HoopsHype.com Columns

The league that can't shoot straight
by Graham Flashner / November 21, 2002

Maybe it’s November rust. Maybe it will be as simple as NBA executive vice-president Stu Jackson’s comment during a similar drought in 2000: “Typically, scoring does increase as the year progresses”.

Or maybe, the NBA now stands for “No Baskets Allowed”.

How pathetic was the Nuggets-Pistons contest? The halftime score (29-28) set a new NBA record for first-half futility, breaking a mark first set in the prehistoric, no-shot-clock days of 1955. On the same night Detroit and Denver achieved NBA infamy, the Miami Heat managed 65 points in a valiant 30-point loss to the Washington Wizards. Only a week earlier, the Shaq-less, world champion Lakers tallied a franchise-low 70 in a loss to the mighty Cavaliers. In a league that prides itself on its explosive one-on-one talent, its triangle offenses, and rule changes designed to increase offensive flow and tempo, the inability of a professional team to hit 70 points on a night is inexcusable. But it’s precisely the league’s emphasis on individual talent that is largely to blame.

Only a decade ago, NBA teams averaged over 106 points-per-game. That may not sound like a big deal, until you realize that, through the first 10 games of the 2002-03 campaign, only four teams hit the century mark on an average night, with the Tracy McGrady-led Magic leading at 104.4 points a game.

In 1990, the lowest-scoring team in the NBA – the expansion Timberwolves – weighed in with a 95.2 average. So far in 2002-3, only nine teams are topping that figure. Six teams are averaging under 90, and the worst-scoring team – the dreary Nuggets—is struggling at an embarrassing 76.4 clip. Teams are on the whole are averaging 92.7 a game, which may explain why there are thousands more seats than people in places like New Orleans and Miami. Since NBA fans don’t generally wear T-shirts sporting their favorite rebounder or shot-blocker, this will eventually become a marketing as well as an aesthetic problem. But if you’re looking for this alarming trend to fade away like Chris Webber in the fourth quarter, forget it. Some points to consider:

Which came first? Great defense, or bad shooting?

No question, defense is better now that at any time in the league’s history. It’s not just that players are faster and stronger, thanks to better conditioning and advanced weight training. Scouting methods have gotten more sophisticated as well, enabling coaches to break down opposing offenses in much the way football coaches do. The days of an NBA team winning a championship while giving up 111 points a game – as the 1984-85 Lakers did – are long gone.

… But let’s not get carried away. Even in the freewheeling days of the 1970s, when teams were regularly putting up 110 points a night, there were great defensive teams. Today, mediocre teams like the Suns, Wizards and Rockets are giving up less than 89 points a game. Defense is only part of it. Bad shooting is the rest.

So far, only seven NBA teams are firing at better than 45% accuracy; the bottom four – Lakers among them – are not even shooting 40%. Not only are players unable to make perimeter jump shots with consistency, but they’re hoisting three-pointers with even less accuracy (see: Antoine Walker, Celtics). Rather than increase scoring, the three-pointer paradoxically lowers point total, since launching one is more likely to produce no points than three. To date, only three NBA teams are hitting the trey at least 40% of the time (the Sonics are best at 41%); six teams are below 30%, (including the Lakers and 76ers) and not likely to stop shooting them.

What happened to team play?

On a more subtle level, few teams actually work together as a five-man unit. It’s no accident that two of the highest-scoring teams, the Mavericks and Kings, are prized for their throwback-style, spread-the-ball-around team ethic. More common are offenses geared to one or two players at best – the Suns, Knicks, Rockets, and Timberwolves, for example. (Of course, there are also offenses, like the Heat and Nuggets, geared to no one in particular).

Part of the fault lies with the league itself: lucrative TV network deals and globalization were built on the marketing of individual superstars, not teams that play selflessly. The result: an influx of college underclassmen who, spoiled by their early success, rushed into the league before refining their game. Unprepared to deal with NBA-level defensive pressure, they’re unable to create their own shot, move without the ball, or take good percentage shots.

If there’s no inside game…

… Then defenses can collapse the middle and dare teams to beat them from outside. Aside from players like Shaq and Tim Duncan, few NBA teams these days have a dominant big man capable of keeping defenses honest. With the legalization of zone defenses, a big defensive team can cut down the size of the court and limit the penetration of slashing guards like Allen Iverson or Steve Francis. Perhaps no team has learned this lesson more than the Lakers: with Shaq out and Kobe Bryant carrying too much on his shoulders, his beleaguered teammates are missing even wide-open shots with disturbing regularity.

Of course, many of those same shots will fall once Shaq returns. Around the rest of the league, however, it’s likely a majority of shots will continue to hit nothing but iron. Just like baseball raised the pitcher’s mound to help out the hitters, perhaps the NBA will someday have to widen the rims. Allen Iverson, for one, would applaud that move.

Graham Flashner is a regular contributor to HoopsHype.com

Tell us what you think about this column. E-mail us at HoopsHype@HoopsHype.com