Chamberlain Theory: The Real Price of Anarchy in Basketball

[Doctor MJ]

Hey gang,

I wrote an article on my blog about the price of anarchy in basketball. Would appreciate your thoughts.

The gist:
-Price of Anarchy in basketball is real
-Braess' Paradox did not cause Ewing theory
-The tale of Wilt & team improvement when he stopped scoring so much.

http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/ ... asketball/

[Vinsanity420]

Is this basically a fancy way of stating a balanced offense is > an offense that relies on 1 star scorer?

[Doctor MJ]

Is this basically a fancy way of stating a balanced offense is > an offense that relies on 1 star scorer?

Well, you could use it to argue for that position, and the Braess' Paradox stuff really summarizes to that pretty well. However, I'm pushing it in another direction. Here's the meat of the conclusion:

There is more to judging the effectiveness of a scorer, or a player in general, than simply his most obvious related statistics, and pursuit of those obvious statistics without proper awareness for the rest of the court can erase most if not all of a scorer’s positive impact, even when those obvious statistics are as great as any in all of history.

Which also probably doesn't seem that out there, but I'm hoping that the thoughts along the way are of interest to the crowd.

[ronnymac2]

Good blog post Doc.


In my opinion, attacking the basket and scoring buckets efficiently comes down to the offense manipulating the defense. The offense always has to remember that not only are they a five man unit with a singular goal, but that the defense is a five man unit with a singular goal.

Building chemistry on defense is easier because the five pieces don't have an object- the ball- to fight over. There is less selfishness, and thus a greater desire to accomplish the common goal. The offense's advantage is the defense is reactive to it. The offense always makes the first move. The more you manipulate the defense, the more chaotic the formation of the five-man defense becomes. Hopefully for the offense, the defense makes a mistake (in the NBA, before 24 seconds). Hopefully for the defense, their chemistry + combined effort of the individual pieces prevail, and the defense takes the ball away some how without the ball going in the basket.

The problem for coaches is figuring out how to best manipulate a defense with his five pieces.

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others. Ironically, Orlando found this out in the 09 Finals, right after they took Lebron's team out. Orlando's plan is to spread the floor with 3 point shooters and let them play a nice give-and-take game with their dominant C. I don't think Orlando lost because Dwight had limited post moves at the time. I think they lost because they couldn't manipulate the opposing defense enough with the strategy of spacing the floor with jump shooters. When LA took those 3's away, Orlando's perimeter offensive players seemed to have no idea what to do. Pietrus and Lewis looked clueless as they put the ball on the floor and took awkward looking floaters.

This strategy of spacing the floor with a bunch of spot-up shooters is a dangerous trend in the modern NBA imo, because it ignores the other facets of playing off the ball that are actually more effective in the long run at manipulating a defense. Cutting, offensive rebounding, slashing off of the cross-court pass/inside-out pass, simply moving without the ball to manipulate the guy guarding you- i.e. a piece of the defense. Moving the ball unselfishly, a la Pierce, Ray, and KG in 08. Those are just as effective.

A superstar making swing passes makes an effective offense.

Look at Jordan and Pippen in the Triangle. They were wing players who weren't elite outside shooters and handled the ball. They were great off-ball players, great offensive rebounders for their position. MJ moved without the ball well. The triangle made it harder than ever to guard Jordan because instead of MJ creating with a defense able to focus on him and his effect on teammates, he was attacking at points in time when the defense had no clue it was coming. The triangle is a great offensive system imo because it rewards player movement and ball movement, instead of just standing there and watching your superstar go to work and simply playing off of him.

Look at Shaq. Hill in Orlando was a horrible coach because his strategy when Shaq had the ball was simply to space the floor. You can do so many more effective things with a dominant offensive player like Shaq. The triangle took advantage of that, and Shaq had his greatest team and individual success because of that.

A more modern example is Miami. Wade and James are underrated long range shooters imo, but that certainly isn't their strength. By my observations, they are doing just fine together though. Why? Because they take advantage of each other's presence on the court. Wade slashes from the top of the key and gets into the paint...he passes out to Chalmers in the corner, who swings it to Lebron on the wing. Now instead of Lebron driving into the teeth of a set defense EVERY SINGLE TIME like he did in Cleveland, he is driving by a recovering defender and into the heart of an already chaotic defense (chaotic because they had to stop Wade). Miami will get:

1. Another series of passes resulting in another slash by a superstar

2. An efficient shot at the rim by James

3. Free throws for James

4. A 3 from one of their spot-up shooters

All it takes is a little patience. Just manipulate the defense enough, and you'll get your efficient shot.

You don't manipulate a defense with one guy doing all the heavy lifting, regardless of his talent. He can be the key. He can be the base on which your offense is built. But he can't do everything. That's why in the playoffs, your fourth, fifth, and sixth plays/options/best players always make the difference. You can't make a difference if your role is to stand 25 feet away from the place where you want to put the ball. It makes things too easy for a defense. In a 7-game series, those first few options will be taken away when it matters most.

You need a plan B. You need a plan F, too.

I totally agree with the Chamberlain Theory. Even what looks to be the most dominant scorer ever can have a net "blah" effect on his team's offense in general. Who better to represent that than the king of stats?

[Doctor MJ]

Damn! That was a powerhouse of a post Ronny.

One thing, re: the Heatles. I'm not a naysayer about their chances of great success even if they don't make any more major improvements - but their offense to this point still isn't as good as peak Cleveland's was. Shouldn't the Heat be able to do better than that if they're really using their talent well?

[kabstah]

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others.

Not sure I agree here. I think what Lebron's last two seasons in Cleveland proved was that you can have one guy dominate the ball and do all the work. They had top 5-ish offense running LeISO, and their flameouts in the playoffs (particularly 2009) had more to do with their defense. You espouse the virtues of the triangle, but I'd like to note that the Lakers -- running the triangle with more offensive talent to boot -- didn't fare that much better. In fact, I believe the Lakers were worse offensively against the Magic in the 2009 Finals than the Cavs in the ECF.

It's not limited to just Lebron either. The Lakers managed two seasons of good-if-not-elite offenses between 2005-2007 with a very, very Kobe-centric offense. I think you'd be very hard pressed to convincingly argue that the Lakers would've been better off taking the ball out of Kobe's hands and letting Odom/Smush/Kwame get more touches.

[floppymoose]

I think the "Ewing theory" may also apply to Monta Ellis on the Warriors last year. The Warriors were much better when he was off the floor. But I don't think it was because he sucked, but rather because he was overused, and keyed on by the opponents as the Warriors became very predictable.

[ronnymac2]

I'm going to get back to this in the next few days. That's a promise.

[Dipper 13]

I totally agree with the Chamberlain Theory. Even what looks to be the most dominant scorer ever can have a net "blah" effect on his team's offense in general. Who better to represent that than the king of stats?

Jet Magazine - Apr 7, 1966





1966 EDF G 1-4 Recap:


Game 1:

Sixers hit with the flu + 2 week layoff = 19 turnovers in a 19 point loss.

Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers . But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.




Game 2:




Game 3:

Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall




Game 4: Chamberlain had the block at the end of regulation to force OT.







The Evening Independent - Apr 18, 1966





Schenectady Gazette - Aug 24, 1966

[Paydro70]

Love the misspelling of "feud" in the last headline.

It's absolutely possible to have offensive success where a team depends very heavily on a single player (or pair of players). It's also possible to have success with a balanced team where everyone uses exactly 1/5 of the possessions. The struggle is in determining how to distribute the shots (which of course goes hand in hand with how to produce the shots) in such a way as to maximize a lineup's offensive potential. For the Cavs, I'm pretty sure LeIso really was the best option they had, and they were right to put it into his hands as much as they did.

As for the Heat... we'll see what happens after another year. The improvement from the start of the season to today is so stark that determining the best way for that offense to operate seems premature. Heck, it might even be that LeIso is the best way to run that team too... or it might be that the team IS using its talent ideally, it just isn't that great outside the big 3 and will improve with another couple deals.

[ronnymac2]

Damn! That was a powerhouse of a post Ronny.

One thing, re: the Heatles. I'm not a naysayer about their chances of great success even if they don't make any more major improvements - but their offense to this point still isn't as good as peak Cleveland's was. Shouldn't the Heat be able to do better than that if they're really using their talent well?

OK.........

Thanks Doc.

Well, yes theoretically they should. They are very close to peak Cleveland right now (currently comfortably fourth, which ties the highest finish CLE ever had, though CLE's raw Offensive Rating was higher I believe). Still, I think Miami will trend upwards as they continue to get more comfortable with each other. Their offense in clutch situations is getting better and better, as evidenced by their improved record in close games. Wade commented on this recently as well.

I also think this will lead to more effective offense in the playoffs, especially in clutch situations in the playoffs. Remember how CLE would just end up predictably going to Lebron every time down the court at the end of games? With this improved offense with greater threats and talent, they won't need to do that anymore. I think this will positively affect the team in multiple ways.

1.) James (and Wade) won't wear down as the series goes on.

2.) Guys will have more energy and focus on defense since Wade doesn't have to think "I NEED to take over for these guys" and Bron doesn't need to do the same.

3.) Most importantly!!! The offense gets less predictable. At the end of these playoff games, even the smartest, best defenses won't know how to play Miami. Miami can get more trustworthy players involved in plays down the stretch, which manipulates the defense. It also allows Miami to be more opportunistic, what with all that pressure on the defense. You'll see Miami end up with more success off broken plays (offensive rebounds, easier baskets, etc.) in the playoffs than CLE ever did. That's my prediction anyway.


Something overlooked is the amount of energy it must take to slow Miami down. With CLE, defensive players essentially just had to slow Lebron's initial foray, recover back, wait for the reset and do it again. With Miami, that kick-out goes to Wade, who has that extra step on a defender, or Bosh, who is a ridiculous threat against a recovering defense. Then the process I described in the previous post begins. The chaos ensues, and defensive players need to move around a lot. No more standing next to Mo Williams 25 feet away from the basket.

Imagine what teams are going to feel like come the fourth quarter of playoff games. Offense and defense is going to be difficult.

I think that may be why Miami's pace is so slow despite having two ultra-effective fast-break players themselves (who do seem to run a lot this year). It's because of Miami's ability to slow down the other team with their own offense (in addition to a strong defense of course).

I'm pretty sure Miami is surrendering more points per game on the fast break than last year. However, Miami's defense was a special focus last year because that was the only way they could win. Now they have the offense. They were also slower last year, which was a strategic tactic on Spoelstra's part.

I'm going to start my blog with my first post btw. haha It'll be sometime this weekend. I'd like to thank you for sparking the idea with your post.

[ronnymac2]

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others.

Not sure I agree here. I think what Lebron's last two seasons in Cleveland proved was that you can have one guy dominate the ball and do all the work. They had top 5-ish offense running LeISO, and their flameouts in the playoffs (particularly 2009) had more to do with their defense. You espouse the virtues of the triangle, but I'd like to note that the Lakers -- running the triangle with more offensive talent to boot -- didn't fare that much better. In fact, I believe the Lakers were worse offensively against the Magic in the 2009 Finals than the Cavs in the ECF.

It's not limited to just Lebron either. The Lakers managed two seasons of good-if-not-elite offenses between 2005-2007 with a very, very Kobe-centric offense. I think you'd be very hard pressed to convincingly argue that the Lakers would've been better off taking the ball out of Kobe's hands and letting Odom/Smush/Kwame get more touches.

Good points. See my last post.


To be honest, I think you need a certain amount of talent as well. Otherwise, it truly is better to just run the same play for the superstar and let him make decisions. Cleveland's offensive talent sucked, as we can all see now. They were too perfectly built around one guy- they are all support players. Running LeIso really was the best play they could do. I think Mike Brown may have been underrated based on that. You can't be creative with your offense when the person who structured the team built it around one guy's offense.

It's amazing James was able to do what he did to begin with.

[ElGee]

A ronnymac blog? Sweet. Looking forward to it.

[Doctor MJ]

Dipper 13, GREAT articles man!

ronny blog = cool. I look forward to it, and I'm stoked I helped encourage you.

I think your points about the Miami offense being more robust are quite reasonable, but I think the picture you paint of having an unstoppable series of Plan Bs, Cs, and Ds is far from happening, and so I'm disappointed. The Heat may win a ton of championships, but I'd just so much to see what it would look like to actually see a hyper-efficient offense clearly superior to history, and I don't think we will.

[ronnymac2]

http://ronnymacswire.blogspot.com/

I'm with you in regards to your disappointment. Sometimes, I see James still playing iso-ball, forgetting that he has talented teammates now instead of the dreadful garbage CLE surrounded him with. When that happens is when you get the diminishing returns and the whole "two ball-dominant guys can't co-exist!" in practice. That has held the offense back.


It will be interesting to see how Miami's offense continues to change. What about next year when they can add to the team through free agency? What about when both Miller and Haslem return. The dynamics of the offense change with those two. Haslem is an active stretch four who has good chemistry with Wade, while Miller not only shoots well but can also handle the ball, moving James/Bosh/Wade off-ball. Those are huge boosts for them imo.

[ElGee]

http://ronnymacswire.blogspot.com/

I'm with you in regards to your disappointment. Sometimes, I see James still playing iso-ball, forgetting that he has talented teammates now instead of the dreadful garbage CLE surrounded him with. When that happens is when you get the diminishing returns and the whole "two ball-dominant guys can't co-exist!" in practice. That has held the offense back.


It will be interesting to see how Miami's offense continues to change. What about next year when they can add to the team through free agency? What about when both Miller and Haslem return. The dynamics of the offense change with those two. Haslem is an active stretch four who has good chemistry with Wade, while Miller not only shoots well but can also handle the ball, moving James/Bosh/Wade off-ball. Those are huge boosts for them imo.

The Knicks loss last month was a great example of this. There was no transition in the second half, James grew frustrated (didn't have his explosion after spraining his ankle) and ran a bunch of slow iso plays.

The best offenses in NBA history attack weak points, constantly. It's not a coincidence that Magic and Nash ran the best offenses, because they both had the same approach: give the ball to a guy who first forced defensive help because of his own scoring ability and then second made the best possible pass to expose the defense. Surround them with good offensive players (Nash a PnR guy and shooters, Magic a big and guys to cut/run) and it just never let up.

Jordan's Bulls offense had similar qualities. The decisions were quick, the ball movement spectacular, the player movement constant. I don't think people quite appreciate how much better Miami can get as chemistry improves and players like Haslem and Miller are added to the mix.

Their halfcourt offense, for much of the year, has been (1) LBJ drive (2) Wade drive (3) LBJ/Wade Pick n pop with a big (4) Bosh mid-post. When they synergize these events -- that is, organically identifying the best option quickly and attack it -- the offense should be awesome. We will see in the years to come...

[ronnymac2]

Haa...I remember that game. That was awful offense by James. He really did think he was in Cleveland again.