Macri’s Missives: How to build the Knicks to be ahead of the curve
Macri’s Missives is a weekly column published on The Strickland every Thursday, where Jonathan Macri has a candid email exchange with a guest. Think of it almost like a written podcast. This week, Macri is joined by The Strickland’s own Dallas Amico to try to learn some lessons from the NBA bubble and set the Knicks on the path to contention.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:40 AM Jonathan Macri wrote:
Hey there, Dallas!
Very excited to dip into the Strickland well for this week’s piece. There are very few people I interact with on a regular basis who legitimately make me feel like I’ve learned something every time I read or hear them, and you are most definitely one.
So rather than guide the conversation in a particular way, I’d like to milk that hoops mind of yours for as much as it’s worth, and open generally: as you’re watching the NBA playoffs, what thoughts do you have on where the league is going in terms of roster construction? Do you think it’s as simple as “get your top dog and fit the pieces around them?” or is it more nuanced than that?
And obviously, have any of these thoughts influenced your thinking about how the Knicks should continue to build from here?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 2:57 PM Dallas Amico wrote:
Heyyo!
Thanks for the much too kind words, and thanks for asking me to do this!
So, let's get into it.
First, let me start with a couple methodological thoughts.
(1) Don't focus (too much) on wins and losses. I think it's natural to hone in on the positive features of the teams that win and the negative features of the teams that lose. After all, we might think, the winning team must have done something right, and the losing team must have done something wrong! And one natural extension of this line of thought is to try and build teams that look or function like the winning teams. Here's an example, with Draymond Green suggesting that FOs reason like this:
But there are good reasons to avoid doing this. First, many teams that lose are good enough to win. Notice that before the playoffs this year, most people believed there were at least three legitimate title contenders — both Los Angeles teams and the Bucks. Of course, at least two of those teams have to lose. Does losing mean that our expectations were wrong, and that the teams that lose were not good enough to win? Of course not! Obviously, our expectations can sometimes be mistaken. But, sometimes two (roughly) equally good teams play. And, when two (roughly) equally good teams play, one of them will necessarily lose.
Second, sometimes the team that wins is worse than the team that loses. My pops and I have played hundreds of table tennis matches, and it's pretty clear that I'm better than him. But it's close! If we were to play 100 best-of-seven matches, I'd expect to win between 55-65 of them. But that means that 35-45% of the time the worse player will win the match. If we imbue winning one isolated seven-game matchup with too much significance, we might ERRONEOUSLY think that it would be better to study my pop's game and style rather than mine.
Third: matchups, matchups, matchups. Sometimes the best team has an Achilles heel. If we had both this year's Lakers team and this year's Rockets team play a seven-game series against every team in the NBA, I'd bet lots of money that the Lakers win more series than the Rockets do. But matchups matter, and a team that is better against most teams can match up poorly against an individual team. That's a big part of why this Lakers/Rockets series feels closer to a toss up to me.
(2) All of this leads me to this thought: roster construction is a game of probability. Your goal as a front office should be to build a team with the greatest probability of winning. You can't assure that you will win any given seven-game series, let alone a title. Lucky shooting streaks, bad matchups, unpredictable reffing, and league parity ensure this. But what you can do is aim to increase the likelihood that you can withstand such things.
Now, I haven't really addressed your questions yet — and I hope we circle back and dig into them — but this seems like a good spot to throw it back to you. Do these thoughts seem right to you? Any methodological thoughts you'd like to add to the list?
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:22 AM Jonathan Macri wrote:
So I'm thrilled that you started off this response the way you did, because it speaks the value of being proactive rather than reactive, the latter of which is almost always less ideal than the former. Are their exceptions (like, say, salary-dumping your best player five months before you're certain you need the money)? Of course! But in general, smart teams make moves that will catch other teams off guard, rather than making them after the fact once the league has had a chance to adjust.
Now, reading everything you wrote in total, the first thought that pops into my head is "well, if outcomes are ultimately unpredictable and often come down to luck and match-ups, then the best way to build a roster is to make it as matchup-proof and luck-independent as possible."
Well, duh, right? Yes and no. Of course you can never guard against every possible outcome, but when I'm watching the playoffs now, the teams I'm seeing have the most success are those that can bring the most variety to what they do. Take Boston, who has Deniel Theis, Robert Williams, Enes Kanter and Grant Williams all available as possible options at center. Each one gives them a bit of a different look and feel, and we've seen Brad Stevens go to each at different times depending on the matchup. Miami has also been incredibly malleable. And then there is Toronto — while dependent on a set rotation and style of play, their very existence as a defensive unit is predicated on being able to expertly throw a variety of looks at their opponents.
All of these teams, to one extent or another, were able to see ahead of the curve: Boston by being an early proponent of dispensing with traditional positional designations in favor of ball handlers, wings and bigs; Miami by drafting Bam as maybe the prototypical modern big (and other stuff too) and Toronto by realizing that the NBA's G-League gives you a wonderful opportunity to take talented (and smart) lumps of clay and mold them to fit your system.
So I guess the next question as far as the Knicks are concerned is a) what ways are they uniquely positioned to be ahead of the next curve and b) do we have any guesses as to what that curve will be? I'll add that I think with RJ and Frank in particular, they're off to a decent start in that both of these players seem capable of filling a variety of roles and doing some different, interesting stuff, even if neither projects to be a top flight alpha dog.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Dallas Amico wrote:
Hmm, lots of good stuff here!
Let me start with your question about what the next curve will be, and I'll try to circle back to your thoughts about variety.
Many have noted (e.g. Seth Partnow and Ben Taylor) that NBA offenses are becoming more heliocentric. In other words, teams usually have one incredibly ball-dominant player that the entire offense orbits around. Examples include the Bucks, Hawks, Mavs, Lakers, Rockets, and Portland. There are a few reasons for this. First, you might think, "if I have LeBron on my team, why would I want the ball in, say, Dion Waiters’ hands?" These STARS are often significantly more efficient than most other players in the league, let alone most other players on their teams. So of course you want the ball in their hands as much as possible. Second, it makes team building easier. Pairing stars is difficult! Not only do do the stars have to align (heheh) in order for you to acquire them, but you have to worry about them fitting together on the court (to this point, the Rockets’ offense is better with Westbrook off the court than on the court). On the other hand, role playing 3-and-D guys are easy to find, and easy to make fit around a star (I'd bet that if we shuffled the role players on many of the NBA's best teams [with a bit of time] those teams' offensive efficiency would end up roughly the same).
But this model also has drawbacks. While heliocentric offenses often put up eye-popping regular season numbers, things become significantly more difficult in the playoffs. Because the offense primarily relies on one creator, focused defenses with extra time to game plan are often able to slow down such offenses. More specifically, if a defense is happy to give up threes to one of the opposing role players, they can essentially prevent a star from penetrating. There are different ways this can be accomplished: early rotations (flooding the strong side), packing the paint (walling up!), sending outright double teams, or using the box-and-1. In my view, flooding the strong side and packing the paint are the most effective of these strategies. Typically, heliocentric offenses work like this: Giannis gets the ball at the top of the key and penetrates, causing the defense to collapse. If the help is too slow, Giannis gets an easy bucket. If the help arrives in time, Giannis kicks to the open man and the defense is forced to recover — whoever collapsed into the paint now has to change momentum, find his assignment (often challenging, because he may have had his back turned away from them as he slid down to the paint), and sprint out to the 3-point line. If the man who recovers is lucky enough to close out in time, he will likely be off balance or fly by the shooter, allowing the drive-and-kick sequence to begin again. What the defense does by pre-rotating or packing the paint is get rid of the (a) change momentum and (b) find your assignment portions of recovery. Now, the penetration doesn't happen at all, and, more than likely, the star will begin the possession by swinging the ball to the uncovered man. Because the defender is already in the paint, they can keep their eyes on the star and their assignment. They also don't have to change momentum. This allows them to react immediately upon the swing and improve their chances of closing out on time and on balance.
Moreover, this sort of defense often forces the ball out of the star's hands earlier than normal. One of the benefits of a heliocentric offense is to have your hyper-efficient player making the most important decisions — the shot or final pass is often generated by them. But against these penetration-preventing defenses, the ball often will get stuck in a role player's hands against a recovered defense. Now your final decision maker is Eric Bledsoe, or Alex Caruso, or Danuel House. For the defense, this is a clear win!
Now, heliocentric stars who are excellent off-the-dribble shooters can withstand these sorts of defensive adjustments better than those who aren't. This is because they can generate shots without needing to penetrate, and it opens up a world of perimeter screening actions that would otherwise be unavailable.
OK, so the point of all this is to answer your question about getting ahead of the curve. Here are three getting-ahead-of-the-curve lessons that I think we can learn from the above:
If you're going to go the heliocentric team-building route, it’s better if your star is a legitimate perimeter threat
Having an offense with multiple high-level creators is better than the heliocentric style in many cases (examples: 2006 Mavs, Heatles, Duncan/Ginobili/Parker Spurs, Warriors dynasty)
When you land a star, don't succumb to the temptation of immediately surrounding him with 3-and-D wings. Do what you can to surround him with other high-level creators
And now we've circled around to your point about versatility. Not only does a versatile offense with multiple creators help you avoid defenses keying in your offensive hub, but they also are more likely to be matchup-proof. An opposing team may have a lockdown defender or a defender that plays your star particularly well, but it will be significantly less likely that they have two (or three!) lockdown defenders, or two (or three!) defenders that happen to be bad defensive matchups for your creators. I think you see this with Boston, but — as you pointed out — they also have role players that help them change how they attack.
For what it's worth, I also think this compact hoop act/mini coop men who hoop (I'm looking for new ways of saying "small ball"!) that the Rockets have been using is not just a gimmick, but a legitimate ahead-of-the-curve move, and other teams are going to have success going that route. I won't go through all the reasons for this, but I'll note one that I haven't seen many people talk about.
It used to be the case that NBA teams let big men just chill in the paint on defense. This made life in the paint really difficult for offenses. Enter the 3-second violation to open up the floor a bit. Now, we see defensive players do what is called "2.9ing". Essentially, you stay in the paint for 2.9 seconds, “clean” (step outside the paint to reset the 3-second clock), and get right back in. But this is significantly less effective than the old zones teams used to play. Here's the problem: most 7-foot men aren't really fast side-to-side movers. As a result, the best primary initiators are able to time their drives for right when the big man steps outside of the paint (with his momentum going the wrong way). Well-timed drives make it very difficult — even for the quickest/longest bigs — to effectively help. BUT, you know who has much better lateral agility than Marc Gasol and Rudy Gobert? Russell Westbrook and PJ Tucker. To be honest, I've never seen anyone clean and recover faster than Westbrook — it's blinding. While the Rockets obviously like to switch, they've fallen into a variety of zones/pack the paint/early rotation looks against LeBron and the Lakers. And because of their lateral quickness, they've been able to occupy the paint almost non-stop. Now, you obviously sacrifice a lot of shot blocking/rim protection with the tiny tot hoop lot, and to this point, it still seems vastly superior defensively to have Rudy Gobert guarding the paint. But what's key is the Rockets’ ability to be good enough on the defensive end to allow their added skill and shooting to overwhelm teams on the other end. And their ability to 2.9 like lighting is one reason for their ability to survive inside while playing small.
Now, to turn back to your question (a) about where the Knicks are in terms of team building. I honestly think we're pretty close to the very beginning. I'm probably lower on RJ than most, and if I'm the Knicks, I'm probably swinging for the best/highest upside young creators you can get your hands on in the draft and free agency.
Buuut, okay! I've gone on forever. So, let me throw it back to you. Are we simpatico? If not, where did I go wrong? Do you have any cool new nicknames for small ball?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:06 PM Jonathan Macri wrote:
First things first: Out of compact hoop act, mini coop men who hoop, and tiny tot hoop lot, tiny tot hoop lot is the easy choice. It's smooth off the tongue and incredibly silly, but also accurate, like the popcorn flick that doubles as great art. Well done, sir.
There's so much here I want to unpack, and I'll try to be brief (a lawyer's famous last words). I agree with everything you said to start off about the benefits and drawbacks of a heliocentric offense, as well as how to defend them, and I am THRILLED you ended up at the main point that high-level creation at more spots than not is the key to success, mostly because one of the teams you mentioned — the Duncan/Ginobili/Parker Spurs, and specifically the 2014 version with Kawhi and Boris Diaw — is easily my favorite non-Knicks team of all time. I remember watching those playoffs and thinking to myself, as each round went on, that they were not only getting better and more cohesive as a unit, but that by the end of the Miami series, they had literally perfected basketball.
And do you know what the best part/dirty little secret of that team was? While the ’04 Pistons get all the credit as the historically anomalous NBA team to win it all with no superstars, I'd actually argue that the Spurs team a decade later was the superior example of this. Think about it... they had one All-Star in Tony Parker, who also made the All-NBA 2nd Team in an unusually weak year for guards. He and Duncan tied for 12th place in the MVP race. Kawhi was also not yet Kawhi, having averaged 12 points per game and finishing 11th in the DPOY voting. Manu was 36 years old. No one on the team averaged over 17 points, 10 boards, or six dimes. It was just a rotation full of smart players who were so smart they could do a whole bunch of stuff really, really freaking well.
It goes without saying that replicating the collective talent of that group is impossible. Basketball could be played for another 1000 years and we might never get another Manu... or for that matter, another Diaw. Tim, at that age, was like Gandolf — maybe slower afoot, but effective nonetheless. But I do think that they laid the blueprint for what could happen if a team today assembled enough playmaking, even if they didn't have that one supreme engine to make the car go vroom. I too am not as high on RJ as others, but I think he could absolutely be part of such a unit. And Frankie baby, well... I know you and I have the same space in our hearts for him. Maybe this is being a bit fanciful, but I see no downfall in trying to assemble a team composed purely of such players, because guess what? A star may want to come join the party after you do!
On your Rockets point, I agree 1000% that this isn't a fad. How could it be? Let's say for argument's sake they matched up with Joel Embiid in a seven-game series. Could he eventually back down even PJ Tucker, the human brick shit house? Yes, but it'll take him a bit, and we've already seen the Rockets use their speed to send hard doubles at such beasts and be effective. This isn't to say a semi-traditional rim protector can't still be effective, but I almost see the game going in the direction of such players being more specialty than norm.
And to tie the two together, if you really do just try and compose a team of creators and playmakers and throw the positional designations out the window, Houston has shown us that you can survive (if not outright thrive) on the other end of the floor.
So I guess in summation, let's hope that the Knicks' thinking has advanced in the year or so since they spent nearly half their annual salary allotment on Julius Randle, Marcus Morris, and Bobby Portis, shall we?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:12 PM Dallas Amico wrote:
So, for starters, I have to correct your spelling. It's 'Gandalf,' not 'Gandolf.' SMH, he's only the greatest wizard of the Third Age. And, speaking of wizardry, I hatedddd those Spurs teams. I thought LeBron and Wade were super cool, and I couldn't stand the way that Manu hurled his body around. I respected it, but I couldn't stand it. Also, the Spurs have terribly boring uniforms. Black unis should be cool as hell, and somehow they make them look like what Tim Duncan wears out on the town.
All of that said, I feel you! Watching a team like that in New York's infinitely superior uniforms would be a total blast.
Perhaps a final thought, since Mitchell Robinson has been a HOT HOT HOT topic lately.
There's been lots of talk about heliocentric offenses, but I haven't seen too much discussion of heliocentric defenses. But there are players who are good enough on that end that you can throw basically any role players around and still have a top-10 defense. Obviously, these will all be centers, as they're the only players who affect enough possessions to have the potential of having this sort of impact. Right now, Rudy Gobert is probably the only one in the NBA who can do this. But, I think there's a reasonable chance that Robinson can reach these heights. That's a huge source of value when it comes to team building, because it grants you immense flexibility at other positions. Specifically, you can withstand having guys who aren't that great on D, but offer plus value on the offensive end.
And since I have a reputation for ending pieces with bad memes that I've spent way too much time creating — I've included one of my favorite Gandalf memes (yes, I have a file of Lord of the Rings memes that I've made on my computer) below.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:09 PM Jonathan Macri wrote:
THIS, Dallas Amico... THIS is why you never fail to amaze me.
