For past three seasons, NetsDaily has used Dumpy as our stats guru and systems/process guy. He’s taken looks at the team’s statistical performance and analyzed how the draft might go based on historical trends and the preferences of team management. Now he’s taking a “systems-oriented” look at the coming season by examining whether the right pieces are in place to be successful. We think he’s a bit of an alchemist.

Predicted Record: 39-42, with one rainout.

Hello again, and welcome to another fun-filled season of New Jersey Nets basketball. As in past seasons, the Nets will be led this season by their “big three” of Jason Kidd, Richard Jeff—

Oops. Old habits die hard. Who would have thought that the Nets would eventually give up on the idea of trying to surround Kidd, Jefferson, and Vince Carter with a group of mediocre veterans without any tangible upside and hope for the best? If there was an upside to Jason Kidd’s petulant behavior last season, it was that he essentially forced management to turn the page and adopt a different tack. So, with that in mind, let me try again. In what has been termed a “rebuilding season,” the New Jersey Nets will struggle to reach double digits in victories, and have set an ambitious goal of achieving the 29th best record in—

No, wait a second. That doesn’t seem correct, either. The club just has to be better than that, right? This preseason prediction racket is more difficult than it first appears. So who, exactly, are these New Jersey Nets? With only three players returning from last season’s exciting opening day match against the Bulls, what can be realistically expected from this squad? What, exactly, could be considered a “successful season” from this group? More importantly, why should we waste our winter rooting for a team that is so obviously doomed to a season of ineptitude and failure?

To help answer those questions and more, this piece is going to have to be a little different from the typical preseason fare. Because this squad consists nearly entirely of new players who have never played together before, it probably wouldn’t be very instructive to just go through the roster and guess where the strengths and weaknesses are.

The truth of the matter is that we just don’t know what this season will bring; there are too many variables and unknowns. We don’t even know what the opening day starting lineup and rotation will look like, let alone what it will look like four, eight, or twelve weeks from now! Moreover, the Nets sport three rookies and two sophomores that are expected to have significant roles during the upcoming season. That’s fully a third of the team! How can we even try to predict what their strengths and weaknesses will be—other than merely to list “youth” on both sides of the ledger? We just can’t do it. We can try to guess whether Brook Lopez, Ryan Anderson, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Yi Jianlian, and Sean Williams will be productive, but when all is said and done, it will just be a guess based solely on whether we have a tendency to be optimistic or pessimistic about the future. We might as well read used tea leaves or try or hand at numerology; we’d have just as much chance of being correct.

So instead, what I’d like to do is focus on whether the Nets appear to have a plan in place to achieve success; try to figure out what that plan is; and try to predict whether they have the pieces in place to achieve that success. To do this, I am going to start by exploring just what it seems to take for a team to be successful in today’s NBA. Then we can try to decide whether the way that the Nets have rebuilt this team has a chance to be successful, if not this season, then a year or two down the line. If the team doesn’t have a plan in place, then it does no good to simply acquire players with potential, even if they are super-athletic. They have to be nurtured, and be focused on achieving results through commonly-held goals. Now, by the term “successful” I’m not just referring to the teams that have ultimately become NBA champions, although obviously they would be included in the discussion. No, I’m referring to the characteristics that appear to be shared by most (if not all) of the top eight or ten teams each season. To be clear, these are those teams that are playoff-caliber teams, and they all probably believe that they have at least some chance to reach the Finals once the playoffs begin. As you would expect, these teams are built all sorts of different ways, and play all sorts of different styles, but, remarkably, they have more in common than you might think.

First and foremost, you need the right personnel. A look at most of the successful teams reveals a couple of interesting patterns regarding their starting lineups:

(A) First, the team needs a quality point guard. This doesn’t require a premier ball distributor like a Kidd or Steve Nash, although his primary job is to get his teammates involved and distribute the ball. The point guard is rarely the primary scorer (even if he is, he still must be able to do those other things well). However, the point guard must be enough of a scoring threat so that the opposing defense must pay attention to him. If the point guard’s skill set does not mesh with the team’s established (or attempted) style of play (more on this in a bit), the team is unlikely to be successful.

(B) The team needs a strong inside presence. This player isn’t necessarily the team’s top scoring threat either, although it is more likely than the point guard. At the very least, he must be a dependable scorer when left open in the paint, and be able to score off of offensive rebounds.

(C) Of course, the team also needs a reliable outside shooter. It’s been said many times that having an inside-out game is what gets you easy baskets. In other words, having a reliable outside shooter without a strong inside presence, or vice-versa, presents a huge deficiency that is nearly impossible to overcome. The absence of this duality, of course, is one of the things that doomed the Nets over the past few years.

(D) Among the three players described above, the team needs a superstar. That is, not just a really good player, but a potential Hall-of-Fame player: someone who can take over a game in the fourth quarter, and who the defense has to constantly be aware of. The superstar will likely be either the inside or outside threat discussed above, although on occasion I guess it could be the point guard as well—certainly someone like Gilbert Arenas could qualify.

(E) The team needs a player in the starting lineup who “does the little things” to help the team win. A well timed steal, defensive play, rebound, taking a charge, scrapping on the floor for a loose ball--whatever pumps the team up and keeps the opponent on their toes.

(F) Finally, the team needs to be at least an average rebounding team. This is NOT the same as having a single premier rebounder on the team. Rebounds have to be thought of in terms of rebounding opportunities, and NOT in terms of raw numbers. The goal here is to get the highest percentage of defensive rebounds as possible, and to be successful at restricting the opposition’s success at obtaining offensive rebounds. This requires a team approach to rebounding; often one player’s role will be just to box out the opposing big and to let his teammates secure the loose ball. With regard to offensive rebounds, though, this description changes a bit. Offensive rebounds, unlike defensive rebounds, are an individual skill (as opposed to the result of well-coordinated play), and it helps to have at least one player that has this talent. Having a strong offensive rebounder puts pressure on the opposition and over the course of a game could create a wide disparity in the number of possessions, giving you more chances to score. To be clear on this: successful teams are not necessarily GREAT rebounding teams, but NONE of them are POOR rebounding teams.

A look at successful teams over the course of the last decade will show that most, if not all, share these basic qualities. Let’s stop here and see how these Nets stack up so far. At the time of this writing, we’re not entirely sure what the starting lineup will look like, so we’ll have to fudge things a little bit.

(A) A quality point guard. I think Devin Harris satisfies this requirement. He’s not a great scorer; not a great distributor; doesn’t always keep all his teammates involved, but seems to do enough of all three to be an effective point on a successful team. Certainly, defense can’t ignore his shooting ability like they could for his predecessor. During his short stint with the team last year, Devin also demonstrated that he has to potential to become a pretty special player. If we had one primary complaint, it would be that he has to curb his tendency to attack the basket one-on-three and toss up a quick jumper early in the shot clock, instead of pulling back and involving his trailing teammates.

(B) A strong inside presence. Well, here’s a problem. The Nets envision Lopez as their inside presence of the future, and they have no one else that can fill this role. Whether he will be successful as a rookie is a complete unknown. On the plus side, though, he has appeared to grow in leaps and bounds during the final few games of the preseason, and it wouldn’t surprise anyone if he developed into a strong inside presence as early as December. Of course, we don’t even expect that Brook will be a starter, at least for the first month or two of the season (although Josh Boone’s recent heart scare would seem to make this a bit more likely).

However, we can take some solace in the fact that the Nets obviously recognized this weakness and have tried to negate it. Outside of a top-three draft pick, it would be hard to find a young big man with more potential (and quirkiness) than Lopez, and so the optimist in me is very excited at watching his development over the next 80 games or so. If Lopez doesn’t start, the assignment will go to Boone. I’m a big fan of his, but he hasn’t demonstrated that he can be a reliable inside presence (although in my view his skills are overlooked by many).

(C) A reliable outside shooter. Yup, we’ve got that. A man who needs no introduction, and there’s no reason to waste any space discussing his talents. Carter, of course, also happens to be . . . .

(D) A superstar. You can argue whether Carter’s ability and athleticism is declining (I believe not), but there’s no doubt that he can certainly take over a game, and demands the constant attention of the defense, which allows his teammates to get open (we think that Bobby Simmons, Yi, and Anderson will be big beneficiaries of this). On this team, he’s indisputably the man (I’m still waiting for you to accept my footrace challenge, though, big guy).

(E) Someone who “does the little things” to help the team win. This one is tough to discuss, because we still aren’t really sure of what the rest of the starting lineup will look like. However, Boone, Eduardo Najera, and even Douglas-Roberts would appear to be able to fill this role. Maybe Trent Hassell as well; at least his reputation would suggest that he is a real gamer. Perhaps even Simmons, who seems likely to be the starting SF, at least at the start of the season, but we’re not completely familiar with his game yet. Certainly, one of these players will start; most of them will have primary roles off the bench, so among the group this characteristic is likely to be filled somehow.

(F) Be an average rebounding team. The Nets have actually been a decent rebounding team over the past few years. One reason has been the rebounding mentality of Jason Collins, who focused on boxing out the opposition so that Kidd and Carter could secure the ball. The jury is out this year, however. Collins is gone, and in his place are the unproven Lopez and the ball-averse Yi. Lopez has done a mediocre job rebounding during the preseason—giving up a lot of offensive rebounds to the opposing center—but we expect improvement. Boone, however, does a pretty good job both boxing out and securing offensive rebounds, and we can only hope that he’ll be healthy. This is a possible problem spot, although Lawrence Frank has done a good job in the past of selling the team on the “team rebounding” principles. Perhaps this is a good point to mention Anderson, who has demonstrated a rare talent for anticipating rebounds and getting into the right position.

But there’s more to building a successful team. I can’t emphasize this enough: Having the right personnel does not guarantee team success. Every team has athletic, talented players.

As far as I can tell, there are four primary factors that set the contending teams apart from the terrible teams:

(A) An established team-wide “identity” that everyone buys into. Successful teams have a defined style of play, whether a fast break style, a slow, defensive-oriented style, or anything else that some creative head coach can come up with. The specific type of style is irrelevant; there are many ways to achieve success in the league. Think for a moment about the differences between Phoenix, Houston, Detroit, the Lakers, etc., all of whom have achieved recent success through widely different styles of play. Yet, when you think of each of those teams, you can immediately identify what their particular style is. They’ve defined it, and now it defines them. The reason that a “defined style” is important is that it provides the players with a “safety zone,” so when things aren’t going well the players can return to the system’s set principles and regain their focus (I should credit Kenny Smith for this insight). The key, of course, is that all the players “buy in” to these principles, and that they are held in higher regard than individual achievements. I can’t emphasize this enough: A team consisting of “name” players that does not establish a style of play that the players buy into is unlikely to be successful. Period.

(B) A deep bench. A successful team needs a great bench, that is, players who can come in the game and change the momentum of the game. The bench should be deep enough so that you can weather three or four simultaneous injuries to your primary personnel, and should include a primary backup swingman and a primary backup bigman that can play 25-30 minutes when needed without the team losing effectiveness. Moreover, a team’s bench must be evaluated in terms of their designated style of play, as described above: the bench should be able to produce in that established style, and, if circumstances force a particular reserve to play heavy minutes, the team should not have to alter the designated style of play to remain successful. For laughs, just look at the Nets’ bench last season: a collection of parts that didn’t have a common identity. One guy could shoot but couldn’t play defense. Another guy could play defense but couldn’t shoot. Another guy was a plodder. Another guy liked to run and shoot but not to pass. Etc., etc., etc. I’m convinced that a team’s bench, as a whole, is just as important as any one of its star players. What is fascinating is that it is often easier and cheaper to fix a team’s bench than to obtain either an elite inside threat or shooter to fill out the starting lineup (obviously, the Nets tried to do just that during this past offseason). A team missing one of the primary characteristics described above can still be successful if it has a strong, deep bench.

(C) A roster full of unselfish players that will do whatever it takes to win, and are not concerned with their own stats. This can also be called “chemistry,” and also refers to the “intangibles” that allow a team to play better together than the skills of individual players would seem to suggest. I believe that “chemistry” is the result of choosing a style of play that best fits the personnel; the players buying into the style of play and putting team success over individual success; and the players trying hard every game and every play. They also respect each other and their coach.

(D) A coaching staff that puts the players in a position to experience success. This just follows logically from the previous three points. The coaching staff must consider the skills and weaknesses of the players in devising a suitable style of play.

So, with all this in mind, let’s return to the primary purpose of this piece and think again about the upcoming season. How do the Nets look in terms of these intangibles? Actually, pretty darn well. It’s clear that during this off-season the Nets were focused on establishing a particular identity. But don’t just take my word for it; let’s listen to what one of the beat writers had to say recently.

Here’s Dave D’Alessandro:
“[Frank] wants an elite defensive team, one that is capable of applying pressure for 94 feet -- he knows that much. But after surrendering 111 points to Boston without its Big Three and 45 points in the first 14 minutes against the Knicks Monday night, he also knows this is still a fairly distant goal. . . .He also knows he wants an offense predicated on paint attacks and the 3-point shot, with seamless options after the initial break is shut off.”

With far less inside knowledge, this is the way I see it: The Nets are trying to build an identity that involves strong perimeter defense (Harris, Vince Carter, Keyon Dooling, Najera), protecting the rim (Boone, Brook Lopez, and hello, Sean Williams and Stromile Swift, displaying solid, consistent outside shooting from multiple sources (Carter, Simmons, Douglas-Roberts, possibly Mo Ager when he gets a chance to play), especially among the big men (Yi, Anderson), and being committed to ball movement--including the drive-and-kick that we have become used to this preseason ( Douglas-Roberts, Jarvis Hayes, and Carter again). Moreover, team defense is fundamental: if you can’t play defense you won’t play very much. On that point, I believe that it was no accident that Williams was going around during the off-season talking about how he was focused on playing defense this year.

This plan, in fact, was the impetus for many of the roster changes made this year. The Nets acquired a bunch of players that put the team first (Najera comes to mind); who are known for sharing the ball; and that excel at outside shooting. In addition, they specifically set out to purge the team of the players that did not, or could not, defend. On this note, let me reproduce a snippet of a message I posted earlier during the summer on one of the discussion boards:

"It's no accident that RJ is gone, that Marcus is being shopped, and that (despite what they say publicly) Boki and Nenad won’t be back. They are the defensive weak links."

How about that. See? There’s a cogent plan in place, and it has been in place since the end of last season. In fact, if you judge the off-season acquisitions in light of these goals and expected preferred style of play, it looks like they did pretty well. The bench now holds several players that could step in, and whose strengths appear to mesh well with the perceived goals articulated above. So, here’s the upshot from all of this. I still have my hopes up for the coming season. Success will ultimately come down to elements like coaching; how well the players interact with each other; whether the team has a primary identity and whether the players buy into it; and whether they are willing to put the team above their individual stats. I think the Nets have, or are gaining, those things. I think these players are gamers who will play hard every day, and won't just “play out the string” when March 1 rolls around. I think they'll play hard defense and sprint back on transition. I think they’ll buy into the team-first idea.

And I think that Vince Carter is still a stud.

I see their potential upside as what the Sixers accomplished last year: a mostly young team that no one expected anything from, but over the course of the year became more effective and rolled into the playoffs. Net Income agrees, and has pointed out a host of similarities between the Nets’ and the Sixers’ strategies. First, Ed Stefanski (and before him Billy King) cleared a lot of cap space by making big and sometimes unpopular moves, picking up some draft picks and expiring contracts. They retained a veteran leader (Andre Miller) to help their youngsters develop. Then, they gave their young players a chance to develop, and didn’t panic when they got off to a poor start last year. Eventually, the youngsters started to “get it,” and they improved dramatically. Finally, this off season they got the big free agent in Elton Brand, which they hope will allow them to complete their three-year rebuilding effort and once again become a contender.

There are never any guarantees in rebuilding . . . but, as Net Income has written, “if the Nets follow in Philly’s footsteps, and are patient, it could all work out for the best.”

All of the elements listed above—the team identity, deep bench, and chemistry—will counter the personnel weaknesses, most notably the reliable inside scoring threat, and possibly being a below-average rebounding team. A lot of things have to go right for the team to be successful. For instance, they have to avoid injuries to Harris and Carter, and the youngsters have to develop and begin to contribute fairly quickly. Most importantly, though, is that they learn to actually PLAY defense, as opposed to WANTING to play defense. On that last point, it is true that the team has played erratically defensively during the last few preseason games. However, that was without the injured Najera, Hayes, Swift, and Boone (and one game without the defensively underrated Vince Carter), all of whom should play significant roles over the course of the season. I believe that the team will gradually improve defensively and this will eventually become one of their strengths, so long as they remain focused and committed to the principles taught by the coaching staff, and don’t reach a point where they give up in frustration. All in all, I like their chances more than the Oklahoma City’s and Minnesota’s and Charlotte’s and Atlanta’s and Knickses, etc.

So, can the Nets reach the playoffs? I believe that it is possible, but probably unlikely. I believe that the pieces are in place for the Nets to achieve between 35-45 victories, depending on how fast the youngsters develop, and on any injuries suffered by them (or by their primary competition for those last few playoff spots). My prediction is that the Nets will win 39 games, and narrowly miss the playoffs by just two or three games, but in the attempt will have established a foundation for 2009-2010.

Regardless what happens, though, this season is sure to be filled with unexpected developments, and we may even get to witness the development of a special player or two.

Enjoy the season!

[Credit for some of these ideas is due towards Kenny Smith, who discussed many of these elements in an article several months ago that discussed what playoff teams needed to have in order to contend for the NBA title. I've taken those ideas, and expanded on them to explore what makes a team "successful," which is slightly broader, and not nearly as demanding. For Smith's original article, go here: link]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm by NetIncome and is filed under Features, Nets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.