time in the simulator would result in a score that was well below that average score.  Those of you who play video games may have experienced this same phenomenon.

The theory, and one that I subscribe to, is that the pilot’s unconscious mind took the new high score as the new average score, too.  The pilot was obviously capable of hitting that high score but wasn’t yet skilled enough to do it regularly.  When the reality of the next time in the simulator was not going well, extra pressure was felt and things got even worse.

If you want an example of how your unconscious can put an unrealistic expectation on your performance, think back to the last time you played hoops after a huge layoff.  Maybe you were out of shape.  Maybe you were in physical shape but you weren’t in basketball shape.  But you took a couple of long shots because you hit them when you were playing regularly.  Probably those shots looked more like passes.

Although there are a couple of great NLP ways to handle this, I’m not giving those away.  But what you can do when you set a new personal best is to set your “success level” down the next time you play.  For a player who averages 10 PPG and shoots 45%, for example, and then has a new best of 25 points on 60% shooting, he’d want to set his “success” level for his next game as 8 points on 40% shooting.

This isn’t his goal.  It’s what he’s tricking his mind into believing is “success”.  He’ll easily hit those numbers.  His unconscious mind will know that he succeeded.  Every point after that is gravy.  Most of the pressure to shoot 60% is gone.  He may very well surpass his average figures if he follows this suggestion.

Bill Walker, before the Miami game, averaged just over 5 PPG and shot 32% from behind the arc.  His 21 points on 70% 3-point shooting was significantly greater than that.  So Israeli Air Force pilots and those of us who know of the study weren’t surprised when his first few shots drew iron.  He’ll have his touch back soon enough.  Maybe before tonight’s game ends.

At first glance, that might seem like a contradiction.  It’s not.

The first question doesn’t specify how Melo should shoot less; the second one does.  The first allows for his shots to be limited within the flow of the offense; the second has Melo deciding when he should limit himself.

If you’ve followed my recent articles, you know that I’m a big advocate of limiting how much a shooter needs to think as he actually takes the shot.  In “Quick Fix for Sick Knicks” (Roman Numeral III) and “Breaking a Shooting Slump is as easy as ABC”, I describe situations where a shot should be avoided and ways to reduce the amount of thinking that a player takes as he prepares to shoot.  With that as my focus, I’m not likely to endorse something that’s going to make a player make a decision as he’s about to launch it (or not).

One of the things that I really like about Mike D’Antoni’s offensive philosophy is that he eliminates a lot of the decision making that can mess up a shooter.  If you’re in your range, you’re open, and it’s a good look, you have the green light.  No wondering about “will Coach be okay with me shooting it from here?”.  The reason the offense hasn’t been doing well is the ball movement hasn’t been what it’s been in the past, so the “good look” part of the equation hasn’t always been a “yes”.

I’ll often hear a coach say that player so-and-so is going to have to sacrifice.  He shouldn’t.  Because sacrifice means that a person is going to do something that they don’t normally do or they’re not going to do something that they normally do.  Either way, they have to go against their instincts.  That takes conscious thought and we don’t want that as they’re taking the shot.

If Melo’s going to shoot fewer shots, it should be because he gets the ball less often.  Let the point guard (whose position requires more conscious thought anyway), pass to others to balance the load.  When Melo gets the ball, he still doesn’t have to jack it up.  If he does shoot, the load is being balanced for him.  If he doesn’t shoot, it should be because he sees an open teammate, not because he’s taken the time to think about whether he should shoot this time or not.

This probably means that Melo’s role as “point forward” should be reduced significantly.  Having the ball run through a player whose first instinct is to run an isolation play for himself isn’t working too well.  The ‘80s Celtics didn’t try to run the offense through Kevin McHale (nicknamed “the black hole” because once the ball went in to him, it never came back out).  Instead, they ran the offense through Larry Bird, a player whose game was more conducive to facilitating for his teammates as well as shooting.

By all means, let’s see the shots distributed better (last season’s “What Goes Around Needs to Be Spread Around” still applies).  But let’s do it in a way that ensures not only the increased success of Melo’s teammates but the increased success of Melo himself.

This needs to be fixed ASAP.  Whether they’re drinking the wrong Gatorade, listening to a less-than-inspiring oration, leaving the locker room with an easily thwarted game plan (including being predictable – doing the same thing as in the 1st half or always doing the same thing to start out the 2nd), or watching episodes of The Walking Dead, something is causing their 3^rd quarter scoring drought.

It’s not like they’re scoring 150 PPG and the 3^rd quarter is coming in light with just 35 points scored.  Here are the 3^rd quarter points for the past 6 games:

14 – 18 – 24 – 19 – 16 – 18

How many points did they lose by in these six games?

11 – 12 – 9 – 3 – 14 – 5 (in OT)

So if they scored 23 in the 3^rd quarter against Phoenix (game 4 above), the Knicks would have won.  Worse, if they scored 19 in the 3^rd quarter against Denver (game 6 above), the Knicks would have won in regulation.

As I wind this up, it’s hard to propose a solution.  We’re not in the locker room and we don’t know what’s causing the problem.  So a worthwhile solution here would be a lucky guess. 

It’s up to the coaches, players, and staff to take a look and figure it out.  They need to do it now.  The Knicks aren’t scoring well enough to spot the other team 8-10 points a game.  Maybe tonight will be the night they break their 3^rd quarter scoring “streak”.  We can only hope.

But many times, the player has been referred to me moments before they call.  We’ve never met but the player needs to break the slump that night.  At those times, I tell the player the ABC’s of slump breaking so that he can experience some success while we arrange a time to get together.

With many players in the NBA shooting poorly in this lockout-shortened, highly condensed season, I’m going to share this information in the hope that the right people will see it and, more importantly, will use it.  This article will cover the physical things that players can do to get out of the slump.  Another article in the near future will cover the mental exercises and tricks that players can use to make more shots and give their teams a better chance to win.  Since so many fans also play the game, I’ll address the rest of the article to “you”, the shooter.  Here goes:

A – Angles

B – Backboard

C – Catch-and-Shoot

For this to make the most sense, I’ll describe them out of order.

Backboard

Use the backboard more.  Use it when it’s appropriate.  Find more ways to make it appropriate.

When you shoot at the rim, a lot of things have to be within limited tolerances for the shot to go in.  For example, the speed of the shot and the height of the arc have to correlate for the ball to go through the hoop.  Too much arc and speed?  The shot sails over the basket.  Too little arc and speed?  Most likely short by a foot or more.  Proper speed with too little arc?  A long hard rebound if the ball clears the rim.  A short hard rebound if it doesn’t. 

Also, if your body has too much momentum in any direction, that momentum is transferred to the ball and often results in a miss.  Square up to shoot, duck down and to your left as a defender runs by, and then quickly square up and let it fly?  You’ll probably see the ball make the same “left-to-right” motion inside the rim that you made to elude the defender.  In mimicking your motion, the ball will also elude becoming a made field goal.

And if you fall backward as you shoot (as opposed to consciously taking a well-practiced “fall away” a la Earl Monroe), the ball often hits inside the back rim on a hard angle and rebounds long on a somewhat similar path.  It’s like watching planes land and take off at the airport.

But when you use the backboard, you can shoot a bit too high or with a bit too much power or at a less-than-ideal angle and still hit the shot.  You can shoot on the move without squaring up perfectly  If a player is slumping, he needs to eliminate the things that might affect his shot until his shooting is back to a level where he can shoot at the rim and have a decent chance of making the shot.

One reason that the backboard is often ideal is that a player who’s moving too fast or is somewhat out of balance can still shoot the ball of an area of the backboard that will bring him success.  And if the shot’s a bit too hard?  That’s when it will hit the inside of the front of the rim and stay above the cylinder (often hitting the backboard again), giving the shot multiple opportunities to become a make.

My personal belief is that shooting off the backboard is something that should be done at every practice.  Maybe the backboard’s only used for a quarter of the shots that you take when you’re working on your game before and after practice.  But being used to shooting off the backboard in practice will make it more natural for you to do it in a game.

Angles

As much as possible, you should position yourself so that you’re not only in position to shoot from a standstill but that you still have a viable shot if you have to dribble a step to your left or to your right (“ULR” for Up, Left, and Right).  Being in shooting range is great but if you need to shoot (shot clock running down, for example) and have to drive right to get free, it does you no good if driving right puts you at an angle where you don’t have a good shot at the rim and can’t use the backboard to bail you out.

This is probably the easiest of the ABC’s because you can figure out if you’re at a good ULR angle long before you ever get the ball.  If you set up and then realize that taking one dribble to your right, for example, puts you in a bad ULR position, in many cases you can change your position by a foot or so, putting yourself at a good ULR angle.  If the play requires you to stand in a certain spot that’s at a bad ULR angle, you may be able to take an extra step towards the pass and put yourself at a good ULR angle as you’re receiving the ball.  If you’re aware of how important angles are to your options, you’ll know what to look for and how to correct it before the ball ever comes your way.

Too many times, a player moves right or left and realizes too late that the shot he’s in the middle of taking isn’t a good one.  He misses because it’s a bad place to shoot from but, in his mind, a miss is a miss and that miss is chalked up to mis-shooting rather than mis-positioning.  Putting yourself at a good ULR angle and having many good shooting options is just smart basketball.

Catch-and-Shoot

Assuming that you’re in a location where you’re comfortable shooting and often make the shot, one of the best ways to make that shot during a slump is to shoot off the catch and not off the dribble.  Why?  Because during a catch-and-shoot, you’ve already made your decision about whether or not you have a good shot before you’ve even received the ball.  There’s less thinking to do and fewer physical steps to take.  You catch the ball, square up, and shoot.  No muss, no fuss.

Dribbling before the shot, however, adds a decision to the process (“Should I shoot from here?” “No”: “How about from here?”).  It gets the conscious mind involved and doing that during a shot isn’t going to end the slump.  They don’t say that a shooter who’s lighting it up is “unconscious” because he’s thinking while he’s shooting.  You want to think as much as necessary and not any more than that.

Also, it’s a little more involved to shoot off the dribble than off the pass.  There can be more momentum in your body and in the ball; there are additional physical steps involved in changing from dribbling to shooting, etc.  Nothing that’s a problem under normal circumstances but when you’re trying to get out of a slump, every little bit helps.

For a “pass first” point guard in a shooting slump, using the Catch-and-Shoot can be vital.  If the point guard has been in “distribution mode”, he’s been looking for someone to set up for a good shot.  To switch from “distribution mode” to “scoring mode” adds some mental and physical steps that it would be better to avoid during slump breaking.  But if the point guard gives up the ball and then shoots when he receives the pass, he’s had time to do all the things listed earlier in the article and to prepare himself to make the shot.

In Conclusion

What’s common to all these techniques is “simplifying”.  Knowing before you have the ball that you can go straight up, right, or left and have a good shot eliminates the need to figure that out after the catch or after you pick up your dribble.  Using the backboard keeps you from having to coordinate so many things so precisely in order to score.  And shooting off the catch eliminates the need for evaluating if and when you’re going to shoot because you’ve already decided. 

You’re not skipping steps; you’re just taking those steps in a way that makes it easier for you.  If it takes an hour to pack for a trip, it’s going to take an hour whether you pack the night before or you pack right before you leave for the airport.  But for most of us, when we spend that hour packing is going to make a lot of difference in determining how much we enjoyed the trip.

These techniques work at all levels of play.  Using them now will make NBA games more fun for the players to play.  Coincidentally, it’ll make those games more fun for the fans to watch, too.

The coaches seem confused and not very confident at times.  The players seem confused and not very confident at times.  Some of the reasons for what’s going wrong so far impact one group or the other; some of the reasons impact both groups at the same time.  All of them need to be addressed.

I.          They’ve gotten away from doing what they’re good at and comfortable with. 

            A.        Most of the time, they’re not running Mike D’Antoni’s offense (Coaches edition). 

            “Seven seconds or less” is supposed to refer to getting off a shot, not getting the ball over half court.  The Knicks have gone from being at the top of the league in scoring last year to being #24 this year.  They’ve fallen below the very significant 46% in shooting twice this year and, not surprisingly, lost both of those games.  Since they only win about 20% of the games where they shoot less than 46%, they need to get their shooting percentages up and do it quickly.

            They need to get back to running Mike’s offense immediately.  Not doing so is impacting the players.  But it’s also affecting the coaches.  Let’s deal with that, first.

            Except for Mike Woodson, this is a staff that’s run an offense based on a particular philosophy for almost a decade.  There’s been talk about Mike needing to make changes to accommodate his personnel and some of that is true.  But it’s more to accommodate Stat and Melo by tweaking Mike’s offense.  Not to go to a different offensive philosophy altogether.

            Mike D’Antoni is not a coach you bring in unless you want his high octane offense.  You don’t bring him in and then say “Let’s run the Triangle”.  Would you cast Lawrence Oliver in “Dude, Where’s My Car?”  Would you cast Ashton Kutcher in “Hamlet”?  Would you cast Peter Graves as the pilot in “Airplane”?  (Okay, bad example). 

            Expecting Mike to run a slowdown offense is like hiring Larry Brown and expecting that you can keep him from talking to the media.  (Okay, another bad example).

            They need to get back to running Mike’s offense so that the coaches feel more confident and so they can use their last decade of experience to manage the game.

            B.         Most of the time, they’re not running Mike D’Antoni’s offense (Players’ edition). 

            One of the beautiful things about Mike’s offense (of which I’m a big fan) is that it eliminates many of the obstacles that normally hinder the player’s ability to make the shot.  For the most part, a player knows that if he’s in his shooting range, he’s allowed to take the shot.  As a peak performance coach, I can tell you that this is huge.

            But now the players look confused.  Instead of open shot opportunities being created by moving the ball up court quickly, they’re being faced with “creating” a shot after the defense has already set up.  Or shooting from areas they’re not really comfortable in.  Or both.

            In addition to the speed of the game, another cause of problems is that Tyson Chandler (who I’m very happy is on the team) is being played as the “5” on offense as well as defense.  This has impacted Amar’e Stoudemire’s room to work in the paint and sent him out to the 3 point line.  Not good for him and not good for the players who should be standing where Amar’e is now standing.  They might want to look at playing Chandler in the high post or the medium-to-high post extended.  Room for Amar’e.  Room for Tyson.  Room at the 3 point line.  Two big men to rebound.  Just a thought…

            C.         Most of the time, they’re not running Mike D’Antoni’s offense (Current point guard edition). 

            There’s a lot of talk about what Toney Douglas can’t do as a point guard.  And in many ways, he’s not the ideal point guard for Mike’s offense.  But that can be easily fixed, even if the fix needs to happen over and over.

            A “pass first” point guard is ideal for Mike’s system because the system creates open shots and a pass first point guard will get the ball to the player who happens to be open.  Toney often thinks of his shot first but he’s got the talent to run this offense effectively with some help. 

            A major difference between a pass first point guard and a shoot first point guard is in his decision making process.  One is looking for the open man and the other is looking for an opening to shoot.  If the Knicks take the decision making out of the start of the play, Toney’s got the skills to make the appropriate pass or to run the pick-and-roll. 

            How do they take the decision making out of the start of the play?  By calling a play.  If Toney knows that he’s supposed to get the ball to Carmelo, he’ll do it.  If he knows that he’s supposed to get the ball to Stat, he’ll do it.  He’s not a rebel who’s going to fire up a shot just to show Mike who’s playing the point.

            Set up some clear rules for Toney: If a play is called, initiate the play.  If it breaks down and you have a shot, take it.  If no play is called, shoot if you’ve got it or pass if you see an open teammate.  No muss, no fuss. 

            Not only will providing a play to Toney eliminate a decision-making challenge, it’ll allow the coaches to make sure that the right people are taking enough shots.  See “What Goes Around Needs to be Spread Around” for how shot frequency impacts the Knicks’ 46% abilities.

            Try calling plays for Toney for a few games and see how well it works.

            D.        Most of the time, they’re not running Mike D’Antoni’s offense (Future point guard edition). 

            There’s been a lot of talk about “when Baron Davis gets healthy” and how he’s going to improve the team.  I agree.

            But when there were rumors about Baron signing with the Knicks, there were a lot of people asking which Baron they were signing.  The happy one who plays his best or the disgruntled one who doesn’t play as well?  Legitimate questions.

            Did you see Baron get interviewed on TNT last night?  Did you see his eyes light up when he was asked if he was excited about playing in Mike’s offense?  I thought he was going to drool.

            We know which Baron we’re going to see if he’s running Mike’s system.  Which Baron would we see if he was handed the ball and told to run the four corners?  ‘Nuf said.

II.         They’ve got to do some things they’re not comfortable doing (Coaches edition)

            In this shortened season, it’s vital to balance a player’s minutes so that he’s rested enough to play at a high level and in the game enough for it to make a difference.  This means having to play as many players as it’s feasible to play (yes, I know they can only play 5 at a time).  They can dress 13 men this season.  And if #13 can make a legitimate contribution to a game, this is a great season to give him some burn.

            But Mike has never seemed comfortable playing more than 8 or, sometimes, 9 a night.  He’s long been criticized for playing his starters for too many minutes over the course of a season. 

            Can he go deep into his bench while avoiding having to focus too much on substitution patterns?  Of course he can.  I wouldn’t have asked the question otherwise!

            If the Knicks were to play their bottom 5 guys (#9-13 or #8-12) like UNC used to do with their Blue team, they’d realize a number of benefits.  This “Blue” team would go in as a unit and play 3-5 minutes to give the starters a rest.  They’d press and harass the other team all over the floor, forcing the opposition to burn more energy than they want to. 

            Potentially, you could give them their 5 minutes by spanning the 1^st and 2^nd quarters and the 3^rd and 4^th quarters and the starters would get extra rest without losing any additional playing time.

            Since they’d play as a unit, they’d practice as a unit and could be handled by an assistant coach.  Other teams would actually have to prepare for the Blue team, taking time away from their preparation against the starters. 

            And since they’re a unit, it’s easy to count them as “1” when thinking about how many players are being juggled.  These kinds of mental tricks can work wonders. 

            Try it for a couple of weeks and see how well it works.

III.       Stop shooting if you’re not sure that you should shoot (Please, please, please edition)

            One of the things I noticed during the Knicks-Lakers game was that, many times, Knicks’ shooters had the ball and an open shot.  But instead of shooting, they hesitated, decided to take the shot, and then took it.  Do you know what else I noticed?  Every time they hesitated and then shot, they missed.  Not really a surprise.

            Pro tip (or at least a tip to the pros): if you get the ball in range and aren’t sure that you should shoot it, you shouldn’t.  Pass the ball or dribble but don’t bother to shoot unless you’re trying to beat the shot clock.  Almost always, if you hesitate, you’re going to miss.

            Do you know how a player should know that he’s going to shoot the ball?  He’s on the floor and his team has possession.  That doesn’t mean that he’s actually going to shoot but he should always be prepared to shoot.

            That means knowing whether or not he’s in range.  That means that, if he’s just come in after a long stint on the bench, he knows if he’s warmed up and stretched out enough to shoot.  That means being prepared to square up and shoot if his teammate gets in trouble and bails himself out by passing to the open man.  That means knowing that everything that’s required to take a good shot is already set. 

            Remember, even if the play is called for you, you can decide not to shoot if you catch, turn, and are swarmed by defenders or otherwise feel unready.  But it’s a lot quicker to know you’re all set and then back off the shot than it is to catch the ball wide open and then figure out if you’re in your range, etc., etc., etc.

            And if you have any doubt about whether you should shoot, PLEASE DON’T SHOOT!!!.  (Thanks. I feel better now)

IV.       In Conclusion.

            There are many small things that can be tweaked but the Knicks will be better off dealing with these bigger issues.  Basically, it boils down to do what you do well and find creative ways to deal with situations that make you uncomfortable. 

            Good advice for the Knicks.  Good advice for most of us.

The game in question?  LAL @ Utah.  The problem?  The Lakers are playing a game at high altitude the night after playing a game at sea level (or “C” level, if you didn’t like their loss last night).  (NOTE: In my eagerness for a reason to post this, I misread the schedule. Tonight’s game is in LA.  The issue is still an issue, but not tonight.)

There’s this thing called “oxygen” that is vital to a body’s performance.  At high altitudes, the air is thinner and there’s less oxygen per breath than there is at lower altitudes.  And when people who don’t live at high altitudes suddenly go from a lower altitude to a higher altitude, it takes their bodies time to adjust to getting less oxygen every time they breathe.

Playing against Denver or Utah in the first game of a back-to-back is much less of a problem.  Teams will fly in the day before the game and arrive at a reasonable hour (late afternoon or early-to-mid evening).  This gives their bodies more time to adjust.  Maybe they’re not adjusting to the same level that the Nuggets or Jazz players have adjusted to but they’re at least adjusting to a level where reduced oxygen won’t have a major impact on the game.

But a team playing in the second game of a back-to-back (or, in the Lakers’ case tonight, the third game of a back-to-back-to-back) is going to fly out after finishing the first game and probably won’t arrive until well after midnight.  So they have much less time to adjust to the thinner air and their bodies aren’t at full strength when they take the court. 

Add that to being tired from the game the night before; getting less sleep because of the much later travel; and having less time to prepare for the upcoming game (issues that all teams face for the second game of back-to-backs) and you can see how this little thing called oxygen can turn what should be a win or a close loss for the visiting team into a route for the home team.

The NBA has a great scheduler and he needs to add a couple more rules to his algorithm:

1.  If the away team for the 2nd game of a back-to-back played game 1 at high altitude, they can play game 2 at high altitude as well.

2.  If the away team for the 2nd game of a back-to-back played game 1 at low altitude (anywhere but Denver or Utah), they can’t play game 2 at high altitude.

Obviously there may be times when these rules must be violated but doing so should be the exception.  And unless Denver or Utah plays at sea level for an extended road trip, these rules don’t need to apply to them.  Their players will adjust to the lower oxygen must more quickly because they live in it for so much of the year.

It’s a little ironic that teams that play in arenas named for “energy” companies (The Pepsi Center and EnergySolutions Arena) have been benefiting somewhat from their opponents’ lack of energy.  Maybe they can negotiate oxygen level requirements in the next CBA.  Until then, changing the schedule will provide the “altitude adjustment” that will give their opponents more of a fighting chance.

Fan-atics were anxious, at least so they said
To see how many players dropped Jordans for Keds;
While Ma-ma in her jersey and I in my cap
Looked forward to hoops – no more CBA crap

When onto my timeline, the one that’s on Twitter
Were some fans’ b-ball tweets and one from a half-witter
They all made good sense, well except for the crank
The Twitter half-witter?  Just some guy named ‘Frank’

Some noise from my street; To the window I flew
Will I finally see Santa?  “He’s real” I just knew
Saw a man dressed in red – did I just get my wish?
I never knew Santa looked like the Commish!

Drove an apple red Porsche; I said “Your ride looks sweet.
Was it all bought and paid for by Arison’s Tweet?”
He said “That might be.  He got fined lots of loot.
‘Nuf to buy the red Porsche and my nifty red suit!”

“So what did you bring?” I asked Santa-Commish
“I tried to be good.  Will you grant me my wish?”
“Good, bad, or indifferent – you all get to see
An NBA season.  Game one – TNT”

He whistled and shouted and called them by names
“On Christmas we’re showing 5 back-to-back games.
There’s Boston at New York; Miami at Mavs.
All big market teams, unlike T-wolves or Cavs”

“Game 3 is Bulls-Lakers and to end our day -
The Warriors host other team from L.A.”
“But what about Game 4?”  I asked anxiously
“Will you tell me the teams I can watch on TV?”

‘Game 4 came about because someone was naughty.
Coach said “Don’t play Christmas” and said it quite haughty.
But we’re a free country, so Coach had his say.
Now mine’s “Magic on Christmas play Thunder – away”‘

He then jumped in the car, turned the shiny new key
“Like ‘Twilight Zone’ we now control your TV”
He then drove away and said “Lots more to do.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a “How U?’ “

According to Wiktionary, a “perfect storm” is “(a) situation where a calamity is caused by the convergence and amplifying interaction of a number of factors”.  We’ll look at some of those factors and the calamity they’re about to cause.

There’s talk about decertifying the NBPA and sitting out the season while the situation plays out in court.  But the time for that to work in the best interest of the players was last summer.  There’s up to a 45-day wait between the time that 130 players vote to request decertification and the time that the actual vote for decertification can take place.  That means missing all of December on top of missing all of November before even finding out if the votes are there to decertify.  If they are, unless the courts rule in favor of the players, any deal made after Wednesday will be much worse than what was offered by the owners this past weekend.

Ultimately, in a business “war” between billionaires (the owners) and millionaires (the players), the billionaires are going to come out on top.  Not only are they supported by their significantly greater resources, the owners, unlike the players, don’t have an expiration date on how long they can fight the war and still remain owners.  The players, on the other hand, lose valuable, and limited, earning potential as they grow older with every month that passes.  Players who planned to retire after this season might never play NBA basketball again.

The factors that are “converging and amplifying” and creating the perfect storm are financial.  The first one is that the players received an extra check during the summer because, for the first time in years, the owners didn’t spend 57% of the BRI on salaries during the prior season.  Although it looks like that check was a good thing, it takes the sting out of the players losing pay checks in November.  Combine the “bounty” of the extra check with the second factor – the “ultimatum” and its “drop dead” date coming before the players have actually lost that first paycheck – and it looks and feels to many players like they’re in a better position than they are.  As San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt famously said, the players “haven’t felt enough pain yet”.  While he’s been criticized for what he said, the statement was incredibly accurate.

There have been some moves that I have considered mistakes during the negotiations and some of those can be attributed to negotiating for the first time in the age of Twitter.  But what if what has looked like a major error wasn’t an error but an attempt to gauge the NBPA’s reaction?  When you remember that David Stern is a very experienced negotiator, this becomes more of a likelihood than a possibility.  The “major error”?  Making demands of the Players’ Association.

The owners demanded that the NBPA accept a 50-50 split of the BRI as a precondition to scheduling the next meeting and the players walk away.  The owners made another demand at the end of the meeting that Stern missed due to illness and the players walked away.  If the owners made demands twice and the players walked away twice, doesn’t it stand to reason that the next time the owners made demands that the players would walk away then, too?  And wouldn’t the owners know this?  Yet they still issued their last offer as a demand. 

The players, true to form, said “We’ve been given an ultimatum and our answer is that’s not acceptable to us” (Derek Fisher, according to Marc Berman of the NY Post).  And, “These are professional basketball players…How do you think they feel about threats?” (Jeffrey Kessler, according to Chris Sheridan at SheridanHoops.com.)

Why would the hard line faction among the owners want the players to walk away when there’s a take it or leave it offer on the table?  Because, as Stern warned the players, the next offer would give the players just 47% of the BRI.

Think about it for a second: it’s December or January and the players, having lost a month’s worth of pay or more, come back to the table and are no longer trying to keep what they had previously agreed to (51%).  Instead, they’re trying to recover some of what they lost.  In a weakened financial state, they push to get the owners to sweeten the deal from 47% of BRI up to 48%.  Eventually, they might even get it.  But that 1% would require them to make concessions and cost them a lot in lost game checks.

That scenario is the calamity that I referred to at the beginning of the article.

A better scenario is this: first, the players must put away the automatic reaction of walking away when demands are made.  It was fine the first time because it showed that they’d stand up for themselves, a message that was worth sending.  But now it has become a means for the owners to control the players and that control is something the players need to take back.  If the owners make demands or do something that makes it look like they’re putting the players down, the players need to respond, not react, and put themselves on the higher ground.  This article by CBS Sports’ Ken Berger gives a great example of this.

Second, the NBPA negotiating committee and representatives need to use the time between now and the Wednesday afternoon deadline that Stern imposed to find out how the players feel about the current deal; to see if Stern and the owners will compromise some on the remaining system issues if the players agree to the BRI split; and to see how much better they can do in this deal.  They can spend time on Thursday taking a decertification vote but they can’t spend time on Thursday sweetening the deal that expired on Wednesday.

Third, David Stern needs to find a way to make this latest, best deal more palatable to the players.  To do that, he has to give something that impacts the majority of the players (re: voters).  That seems to be tied to any salary cap but may be tied to some other system issue, or combination of system issues, as well. 

Some of these negotiations have seemed like a profile from Criminal Minds (“the Unsub can only be satisfied by inflicting humiliation and massive pain on his victim”).  However, at the end of the day both sides need to be able to declare a victory.  As I said in “Are the NBA and NBPA Negotiating Different Agreements?”, neither side can afford to come out of this looking like Randy Couture has mopped the floor with them (“Sign the deal, Princess.”)

The players are going to have to take some medicine.  Stern needs to do a Mary Poppins impersonation and find a way to give that medicine with “a spoonful of sugar”, despite some of the owners’ desire to have that medicine delivered in suppository form.

The players can choose to focus the next couple of days sailing into a storm that will likely capsize them or they can choose to focus on navigating around the storm and having a pleasurable cruise.  As the Grail Knight suggested in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”, they need to “choose wisely”.