One important way JB Bickerstaff is already different from Monty Williams

Monty Williams wasn’t with the Detroit Pistons long enough to develop much of a relationship with fans and media, but he said a couple of things last season that rubbed people the wrong way. 

He often said one thing and did another, notably when he spoke about not using all bench lineups and shortening his rotation right before running out 11 players in the first quarter. 

He also spoke patronizingly about analytics, which gained favor with some of the “old school” fans who think the eye test is everything, but completely alienated those who think analytics can and should be part of a thoughtful analysis of the game. 

I fall somewhere in between, as I don’t write deeply about the numbers but use them to quantify certain points. They aren’t the only metric for how to evaluate players and teams but they are important and if you are not using them, you are way behind the competition. 

So it was refreshing to hear JB Bickerstaff give a thoughtful and intelligent response to a question about analytics and how they apply to three-point attempts:

This was night and day from the answer Monty Williams gave when asked a similar question last season. 

JB Bickerstaff embraces analytics 

I can’t stand when coaches or players give patronizing answers when asked about analytics, often referring to people who use them as “nerds” who have never played basketball. 

While I do agree that some people take it too far, or use obscure statistics to justify a sketchy point, for the most part statistics are a just a way to quantify what you are seeing on the court and a way to find advantages in numbers that can translate to the game. 

Bickerstaff rightly said that there is a certain percentage of shots that they want to be 3-pointers, as every metric points to this as a key to scoring in the modern NBA. Look at the Nuggets last season, one of their biggest weaknesses was that they were 29th in the NBA in 3-point attempts per game, a number that kept scoring down and made them easier to defend in the playoffs. 

The Pistons have long been near the bottom of the league in 3-point attempts and it shows, as they have also been near the bottom of the league in points per game. 

But coach Bickerstaff recognized that it’s not all about getting them up, it’s about getting quality shots, and his answer was coherent, thoughtful and showed a plan as well as an understanding of the modern game. 

Compare that to this answer given by Monty Williams, where he blows off a lot of analytics as “silly,” gives a patronizing and non-sensical answer that includes talking about “efficient twos," "defensive field goal percentage," and not needing to shoot a certain number of 3-pointers. Does this sound like a guy who has fully embraced analytics?

How’d that work out? The Pistons were 27th in 3-point attempts, 25th in percentage and 20th in 3-pointers made per game, culminating in being 25th in points per game overall. 

The Pistons’ lack of scoring wasn’t all about 3-point attempts and makes but they were a big part. 

If you look at the top four teams in points per game last season (Indiana, OKC, Milwaukee, Boston), they were all top half of the league in 3-point attempts, top 10 in percentage and top 12 in 3-pointers made per game. 

The Boston Celtics were easily the most efficient offense in the NBA and were 1st in attempts, 2nd in percentage and 1st in 3-pointers made per game. It’s clear that in the modern NBA, both 3-point volume and efficiency matter. 

So it’s nice to hear a response from a coach that illustrates a clear understanding of this as well as a plan to get there, something we never got from Monty Williams.