Forget defense, the key to winning is scoring

[KingsFanSince85]

They say defense wins championships. That may very well still be true, despite all the rule changes over the years designed to make it easier to score, but, in the case of the 2014 Sacramento Kings, offense seems to win games.

According to the Bee, the Kings are now 22-6 when scoring more than 105 points. Conversely, they are 3-29 when scoring less than 100.

In nearly every game they play, home or on the road, they seemingly go through at least 1 long scoring drought, which generally decides the outcome. Invariably, the reason for the scoring drought can be traced back to one of a few things. Turnovers, no ball movement, poor shooting.

This team simply cannot shoot. They lack consistent deep shooting. They are one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in the league, which is telling considering the way the game is played nowadays and the fact that they have one of the best post players in the game that draws coverage away from the perimeter.

Making matters far worse, they don't move the ball. When they do, they are pretty tough to defend despite poor shooting from the perimeter.

In short, if this team acquires better shooters and learns to play with better, more frequent ball movement, they'll score more consistently. According the numbers, that'll mean a lot more wins no matter how bad their defense might be.

 

[Tetsujin]

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Don Nelson!

 

[Glenn]

I also understand that when the team scores more than 115 points they never lose and when they score under 90 points they don't win at all.

 

[bajaden]

To simplify, the team with the most points usually wins.

 

[ParniValjak]

And what is our record when our opponent scores 85 points or less?!

 

[PurpleHaze]

Trying to be like San Antonio Spurs (Kings FO says that's their goal) is really hard to accomplish. Winning 4 NBA championships over past couple decades (plus maybe another this year) is really, really hard to accomplish. But it's sure worth considering the Popovich-Buford script for success.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

To simplify, the team with the most points usually wins.

The team that holds the opponent to fewer points also wins.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

They say defense wins championships. That may very well still be true, despite all the rule changes over the years designed to make it easier to score, but, in the case of the 2014 Sacramento Kings, offense seems to win games...

<snip>

... In short, if this team acquires better shooters and learns to play with better, more frequent ball movement, they'll score more consistently. According the numbers, that'll mean a lot more wins no matter how bad their defense might be.

This is a facile and unproductive way of looking at things, in my opinion. The reason why the Kings have had to score so many points in order to win is because we can't stop anybody. IYAM, the solution is to get better at stopping people.

 

[pshn80]

If we could just get 10 more points per game and give at least 10 points less per game we'd sure do better, maybe win them all. Something to think about.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

To simplify, the team with the most points usually wins.

Exactly. There are obviously two ways to this. In the extreme, a team with a defense so good that it never allows a point only has to score once to win. A team with an offense so good that it successfully hits a fouled three plus the free throw every time down the court and never turns it over only needs one stop to win. Not surprisingly, both of these goals - that of the perfect offense and the perfect defense - are astronomically difficult to attain and as such, teams try to come up with a combination of both.

What's more important, offense or defense? I prefer to say neither. Neither. Neither is more important. A sufficient combination of both will make you a winning team, and an insufficient combination of both will make you a losing team.

However, from an analytic point of view, it's pretty well-known that team winning percentages in basketball can be quite accurately described by the "pythagorean" formula, which was first proposed by the sabremetrician Bill James for baseball. The general form of this equation is:

(Pts For^x) / ( (Pts For^x) + (Pts Against^x) )

where the exponent X is varied based on league average score. Obviously X is very different for baseball and basketball (for the NBA, it's about 14) but the point is that the pythagorean formula does a very good job not only of catching the linear trend of real-life Pts For and Pts Against data vs. winning percentage, but that it also captures a sigmoidal aspect of this relationship that definitely exists but can't be approximated by a linear estimator.

That said, the natural fall-out of this formula tells us that no matter how many points you are currently scoring, and no matter how many points you are currently giving up, if you are given the choice between by improving your points scored by 1 per game, or by decreasing your points allowed by 1 per game, that decreasing your points allowed will give you very slightly better results. For instance, a team that scores 100 ppg and allows 100 ppg will be expected to have a winning percentage of exactly .500. Increase to 101 ppg for and leave 100 ppg against unchanged, and the expected win percentage is now .53477. On the other hand, leave 100 ppg for unchanged but improve pts against to 99, and the expected win percentage is now .53512.

That would appear to be a very small win for those who favor defense.

However, I'm not convinced that it works that way. For instance, in principle, it should be easier to improve from 110 pts allowed to 109 pts allowed, than it would be to improve from 95 pts allowed to 94 pts allowed - the latter is a larger improvement in terms of ratio. And it turns out that if difficulty of change is truly on a ratio scale (which makes sense - more sense than an absolute scale), then it flat out doesn't matter. If you have two options, one of which will improve your scoring by a factor of 100/99, and the other which will improve your defense by a factor of 99/100, then they will have the same expected effect on your record no matter which one you choose.

The bottom line is that if you have two choices - be it drafting one of two players, or signing one of two players, or trading one player for another, etc. - and you can actually estimate the ratio improvement on your offense/defense resulting from your two options, you should take the one that gives you the better ratio improvement regardless of whether it helps your offense more or your defense more. As I said above, neither is more important. Choose the biggest improvement regardless.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If we could just get 10 more points per game and give at least 10 points less per game we'd sure do better, maybe win them all. Something to think about.

Indeed. That would project us out to a 75-7 season. Now if only it were as easily done as said!

 

[Bricklayer]

They say defense wins championships. That may very well still be true, despite all the rule changes over the years designed to make it easier to score, but, in the case of the 2014 Sacramento Kings, offense seems to win games.

According to the Bee, the Kings are now 22-6 when scoring more than 105 points. Conversely, they are 3-29 when scoring less than 100.

In nearly every game they play, home or on the road, they seemingly go through at least 1 long scoring drought, which generally decides the outcome. Invariably, the reason for the scoring drought can be traced back to one of a few things. Turnovers, no ball movement, poor shooting.

This team simply cannot shoot. They lack consistent deep shooting. They are one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in the league, which is telling considering the way the game is played nowadays and the fact that they have one of the best post players in the game that draws coverage away from the perimeter.

Making matters far worse, they don't move the ball. When they do, they are pretty tough to defend despite poor shooting from the perimeter.

In short, if this team acquires better shooters and learns to play with better, more frequent ball movement, they'll score more consistently. According the numbers, that'll mean a lot more wins no matter how bad their defense might be.

ALTEERNATELY...

And I know this is a crazy idea but...

If we played even remotely decent defense we wouldn't need to score 105 every night to win! Wacky, I know.


Example:

Team A allows 120ppg against them on defense.

On the season they are 7-3 when scoring 120 or more.

Would you therefore say that the key to their winning was to add more offense? Or would you say that because their defense was so godawful they simply couldn't win any games unless they scored a bazillion points.

 

[Bricklayer]

Trying to be like San Antonio Spurs (Kings FO says that's their goal) is really hard to accomplish. Winning 4 NBA championships over past couple decades (plus maybe another this year) is really, really hard to accomplish. But it's sure worth considering the Popovich-Buford script for success.

I have thought the opposite -- I think its fundamentally stupid to try to imitate the Spurs. They are a unique entity, if not unprecedented, then certainly one of a kind right now. Its a minority strategy at best. And if you were going to imitate them, trying to imitate their current structure would be insanity itself. Ignoring for a moment that all their titles came with their earlier defense-oriented teams, the fact of the matter now is that the only way to play like the 2013-14 Spurs is to have about 15 years of earlier Spurs teams with he same core player and same coach since the Jurassic period. You can aspire to be the Spurs 15 years from now. Trying to play like them today as a young team is just stupid. Nobody else does it, because it can't be done.

 

[bajaden]

The team that holds the opponent to fewer points also wins.

I believe that means that it you won, you had the most points. Just for the record, I want no part of this discussion. That was just my feeble attempt at humor.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

This is a facile and unproductive way of looking at things, in my opinion. The reason why the Kings have had to score so many points in order to win is because we can't stop anybody. IYAM, the solution is to get better at stopping people.

All I'm saying is, the most direct path for improving this team seems rather apparent when looking at the numbers. They are 22-6 (.785) when they score 105 points or more. They are 5-43 (.104) when they don't. The difference is staggering.

As stated by several others, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can win with elite defense and a little offense or elite offense and a little defense or with a mix of both.

Unless they decide to blow up the roster and start over, I'm simply suggesting that focusing on defense may not be the best way to try to improve this team. The players on the roster don't have the skillset to become a good-to-great defensive team. While none of them are great passers either, I subscribe to the idea that it would be easier to coach them up to be better, more willing passers and more efficient on offense than it would be to teach them to play good team defense.

Also, to be clear, I'm not talking about small ball or changing styles to be a Don Nelson or Paul Westhead type offense. They don't need to change philosophies. They just need to become more efficient in the offense they already run.

Remember back to the glory years with CWebb, Vlade and Peja. Except for one year, those teams were never statistically that great defensively. They played passable defense. They won with highly efficient offense, which, at the core, involved good shooting and great ball movement. But they had to build toward it. They didn't really become great until they added improved shooting/passing via a couple of key moves. The trades for Doug Christie and Mike Bibby made the offensive philosophy reach the next level.

This team needs to look to build in the same direction. Like the Christie and Bibby moves, they need to find a few better fits for their offensive style. It'd be nice if one of those players could play defense like Christie did, but that's hoping for a lot.

If it were me, I'd try to emulate what the mid-90's Rockets built around Olajuwon. Big Cuz obviously isn't what Olajuwon was on the defensive end, but he has the ability to be every bit as good on the offensive end. Surround him with as many shooters and willing passers as you can and you'll likely start winning more than you lose.

 

[bajaden]

I have thought the opposite -- I think its fundamentally stupid to try to imitate the Spurs. They are a unique entity, if not unprecedented, then certainly one of a kind right now. Its a minority strategy at best. And if you were going to imitate them, trying to imitate their current structure would be insanity itself. Ignoring for a moment that all their titles came with their earlier defense-oriented teams, the fact of the matter now is that the only way to play like the 2013-14 Spurs is to have about 15 years of earlier Spurs teams with he same core player and same coach since the Jurassic period. You can aspire to be the Spurs 15 years from now. Trying to play like them today as a young team is just stupid. Nobody else does it, because it can't be done.

I think there's a difference between using the Spurs as your model, and expecting immediate results. You can't just decide to be the second coming of the Spurs and expect to start next season with visions of a championship. As you said, it takes the right talent, and time. But, you do have to start somewhere, and if your going to start, its nice to have a plan of some sort. And if your picking a plan, it doesn't hurt to pick a winning one. The Spurs don't do anything that different from most other NBA teams. They just do it better. They found, or developed, or perhaps evolved into a system that relies more on skill than athleticism. Doesn't mean an athletic player can't fit into their system. It means that even if your athletic, you still have to be skilled. They also rely heavily on player development. They were one of the first teams to actually own their own D-League team. And they don't care where they get their talent from. They have more international players on their roster than any other team in the NBA.

But the most important aspect is the fact that when they get a good player, they find a way to keep him. The only players that come and go are the players sitting toward the end of the bench. If you come, and you fit, and the price is right, you stay! When I look at the Spurs, the word stability springs to mind. Having the same head coach for god knows how long, who just happens to be the team president as well, and is good at both jobs is a big plus. So I don't look at using the Spurs as a model as a bad thing. The problem is, none of it matters if we don't put together a talented group of players to start with. A team with no, or at least few ill fitting pieces. Our current team has quite a bit of talent. It's missing a couple of pieces, and sometimes just one player can make the difference. Look what happened to the Pacers after they traded Danny Granger. He didn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things at the time. But apparently his presence, or lack thereof mean't more than anyone realized. The results speak for themselves.

Anyway, when the Kings said that wanted to imitate the Spurs, I didn't think they mean't they wanted to clone Duncan, Parker and company, but they want to model the structure the Spurs had in place with player development and overall stability. I think how the players play on the court, what ever the offensive scheme is, has to reflect the talent you have. You can't put a square peg into a round hole. You can't run a motion offense with a bunch of unskilled players that can't dribble, pass, or shoot. If that's the offense your locked into for some reason, then you get rid of the players that don't fit, and replace them with players that do. Otherwise you have a mess on your hands. But what the hell do I know?

 

[bajaden]

All I'm saying is, the most direct path for improving this team seems rather apparent when looking at the numbers. They are 22-6 (.785) when they score 105 points or more. They are 5-43 (.104) when they don't. The difference is staggering.

As stated by several others, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can win with elite defense and a little offense or elite offense and a little defense or with a mix of both.

Unless they decide to blow up the roster and start over, I'm simply suggesting that focusing on defense may not be the best way to try to improve this team. The players on the roster don't have the skillset to become a good-to-great defensive team. While none of them are great passers either, I subscribe to the idea that it would be easier to coach them up to be better, more willing passers and more efficient on offense than it would be to teach them to play good team defense.

Also, to be clear, I'm not talking about small ball or changing styles to be a Don Nelson or Paul Westhead type offense. They don't need to change philosophies. They just need to become more efficient in the offense they already run.

Remember back to the glory years with CWebb, Vlade and Peja. Except for one year, those teams were never statistically that great defensively. They played passable defense. They won with highly efficient offense, which, at the core, involved good shooting and great ball movement. But they had to build toward it. They didn't really become great until they added improved shooting/passing via a couple of key moves. The trades for Doug Christie and Mike Bibby made the offensive philosophy reach the next level.

This team needs to look to build in the same direction. Like the Christie and Bibby moves, they need to find a few better fits for their offensive style. It'd be nice if one of those players could play defense like Christie did, but that's hoping for a lot.

If it were me, I'd try to emulate what the mid-90's Rockets built around Olajuwon. Big Cuz obviously isn't what Olajuwon was on the defensive end, but he has the ability to be every bit as good on the offensive end. Surround him with as many shooters and willing passers as you can and you'll likely start winning more than you lose.

I haven't taken the time to look anything up, but if I were to guess, I'd guess that when you take anything to extremes, your probably not going to get the result your looking for. I agree with the Capt that the best way, or the most productive way is with balance. In other words, if you first in the league in defense, and last in offense, your probably not going to win a championship anytime soon. I think the same is true if your first in the league in offense, and last in defense. We've recently come close to that one. However, if your 10th in the league in both defense and offense, I'd place a fairly large wager that your a very competitive team with a shot at a championship.

I know that the general consensus is that were already a good offensive team. Well, we're capable of scoring a lot of points, but we're not very efficient at it. We have to be right up there in second chance points. And thank god we are, because our outside shooting isn't very good. For that reason, if we have the chance to add a very good offensive player who is just an average defender, think Rudy Gay, then I think you do it. That doesn't mean you automaticaly exclude the idea of adding defensive players as well. If your allowing 100 points a game and your scoring 100 points a game, then adding a player that improves your scoring to 101 points a game, also improves your winning percentage as long as your defensive stats remain the same. And as the Capt said, the reverse is true as well. My point is, no matter how much you may lust for a great defensive player, you don't turn away good offensive players because of it. One doesn't have to exclude the other.

I don't know how many of you watch the NCAA tourney. But Wisconsin is a terrific defensive team. Its almost as if the entire team is one person on defense. They make outstanding rotations. Its as if they read each others mind. Other than Dekker there aren't any outstanding athlete's on that team. I believe it was Kaminsky, when asked to describe his team replied with one word. White! Now Wisconsin is college and not the NBA, but my point is, you don't have to have great athlete's to play good team defense. What you do have to have is commitment. If you have players that don't commit, then get rid of them, or at best, sit them at the end of your bench until they do commit.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

Our team isn't very good at either

 

[lwc]

One huge key that helps offensively and defensively is limiting turnovers. For example of the Kings average 15 TO's per game and can cut it to 5 TO's that improves them on O and D.

Most NBA teams can capitalize on the fast break either by drawing a foul, getting a bucket, or both. At the same time a turnover is a lost scoring opportunity.

Thus, every time the Kings give up a turnover and the other team gets a bucket and a foul. That can be a 5-point loss as well as an unnecessary foul. (5 point loss because it cost you a chance at 2-3 points and gave them 2-3 points).

I believe a huge key to helping this team are players that take care of the ball. Rudy and Cuz are great talents but they average 5-6 turnovers per game between the two of them. Part of the problem is that they are usually only able to get their shot in ISO offenses. If Ray, IT or ssomeone else can consistently get then the ball in spots they can score effectively it can limit TO's and improve offensive and defensive efficiency.

The Kings can be a .500 team with this roster if they can stay healthy and limit turnovers.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

One huge key that helps offensively and defensively is limiting turnovers. For example of the Kings average 15 TO's per game and can cut it to 5 TO's that improves them on O and D.

The Kings can be a .500 team with this roster if they can stay healthy and limit turnovers.

I don't disagree that taking care of the ball is important. I think the vast majority would agree that it is.

However, while I don't know what the turnover rate was in the 28 games they've scored 105 or more, whatever it was certainly didn't prevent them from eclipsing a 70% winning percentage in those games. Make no mistake, though, limiting TO's is certainly a big part of offensive efficiency.

 

[Padrino]

All I'm saying is, the most direct path for improving this team seems rather apparent when looking at the numbers. They are 22-6 (.785) when they score 105 points or more. They are 5-43 (.104) when they don't. The difference is staggering.

you're dealing with outcomes here, but neglecting the cause. the difference is in the defense, plain and simple. the kings are 22-6 when they score 105 points or more because they need to score 105 points or more in order to win; they give up way too many ppg on the other end to win many games without eclipsing 100 regularly. sure, the kings' offense needs to improve at the systemic level, and the team needs to build greater chemistry as their roster takes on a more solidified shape next season, but that does not necessarily mean the team has to score more, which is a very elementary way of viewing the success or failure of a team's offense...

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I know that the general consensus is that were already a good offensive team. Well, we're capable of scoring a lot of points, but we're not very efficient at it. We have to be right up there in second chance points. And thank god we are, because our outside shooting isn't very good. For that reason, if we have the chance to add a very good offensive player who is just an average defender, think Rudy Gay, then I think you do it. That doesn't mean you automaticaly exclude the idea of adding defensive players as well. If your allowing 100 points a game and your scoring 100 points a game, then adding a player that improves your scoring to 101 points a game, also improves your winning percentage as long as your defensive stats remain the same. And as the Capt said, the reverse is true as well. My point is, no matter how much you may lust for a great defensive player, you don't turn away good offensive players because of it. One doesn't have to exclude the other.

My take is based upon the current make up of the roster. There aren't any proficient defenders on the team, especially amongst the best players. Cousins ain't going anywhere and he'll likely never be anything more than average defensively. I see him like Chris Webber. Dominant offensive talent, ok on defense. Rudy Gay isn't exactly Doug Christie like on defense and Isaiah has size limitations.

Considering the makeup of the core, I think trying to improve the offensive efficiency is the way to go. Similar to the Christie/Bibby trades I outlined, the goal should be to upgrade the passing/shooting abilities of the starting lineup. Basically, seek the type of players Geoff Petrie used to covet.

Given Cousins talents, I believe they should surround him with players who excel at passing/shooting. I used the mid-Nineties Rockets as an example, but probably even a better example is the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. The Kings have no Kobe, obviously, but they can try to fill out their roster with players similar to the role players those Lakers teams had. Shaq was the dominant inside force surrounded by shooters and smart basketball players ... Horry, Shaw, Fisher, etc.

Cousins is no Olajuwon on defense and he's no Shaq, in regards to defending the rim with shotblocking, but Shaq was a terrible screen and roll defender due to being overweight and not having lateral movement. Cousins will never be the rim defender Shaq was, but he can be a better defender in regards to movement and he's just as good a rebounder. The point is, the team can win with him anchoring the team on both sides of the court. They just need better efficiency and shooting on the offensive side.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

the kings are 22-6 when they score 105 points or more because they need to score 105 points or more in order to win; they give up way too many ppg on the other end to win many games without eclipsing 100 regularly.

Which is exactly why I'm suggesting focusing on improving offensive efficiency. The reasoning I continue to repeat is, given the makeup of the core, it'll be easier and more likely to improve the efficiency of the offense than it will to make a drastic jump on defense. When your best player is an all-NBA defender, in addition to being an offensive star (Olajuwon, Duncan, Jordan, LBJ), you can place a big focus on defense when you have an anchor like that playing 35-40 minutes a night. But when you don't have any 2-way stars, you sort of have to pick your poison, so-to-speak.

Like the 2000-2005 era Kings, this teams strengths, or potential strengths, reside on the offensive side of the ball. That's where their focus should be. The best chance they have at winning is being an offensive minded team that plays passable defense.

If the current management wants to emulate the Spurs and become a defensive-minded team, all the trades/signings they have made in an effort to reshape the roster have utterly failed in that regard. They're acquiring the wrong type of players.

If the goal is to build around Cousins, Gay, Thomas, McCallum, McLemore, etc., then I firmly believe improving offensive efficiency is the way to go.

 

[VF21]

All I'm saying is, the most direct path for improving this team seems rather apparent when looking at the numbers. They are 22-6 (.785) when they score 105 points or more. They are 5-43 (.104) when they don't. The difference is staggering.

As stated by several others, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can win with elite defense and a little offense or elite offense and a little defense or with a mix of both.

Unless they decide to blow up the roster and start over, I'm simply suggesting that focusing on defense may not be the best way to try to improve this team. The players on the roster don't have the skillset to become a good-to-great defensive team. While none of them are great passers either, I subscribe to the idea that it would be easier to coach them up to be better, more willing passers and more efficient on offense than it would be to teach them to play good team defense.

Also, to be clear, I'm not talking about small ball or changing styles to be a Don Nelson or Paul Westhead type offense. They don't need to change philosophies. They just need to become more efficient in the offense they already run.

Remember back to the glory years with CWebb, Vlade and Peja. Except for one year, those teams were never statistically that great defensively. They played passable defense. They won with highly efficient offense, which, at the core, involved good shooting and great ball movement. But they had to build toward it. They didn't really become great until they added improved shooting/passing via a couple of key moves. The trades for Doug Christie and Mike Bibby made the offensive philosophy reach the next level.

This team needs to look to build in the same direction. Like the Christie and Bibby moves, they need to find a few better fits for their offensive style. It'd be nice if one of those players could play defense like Christie did, but that's hoping for a lot.

If it were me, I'd try to emulate what the mid-90's Rockets built around Olajuwon. Big Cuz obviously isn't what Olajuwon was on the defensive end, but he has the ability to be every bit as good on the offensive end. Surround him with as many shooters and willing passers as you can and you'll likely start winning more than you lose.

I'm too lazy to do the research myself, but I cannot help but wonder if that particular statistic carries over to most of the teams in the NBA. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of many instances where a team doesn't win a lot more than they lose when they score 105+.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of many instances where a team doesn't win a lot more than they lose when they score 105+.

Fair point. But what about the flip side of being 5-43 when they don't? That's pretty close to not winning at all. If the record was something more like 15-33 when scoring under 105, that'd be one thing. But losing at a 90% clip really demonstrates how important it is that this team score the ball.

 

[Glenn]

If scoring is the key, bring back Westhead. Anybody remember the Westhead brand of ball?

 

[KingMilz]

If the goal is to build around Cousins, Gay, Thomas, McCallum, McLemore, etc., then I firmly believe improving offensive efficiency is the way to go.

If that's the goal we will be a 30 win team until we blow it up or land a freak draft pick. Those core group of players have for the most part no idea how to play winning team basketball at either end.

 

[VF21]

If that's the goal we will be a 30 win team until we blow it up or land a freak draft pick. Those core group of players have for the most part no idea how to play winning team basketball at either end.

That's just patently unfair. You're talking about two rookies and a guy who was traded mid-season, along with the rest who haven't played together as a team long enough to even know each other very well.

 

[Glenn]

If that's the goal we will be a 30 win team until we blow it up or land a freak draft pick. Those core group of players have for the most part no idea how to play winning team basketball at either end.

The team has been blown up. What more would you wish? We have two bonafied studs and a grossly screwed up guard situation that needs fixing. Can you be more specific as to what you want as your generalities are getting repetitive and not particularly helpful.

 

[VF21]

The team has been blown up. What more would you wish? We have two bonafied studs and a grossly screwed up guard situation that needs fixing. Can you be more specific as to what you want as your generalities are getting repetitive and not particularly helpful.

Au contraire, mon ami. He's now saying "Those core group of players have for the most part no idea how to play winning team basketball at either end" instead of just saying they have no basketball IQ.