Many NBA commentators obsess about field goal percentages, and throw around numbers devoid of historical context, and without consideration of how matchups, rules, and other factors may have impacted those field goal percentages. We are told that high field goal percentages are good, low field goal percentages are bad, and there is nothing else that we need to know. The reality is that a player who can create a shot for himself and create shots for his teammates is more valuable than a player who lacks such skills, even if the player with shot creation skills has a lower field goal percentage than the shooting specialist.
Commentators who focus on field goal percentages are very selective about which players they choose to discuss and how they choose to discuss those players, as I noted in Fun With NBA Finals Field Goal Percentages.
Here are the field goal percentages and three point field goal percentages for three NBA players since December 1, 2021:
Player 1: .386/.346 (26 games)
Player 2: .424/.307 (21 games)
Player 3: .442 /.301 (27 games)
Please identify the MVP candidate, the likely All-Star, and the player who does not have a chance of being named an All-Star this season.
We are told that shooting is the most important skill in today's game, and that three point shooting is the most important kind of shooting, in contrast to post play (which we are told is inefficient and obsolete). We are told that if you can't shoot then it is difficult to justify putting you on the court, let alone selecting you as an All-Star.
In case you have not figured it out (or looked it up), Player 1 is Stephen Curry, Player 2 is James Harden, and Player 3 is Russell Westbrook.
Curry is shooting worse than .400 from the field since December 1, a span that covers more than half of the season to date. At what point do commentators acknowledge that this is not a "slump," but rather this is who Curry is right now? Maybe Curry will figure out how to shoot well again, maybe he is a declining player, maybe he is struggling to score now that the NBA is allowing defensive players to play more physically (at least sometimes)--but whatever the cause of his current shooting, and regardless of what may happen in the future, right now Curry is a below average shooter, and shooting is Curry's main value.
It is interesting to note that the Warriors are winning despite Curry's poor shooting. Some may argue that the Warriors are winning because of Curry's "gravity" creating openings for others--but has such an excuse ever been made for a player who shot worse than .400 from the field for such an extended period of games? A more realistic explanation is that the Warriors are overcoming Curry's poor shooting because they have a lot of talented players, and they are a very good defensive team.
Curry finished first in All-Star balloting among Western Conference guards. He will be an All-Star starter, and his name is regularly mentioned in MVP discussions. Curry was often described as the leading MVP candidate this season, but his "slump" has lasted so long that even his biggest fans are slowly realizing how foolish it sounds to rank him as the leading MVP candidate when Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antekounmpo, and Joel Embiid are not only shooting better than Curry but they are bigger players who are dominating games in multiple ways.
Harden finished fourth in All-Star balloting among Eastern Conference guards, so he will not be a starter, but it will be a surprise if he is not selected as a reserve.
Westbrook received little support in the All-Star balloting, and it will be very surprising if he is selected as an All-Star this season. Westbrook has never been a great shooter, and his field goal shooting/three point shooting this season is in line with his career averages, as are his per minute rebounding and turnover numbers. His assists per minute are down a little bit, but that is what happens to any playmaker who shares the court with LeBron James. Just to be clear, the point is not that Westbrook was or is overrated. The point is that Westbrook is the same player now that he has always been both in terms of shooting efficiency and his floor game; as Hubie Brown noted, Westbrook never cheats the game. Westbrook's problems are (1) his role has been reduced, (2) his team is not performing well for reasons that are largely beyond his control, and (3) many media members have decided to make him the scapegoat for the Lakers' failure to meet high preseason expectations.
The point is not that Westbrook should be an All-Star this season, or that Curry and Harden should not be All-Stars. The point is that media-driven narratives are often based on agendas, not objective reality. We are bombarded with the narrative that Westbrook is having a terrible season and that he is the main reason that the Lakers are performing below expectations, but little is said about Harden's struggles, and almost nothing is said about Curry's poor shooting--and the little that is said about Curry either minimizes his inefficient shooting and/or asserts (with no evidence) that Curry is having a positive impact on winning despite not shooting well.
A conversation rooted in the reality that Westbrook is, in many ways, the same player that he has been when he was properly recognized as an All-Star and an MVP candidate would flow much differently than a conversation rooted in the unfounded allegation that Westbrook has suddenly declined and is no longer an effective player.
Similarly, a conversation rooted in the reality that Curry has been shooting poorly for most of this season would flow much differently than a conversation rooted in the unfounded notion that Curry is merely in a "slump" and that his "gravity" is more meaningful than his shooting percentages. Likewise, a conversation rooted in the reality that Harden struggles to score when defensive players are permitted to guard him without being called for cheap (i.e., non-existent) fouls would flow much differently than conversation that pretends that Harden is a an elite scorer under any rules set.
Curry shot 5-18 from the field (including 3-10 from three point range) as his Golden State Warriors barely won at home (110-106) versus a Brooklyn Nets team that is without the services of Kevin Durant and James Harden. A crucial late game play involved a phantom foul call in Curry's favor when he leaped into the defender, exactly the kind of shenanigans that the NBA vowed to eliminate this season--and that the NBA has, to a large extent, minimized thus far. ABC's Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson both immediately pointed out that this was a bad call, that the NBA is supposedly eliminating such calls from the game, and that the timing of this call had a big impact on the result of the game.
I generally don't believe conspiracy theories, and I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory here, but I am concerned that the NBA has noted with chagrin the struggles of Curry, Harden, and other players who have often relied on such shenanigans, and that the NBA may in general be loosening the way such fouls are being called. Again, I am not saying that the NBA is deliberately and overtly favoring specific players or specific teams with specific calls to change the outcome of a given game. My point is that Harden had great difficulty drawing fouls during the first portion of the season, but recently his free throw attempts have increased (though his field goal percentage has been bad throughout the season). Maybe Harden is adjusting to how the game is being officiated, but from what I have seen the NBA is "adjusting" to how poorly some of its marquee players are shooting. This would not be the first time that the NBA announced an officiating "point of emphasis" at the start of the season, and then gradually began not emphasizing that point as the season progressed.
Curry has been an MVP-level player in previous seasons. Harden has been an All-Star level player in previous seasons, and a case could be made that he is still an All-Star level player. However, there is no question that both players have benefited from the way that the game has been officiated in recent seasons, and the way that the strategic emphasis has switched from good shot selection to maximizing the number of three pointers attempted. If Curry and Harden struggle to shoot .400 in an NBA that is slightly more physical in 2022 than it was in 2021, let's put to rest the notion that they would have been 30+ ppg scorers in the 1980s and 1990s; take away the outlandish number of three point attempts, and take away not only the gift free throws but also the advantage of the space that is created because defensive players are wary of being called for fouls, and you take away the advantages that transform Curry and Harden from 20-22 ppg scorers to 30+ ppg scorers. That is not an agenda-based narrative; that is an assertion based on facts and observations.