The Memphis Grizzlies own the second-best record in the tough Western Conference. They have the league’s top ranked defence (giving up just 95.7 ppg) and their methodical, low post-oriented offense seems ideally suited for the slow style of play often featured in the postseason.
However, the Grizzlies will not make it to the NBA Finals and, if they catch the wrong match-up, they could fall in the first round for the second year in a row.
The Grizzlies have a fatal flaw that has ended their recent postseason trips and will ultimately send them home without the championship trophy yet again in 2015.
The name of the game is basketball – literally, put the ball in the basket – and the Grizzlies are not proficient enough at this most basic skill.
The Grizzlies’ shooting outside of the paint is particularly deficient and in a seven game series a smart team is going to force Memphis’ worst shooters to take a lot of shots outside of the paint.
Under the guidance of Coach Lionel Hollins, the Grizzlies quickly improved from being a lottery team in 2010 to being a legitimate contender. Then, new team owners/executives emphasized “advanced basketball statistics,” made some personnel moves based on those numbers and also began offering unwanted advice to Hollins about how to coach the team.
The Grizzlies declined to offer Hollins a new contract in the summer of 2013, letting him go after the best regular season (56-26) and best playoff run (an appearance in the Western Conference Finals) in franchise history.
Last season, with Hollins’ replacement Dave Joerger at the helm, the Grizzlies slipped to 50-32 as starting center Marc Gasol missed 23 games. Gasol returned in time for the playoffs and many people described Memphis as a team that nobody wanted to face.
Oklahoma City did not mind facing Memphis. The Thunder double-teamed the Grizzlies’ big guys and hounded Memphis into .417 field goal shooting. Memphis’ two dominant post players – Gasol and Zach Randolph – shot .405 and .404 from the field after shooting .473 and .467 during the regular season.
Gasol and Randolph struggled to get open looks because the Thunder crowded them and dared anyone else to make a shot. In 2013-14, the Grizzlies ranked 19th out of 30 teams in three point field goal percentage (.353). That number plummeted to .290 versus the Thunder in the first round.
The Thunder held the Grizzlies below 90 points in three games while eliminating Memphis. In a game four loss at home, the Grizzlies failed to score 90 points even after a five minute overtime period!
Nothing has changed this season. The Grizzlies rank 25th in three point field goal percentage (.333).
Why does this not hurt the Grizzlies in the regular season? It does hurt but the pain can be masked because of the differences between regular season play and postseason play.
Not only does the competition become tougher in the postseason but the regular season features long road trips, teams play four games in five nights, players battle fatigue and a particular opponent may be hot or cold on a given night.
In the postseason, there are no long, extended road trips and no back-to-back games, so teams lock in on each other’s weaknesses and attack them mercilessly until the weaker team folds.
When Randolph fights for position in the paint in the postseason, he will have a big guy behind him and a smaller guy “digging” for the ball. Randolph will either shoot under duress or else pass the ball back to a teammate who did not shoot well from the outside during the regular season and who is not likely to become a pinpoint marksman in the crucible of playoff pressure with the shot clock running down.
The Grizzlies have their formula. They fired a good coach to stick with that formula and they are not likely to change their ways. The numbers may convince them that they are on a championship path but the eye test – and even some rather basic but essential numbers regarding shooting – reveal the Grizzlies’ fatal flaw.
David Friedman
Expert
Trey: I think the exact same thing about the Grizzlies that I did when I wrote this article: their poor perimeter shooting will doom them to an early playoff exit and they are not a legitimate championship contender as currently constructed. I hope that you did not lose too much money betting on "Memphis vs. Errrbody." The only "err" here is your analysis.
Trey
Guest
What do you guys think about the Grizzlies now? Made it past the first round handily. Up 2-1 on the obvious favorite Golden State. Favorable matchup on the other side of the bracket, no matter who wins LAC/HOU. Sure, GS could pack it in tight and make them shoot from outside (weakness), but after 3 games, why have they not yet done so? Or have they? Have Conley and Lee actually made some 3's? Uh oh, it looks like the Grizzlies are poised to make a run, not only to win the West, but also to meet Lebron or D-Rose in the Finals. Sure, I may be "counting my chickens..." but it sure looks like this team is VERY well-positioned to win the GS series, as well as future potential match ups. What are your odds looking like now? How about an article titled Why the Grizzlies MIGHT Win the Championship? Oh, because you're probably still betting on the field, an obviously easy choice. Well, here's a difficult choice--odds the Grizzlies lose Game 4, at home, after winning Games 2&3. I don't know anyone who would want to take that bet. Memphis vs. Errrbody.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: Let me repeat myself, because you seemed to miss the point the first time around: Morey took over in 2007. Since 2007, the Rockets have won one playoff series and had a stretch during which they missed the playoffs for three straight years. Their lone playoff series win came in 2009--six years ago--and the best player on that roster (Yao Ming) was not acquired by Morey. Since Morey has been in charge, he has yet to draft, acquire or develop a number one option who led the team past the first round. Morey's bold pronouncements can be found in many places, including the New York Times article to which I alluded (the one focusing on how Battier supposedly knew how to shut down Kobe Bryant). Morey also called Harden a "foundational player," a comment that raised eyebrows because no one is even sure exactly what that means--but it does seem like a foundational player or a franchise player should win a playoff series at some point. Who knows, maybe year three of the Harden experiment will actually produce a first round win! So far, Hollinger took over a championship contender, made some moves that have yet to yield tangible results and the team fell from the WCF to first round fodder. I think that they will not go very far this year and you think that my prediction is a farce. April and May should be interesting.
Eugene
Guest
You mean the ball and chain version of Yao Ming, who by that time broke down every year and whose false hope of return had set the team back 2 years. Morey was appointed GM in May 2007. They won that playoff series in 2009, two full seasons later. Every starter in that series except Yao was acquired after 2007. So yep, that was not "his" roster. What are the bold pronouncements Morey made? You are imagining things in your head and then blame him for not parting red sea. Despite the career ending setbacks of Yao and McGrady, Houston never had a losing season. Can you name one other team that completely rebuilt without bottoming out? You think that is not an achievement, that's your problem. Hollinger didn't sit on the roster. Trading Gay was a watershed move at the time. Gay was averaging close to 20 points and they got back spare parts for him. the front office took heavy hit for it, Hollins came out against it himself. The next year Marc Gasol and Allen both got hurt, they limped into the 8th seed and had to face a full strength OKC. They did the closest thing without winning the series, there is no shame in there. Only you would call that underachievement. If you want to give him no credit for reaching WCF after the Gay trade, but give him all the blame for the first round exit next year, sure, if you want to make yourself feel better. But facts are facts and you'd be wrong.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: Also, the best player on the last Houston team to win a playoff series--Yao Ming--was already a Rocket when Morey arrived. So, nearly a decade of "stat head" wizardry in Houston has yet to produce a single playoff series win led by players who Morey acquired. If Morey were an "old school" GM who relied on the "eye test" then the media would be killing him for his bold pronouncements that have not been backed up by results. Instead, we keep hearing how brilliant his plan is and how well he has positioned the Rockets to contend but after the Rockets lose we always hear that the Rockets are actually positioned to contend "next year"--but "next year" has yet to arrive. Who knows, maybe the great Harden will shoot .450 from the field in a playoff series and the Rockets will actually make it past the first round for the first time with a Morey-created roster.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: Morey arrived in Houston in 2007 as a much ballyhooed "stat head." Supposedly, he could use "advanced basketball statistics" to do wondrous things like teach Shane Battier how to shut down Kobe Bryant (after that NYT article came out, Bryant led the Lakers to a 4-0 regular season sweep of the Rockets in 2009 while averaging 28.3 ppg on .530 FG shooting) and build a championship team by uncovering value that GMs who don't use "advanced basketball stats" will miss. Since Morey arrived, the Rockets have won one playoff series in seven years. They also missed the playoffs three years in a row before acquiring Harden, who is such an incredible "stat head" discovery that he has led the Rockets to back to back first round losses. If Morey were not a media darling, someone might point out that the emperor in fact has no clothes. The New York Knicks are indisputably one of the worst run franchises in pro basketball and during Morey's tenure in Houston the Knicks have won the same number of playoff series as the Rockets have. Of course, Houston is better than New York this season but in terms of advancing in the playoffs for the past seven years Houston has been nothing special. Hollinger took over a team that had Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, Mike Conley and Tony Allen. Those players rank 1-3 and sixth on the team in minutes played per game this season. The core of Memphis' team was in place when Hollinger arrived. Hollinger traded away Gay and chased off Coach Hollins. The core of the team that was there before Hollinger arrived, coached by the coach he ran off, reached the WCF. The moves that Hollinger made resulted in a team that lost in the first round last year. We all understand that any given team, even the top seed, has less than a 50% chance of winning the championship. Most of us, other than you, realize that in general the second seeded team would be considered more likely to win the championship than the teams seeded 3-8. Depending on matchups and other factors, there would be some seasons in which the second seeded team might even be considered the favorite. Memphis is certainly pumped up by many media members as a legit championship contender. I think that the Grizzlies have a fatal flaw and that this flaw will be their downfall. If Memphis shoots a great percentage from the three point line but loses anyway then I was wrong. If Memphis wins the championship then I was wrong regardless of how well or how poorly the Grizzlies shoot--but if the second seed in the West loses before the WCF while shooting a poor percentage from the field/from three point range then I was right. We'll see what happens. If "zero analysis" is required to explain why a given team might lose then what is the point of writing any article about sports or making any predictions? More to the point, why do you read any such articles, let alone comment about them? The only person in this thread who has "completely flipped" is you, with your colorful and exaggerated outrage, your "auto correct" errors and your inability to understand the point of writing any article analyzing a given team's strengths and weaknesses.
Eugene
Guest
By same token, you don't need analysis to predict the second seed in the west won't reach the finals. Everyone knows it is by far the more likely outcome than the second seed winning three series. Zero analysis required. This really should be clear as day. Yet when this is called out you completely flipped. So you are not even applying the "need" x analysis to reach conclusion y rule to yourself.
Eugene
Guest
Whatever one can learn from stats, to apply it to the game it always manifests into scoring more points than your opponent. By your definition there can be nothing that "needs" stats. You don't even "need" points rebounds assists. Why even have boxscore. Morey went to get Harden and Howard, and gutted his remaining assets to get Bosh and Anthony which failed. All Morey's decisions must be from from stat's in your generalisation, but you completely disregard them, except for Harden which you have been beaten on forever, even though Harden individually and Houston as a team has been exceeding expectations continuously. This is hypocrisy if you want to beat Morey on Harden then categorise Howard as a non-stats decision, your criteria is completely arbitrary. Memphis never reached WCF before Hollinger' arrival. The first thing he did was to trade away Rudy Gay, a very significant move that was citicised widely at the time. The team then went on to reach WCF for the first time ever. Because of your blind hate on him, you call that taking over a fully formed team and then criticised him for the 2014 playoffs results, going so far as saying a seven game series wasn't competitive. If you don't realise that is ridiculous, then your analysis has a problem. Moreover they lost to Durant and Westbrook in seven games. If your standard is advanced stat's is crap unless you can beat Durant and Westbrook at their peaks, you are setting the bar so high and you are also not consistently applying these standards to other teams you don't have an axe to grind with. Again this is hypocrisy.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: Morey and Hollinger very openly identify themselves as "stat heads." Morey and his media supporters assert that using "advanced basketball statistics" confers some kind of tangible advantage. Hollinger believes likewise about his proprietary PER stat. Therefore, it is fair to look at Houston and Memphis respectively and wonder what, if any, tangible advantage has been demonstrated. Morey has been in Houston for years and all he and his "advanced basketball statistics" have produced are first round losses. Hollinger has not been in Memphis that long but he took over a Western Conference Finalist and led them to a first round loss last year. It will be interesting to see how those teams do in this year's playoffs. Regarding the other teams, even though they have been mentioned in some quarters as "stat head" friendly organizations most of the key decisions they made did not require "advanced basketball statistics." Supposedly, "advanced basketball statistics" enable someone to identify hidden value that is not revealed by the "eye test" or regular statistics. You do not need "advanced basketball statistics" to figure out that James, Wade and Bosh would be a strong trio. The same goes for Pierce, Garnett and Allen and for San Antonio's crew as well. Dallas supposedly found some value in using five man on/off court numbers to influence their substitution patterns but anyone who saw the Lakers' awful screen/roll defense would know--from the derided "eye test"--that Barea would be a tough matchup for the Lakers.
Eugene
Guest
So it doesn't count when the Heat, Mavs, Celtics and Spurs win. When Morey and Hollinger don't win then advanced stats is crap. #hatersgonnahate
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: What exactly have the "stat heads" accomplished in the NBA? The Heat supposedly used "stat heads" but it doesn't take special math to conclude that signing LeBron James and Chris Bosh would be smart. Every team in the league that had cap room tried to do the same thing. The Celtics supposedly used "stat heads" but, again, the main thing that they did is put together three future Hall of Famers. Dallas may have gotten some mileage out of using on court/off court data for various five man units but it did not really take advanced math to figure out that the Lakers could not contain Barea in screen/roll situations. The Spurs supposedly use "stat heads" but, again, it does not take advanced math to figure out that putting together three future HoFers is a good thing. Morey is perhaps the most celebrated "stat head." So far, after many years of trying and after many articles singing his praises, he has built a team that has lost in the first round two years in a row. If being a "stat head" has conferred an advantage to him this advantage has not shown up in the playoffs. Hollinger is also a celebrated "stat head." He took over a team that made it to the WCF and led it to a first round exit last year. I think that Memphis is heading for a first or second round departure this year as well, so we will see how that turns out.
Eugene
Guest
Hahaha talk about ad hominen. Funny that two stories cover "no matter what is posted here". Your imagination really only stretch so far. I am not surprised. Keep the name calling coming dude. This pot and kettle thing amuses me too.
Eugene
Guest
Hollinger has not proven himself in the NBA is exactly the reason of this article's existence. That is the point I am trying make. The disdain towards statsheads getting senior positions in NBA front offices is palpable.
express34texas
Guest
I understand what your'se saying about score differential. But, in the end, it doesn't matter if you win by 1 or you win by a 100. If OKC truly preferred Memphis over any other team in the 1st round, then they're only barely better than any other West playoff team last year. The facts don't add up. If you're far superior to a team, you don't take that series to 7 games and risk elimination. Of course the series was close. How is a 7-game series not close? Just one game to decide it all in the end. I think it was the 1960 WS. The Yankees played the Pirates. NY dominated 3 of the games, and PIT squeaked out 4 wins. NY was probably much better, but they ended up losing in the end. If they played 100 games, NY would most likely have a big edge on PIT, but that's not how it works. Not much different between OKC/MEM last year. Maybe OKC was much better, but in the end, it didn't really matter. MEM clawed their way to 3 wins, and gave themselves a chance with a game 7. Agree Memphis will have trouble since their offense is suspect.
express34texas
Guest
Yea, what about Hollinger? I fail to miss the point you're making. He's hardly proven himself some type of special expert.
Eugene
Guest
My comment was meant for express34texas, I tagged it under the wrong place.
Eugene
Guest
My comment was meant for express34texas, I tagged it under the wrong place.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: I'll whisper back: "So what?" Under Hollinger, the Grizzlies fired a successful coach and then lost in the first round after advancing to the Western Conference Finals the previous year. They are having a good regular season in 2014-15 but we will see what kind of playoff run they put together without being able to consistently make a shot outside of 15 feet.
David Friedman
Expert
Express34Texas: Given the available "choices," I stand by the statement that last year OKC would have rather played Memphis than most if not all of the alternative teams. There is a formula to beat Memphis. Some of the games might be slugfests, Memphis may sneak in some wins but Memphis is also going to have multiple games in a playoff series in which the Grizzlies struggle to score 90 points. You say the series was close because it went seven games but all three of Memphis' wins came in overtime while OKC had several blowout wins. OKC was clearly the superior team.
David Friedman
Expert
Eugene: I am just glad that you found a six year old who helped you fix that pesky "auto correct" issue that only seemed to affect your device. It is good to know that an article explaining why the second seed in the West will not win the title is "farcical" but also that a hypothetical article explaining why the first seed in the East will beat the eighth seed would be "boring." So, basically, no matter what is posted here you know that you won't like it. Please keep commenting, because every court needs a jester :)