In the last installment of the Clipperblogger summit, Steve Perrin got to the heart of the matter when he wrote …
That’s a pretty astounding collection of talent on paper. So why did they only win 19 games last season? And why are expectations so low for this season?
If the Clippers’ current state is not due to a deficiency of talent, then how do we begin to explain what’s going on? What does it mean to say that the Clippers have chemistry or cultural issues, which prevailing wisdom tells us are the reasons why a team with an excess of talent loses 63 games.
A number of clubs with impulsive personalities have succeeded in the NBA. Didn’t a Warriors team in 2006-07 composed of Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, Monte Ellis, et al, shock the world in defeating arguably one of the best regular season teams of recent memory? In that same spirit, a number of improvisational players have succeeded in rigid systems — to wit, Allen Iverson and Larry Brown. I’d argue that the Clippers’ three primary scoring options last season, Baron Davis, Zach Randolph, and Eric Gordon all have strong attributes that appeal to Mike Dunleavy’s coaching philosophy. Still, the team’s failures are dramatic. The Clippers weren’t merely underachievers in 2008-09; they were sensationally awful.
In 1953, philosopher Isaiah Berlin took an old adage credited to a Greek poet named Archilochus and created one of the academic world’s great parlor games. The saying goes, “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Berlin explains in the beginning of the essay:
…taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general. For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel–a single, universal, organizing principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance–and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related by no moral or aesthetic principle; these last lead lives, perform acts, and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal, their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision. The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes…
Berlin theorized that history’s great thinkers and artists — except for Leo Tolstoy — could be divided into hedgehogs and foxes. According to Berlin, Dante’s allegiance to order made him a classic hedgehog, while Shakespeare’s expansiveness on everything from storytelling to language screamed “fox.” There’s a hilarious scene in Woody Allen’s Husbands & Wives where the neurotic Judy Davis mentally catalogues everyone in her life as either a hedgehog or fox while she’s busy screwing Liam Neeson.
It’s tempting to categorize most NBA superstars as hedgehogs because “single central vision” evokes the likes of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, but when the fox is a self-aware and skilled practitioner, he’s pretty amazing too! (think LeBron James and Larry Bird). Basketball players embody a lot of individual artistic talents, but they also have to assemble those features collectively if they want to win as a team. A good NBA squad usually has a healthy balance of types. The Lakers have hedgehogs in Bryant and Phil Jackson, who abide by what Berlin describes as “one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel,” even if Bryant and Jackson sometime disagree about the exact tenets of that system. But the Lakers didn’t win the title until they harnessed the centrifugal qualities of Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Trevor Ariza.
The Clippers, in contrast, are a prickle of hedgehogs without a common goal. Nobody works off anyone else. Like Jackson and Bryant, Mike Dunleavy and Baron Davis are both hedgehogs, yet each subscribes to a system in direct conflict with the other. Dunleavy likes to exploit the best one-on-one matchups on the floor (“the building blocks approach“), while Baron’s measurement of the game is velocity — the 3-on-2 break, the early pick-and-roll with a lightning-quick big, or maybe by driving to the hole before the defense gets set. Try to impose a competing vision on Baron and … you know the story.
Zach Randolph’s approach to basketball has a strong, singular focus to it. He likes to work below the mid-post area on the right side, face his guy up, take a jab step, then a dribble or two, creating space for himself to launch with his left hand — either with a step-back jumper or by muscling his way to the rim.
Al Thornton works inside the smallest vacuum in the league. He has only one pursuit: Isolation. Try for a blow-by, but usually settle for the mid-range jumper. If there was ever a player designed to be a primary scorer on a bad team, it’s Al Thornton.
On the surface, Chris Kaman might seem like a fox, but in practice, he’s a guy who lacks the adaptability to know more than one thing: Posting up in a one-on-one situation. We’ll catch an occasional glimpse of Kaman in the pick-and-roll, but he actually gets almost as many shots on offensive rebounds than he does as a “roll man” (11.6% of his offense vs. 13.6% of his offense). Kaman clings mightily to the structure of Dunleavy’s offense, and might be the player on the roster most dependent on a system to be effective.
Eric Gordon? Still figuring out his organizing principles as a shooting guard, but after one season he leans hedgehog — and even looks a little like one. Once he and Griffin become the primary options in the Clippers’ offense (the sooner, the better), we’ll have a better idea of how Gordon sees the game.
With the possible exception of Steve Novak, Marcus Camby is the lone member of the Clippers’ fox delegation. Novak — the one-dimensional shooter is a fox? How can that be?! Novak’s talent might be singular, but you can plug him into almost any system. Drive-and-kick? Check. A post-oriented offense with shooters scattered around the perimeter? Check. Can he play in transition? You bet. Every coach in the league, from Mike Dunleavy to Mike D’Antoni, can make constructive use of Novak.
Camby has a lot of self-contradictory features as a big man, and he pursues many ends — shot-blocker, rebounder, slingshot from 17 feet (for better or worse), high post facilitator. Camby’s greatest value comes when he protects the rim, and every system needs a basket defender. Everywhere he’s gone, Camby has adjusted his skill set to meet the common objective.
Is Blake Griffin a hedgehog or a fox? It’s far too early to tell. Griffin’s primary weakness (shooting range) and other perceived deficiencies (i.e., post defense) can be largely attributed to playing in a college game that didn’t encourage — and might have discouraged – the development of those skills. By the time Griffin arrives as a fully-formed big man ready to lead the Clippers to success, the likes of Zach Randolph, Chris Kaman, Marcus Camby — and possibly Al Thornton and Baron Davis — will be footnotes. Since Griffin will be the big dog, the Clippers’ should maximize his strengths — racking ass in the paint, and being quicker than almost any 4 in the league. You do that in two ways: Designing a game plan suited to those talents, and by populating the roster with the appropriate role players.
Building a team is a careful process — one that’s far more precise than just “collecting talent.” Over the next 24 months, the Clippers’ brass needs to study Griffin and Gordon intently, quantify their on-court skills, assess what kind of environment will best develop those tools, and choose the complementary pieces accordingly. If they want a team of hedgehogs, that’s fine — just make sure everyone agrees on the “one big thing.” If Gordon and Griffin turn out to be fox-ish players whose athleticism is best deployed expansively, that’s cool too. More than likely, a successful Clippers’ future will demand an equilibrium of hedgehog and fox.
24 Responses
“I’d argue that the Clippers’ three primary scoring options last season, Baron Davis, Zach Randolph, and Eric Gordon all have strong attributes that appeal to Mike Dunleavy’s coaching philosophy”
The season was basically over before Zach came and Gordon got playing time.
[Reply]
Posted on June 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I don’t think it’s possible to lose 63 games if you have a certain amount of talent. And that’s the problem with the Clippers: some of the players who you’d classify as having “talent” are actually fairly untalented. Take Al Thornton. Is he really talented? If basketball were played 1-on-1, maybe. But outside of a decent ability to score, what talents does he have? He can’t rebound, pass, or defend. He’s not particularly smart, nor does he have good natural basketball instincts (those two qualities aren’t necessarily mutual exclusive, but they’re different enough). All of these attributes are talents, even intelligence. Hey, if uber-athletic projects can be labeled talented, why not players who are naturally smart?
Let’s take it a step further. Who do you think is more talented, Al Thornton or Shane Battier? Most people would say Thornton. But why? Battier can rebound and pass better. He plays better team defense and better individual defense. He’s smarter and his instincts are better. He’s a team leader and communicates on defense and offense. Hell, he can even shoot the 3 better. Without looking at PER or WP or whatever, you can tell that Battier would help most teams win more games than Thornton would. Are all these things that Battier does better, all these things that help his team win…are they not talents? Do they not make him talented?
[Reply]
eastie Rich Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I don’t know anyone who would say Thorton is more talented than Battier.
[Reply]
john Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:36 am
agreed, I don’t think thornton is fooling too many people.
Davis, Camby, Gordon, Randolph, Kaman however…all talented players. I think any one of those 5 could be a starter on a good team.
[Reply]
Jackduhsun Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Same. Battier > Thornton. But from a Clippers standpoint, Thornton > Battier. I know the facts, Battier is better, but Thornton is barely in his second year. Give him some credit.
[Reply]
Daniel Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
He’s also a full year older than Lebron. He’s not going to get much better.
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 am
The last paragraph pretty much describes the current Magic team
[Reply]
eastie Rich Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Yeah, figuring out the best way to optimize the talents of Gordon and Griffin would seem to be a no brainer. However, we still have the same owner, gm and coach. So I don’t think it will be so easy.
We’re stuck with the owner so the best way to go is to can the gm and coach – the one and only, historically pathetic Mike Dunleavy.
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 3:27 am
[...] Arnovitz’s ClipperBlog post today, he gets into one of the fundamental issues of modern basketball, and one of the two or three main [...]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Last time I checked Donald Sterling has yet to suit up or log any playing time. So lets drop him from the failure equation. In the last few years I believe he’s stepped up in the money department as much as any other owner who is not willing to pay the luxury tax, which are most of them. I agree he’s not a likable person and he brings a losers mentality, but he is not the guy missing lay ups or jogging up the court with his head down. So that lays the blame on either the players and/or the coach. Since most NBA players barely listen to their coaches and do mostly whatever they want, it has to be the players. I can only hope that Baron was hurt worse than we know and Zach will find his inner warrior at last. We have 2 of the most dynamic young players in the game in GORDON and Griffin and maybe a couple of unpolished role players in TAYLER and JORDAN. Plug in CAMBY and get a solid player in a trade for KAMAN and this should be a 50 win team. On paper anyway. And I just read where the Rockets offered the T-Wolves ARRON BROOKS and SHANE BATTIER for RICKY RUBIO. Man, why can’t we offer them KAMAN, THORTON and NOVAK for the same deal?
[Reply]
eastie Rich Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
You can’t say DTS “brings a losers mentality” and absolve him for his teams abysmal performance.
[Reply]
TNT57 Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
He has absolutely nothing to do with their ‘performance’? Tell me how an old man sitting courtside has any eggect on the team? Al Thorton wasn’t even sure who he was when he started yelling at him last year. I don’t get your logic.
[Reply]
TNT57 Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
EFFECT, sorry.
[Reply]
eastie Rich Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Good owners beget good teams. Examples, Kraft and the Patriots, Buss and the Lakers, Henry (maj. owner) and the Red Sox. I could go on in the opposite way, Dolans (is that right) and the Knicks, Sterling and the Clippers, who is it that owns the Lions?
Pretty simple really. Anyone who works for a living can attest that shi* flows downhill.
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If the Rockets are willing to give up Battier, why don’t we go after him? We need smart perimeter defense more than we need a point guard. Baron is our guy for better or worse.
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I’d love to have Battier but who would the Rockets take for him? Their GM is generally considered a very good evaluator of players. He’s not gonna be fooled into thinking Kaman and Thornton are legit players the way other GM’s might. We need to get on the phone with guys like David Khan, Chris Wallace, and Michael Jordan if we really wanna get value for guys like that. THe problem of course is that our two biggest liabilities on the court, Kaman and Thornton, seem to be the two guys Dunleavy is most infatuated with playing. He’ll never give those guys up. He’ll sooner trade Marcus, Zach, Baron, Gordon, Griffin, Mike and DJ before he moves Kaman and Thornton. Dunleavy is so failtacular its incredible.
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Wow, this has to be the best article I’ve ever read relating to the clippers. I still have problems being optimistic with next years team, especially since the roster really hasn’t changed. Hopefully Blake Griffin can transform the attitude of these players. I think that having camaraderie and staying healthy are the only ways the clippers will have any success next year…
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Kevin, with depth of writing, you shouldn’t be writing about the Clippers. You should be writing for the National Review…..
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
While watching the draft it was interesting to see how the commentators talked about what a [any] player does well, doesn’t do well and what they bring to the team… which is all well and good, but is only part of the picture.
The Clipper have players, but the essential ingredients of a team, even better, and organization are severely lacking:
- Coaching- Dumb-leavy, ’nuff said.
- Organization- Who is running this thing? Rosener? Dumb-leavy? The players?
- Fans- You know you are a Clips fan when… You know where you were when Livingston went down, or when Brand jumped ship, or when Manning went down or… you get the picture. You are a Clips fan when you are a fan in spite of knowing the being a Clips fan is like loving a wayward son or daughter; you keep hoping for something to come through, but know in your heart of hearts that it just isn’t in them.
- Players- Talented, sure. Motivated, questionable. Like-able, barely.
- System- What system do the Clips run??? We haven’t had a plan since Sammy was here?!?!
- Ownership- uggghhh.
The talk of foxes and hedgehogs in nice but limited.
I’m waiting for next year where I might be able to stomach watching a full game, where the talent and the organization gets on the same page and expectations are met.
Until then, I will continue to hope my Clips go to rehab.
[Reply]
eastie Rich Reply:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:16 am
And I’ll be watching from home for the first time in years.
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I’m not too sure how factual it is that the Rockets want to give up Battier. If there is any truth to it, it is highly possible after reading that YAO is going to sit out all of next season and possibly longer with a jacked up foot. In this case, Houston needs a versatile big man to power the low post offense they built around Yao. We can compile and sell Kaman’s ambidextrous highlight footage from 07′. In an ideal world, the trad would be: B.Barry + S.Battier for C.Kaman. This would be perfect (salary wise) for both teams(http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine). We would get an ex clip/ ex champ/ consistent combo guard in Barry and the hard nosed/ defensive minded/ team leader 3 we need to compliment Camby. Imagine…
1. B Diddy (in better shape)
2. E.Gordon (another year older)
3. S.Battier (DEFENSE)
4. B.Griffin (statement year)
5. M.Camby (DEFENSE)
Bench
Randolph
Novak
Taylor
Jordan
Swagger, strength, defense, and youth. The 2010 Clippers can be it.
Even Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream…
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I’d love that trade and roster, except I think this year Zach would be the starter at power forward. A 3-4-5 of Shane, Griffin, and Camby is not potent enough offensively. Zach would be our post guy who opens it up for shooters. Griffin could come off the bench with Taylor, Novak, Thornton and DJ and absolutely run teams out of the gym.
But yeah overall the lineup is deadly.
Baron
Gordon
Shane
Zach
Marcus
[Reply]
Clipper Speakeasy Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Unfortunately, this dream will never come true. Morey, the Rockets GM, knows the value of Battier better than anyone and Kaman for Battier/Barry will never cut it. Read this for insight into how Morey values Battier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?pagewanted=all
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
How about Grumpy, Sleepy, Bashful, Doc and Dopey…I mean Kaman? Same thing. I think getting Battier is a fairy tale. I watched NBA channel and they all said Dunleavy is infatuated with Randolph’s offense and still thinks Kaman is one of the 5 best big men in the league. Where’s that poison apple when you need it?
[Reply]
Posted on June 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Add A Comment