Joe’s Notes: What Luka’s 73-Point Night Says About Our Children

Luka Dončić scored 73 points last night, mere days after Joel Embiid scored 70 and Karl-Anthony Towns tried his best. Elsewhere in the NBA, Devin Booker scored 62. It’s another string of high-scoring performances, and it comes around the same time last year’s came, when Cam Thomas (a no-name, relative to these guys) dropped 40 on three consecutive nights.

Helpfully for historical context on this, some Wikipedia editors maintain a list of all the 60-point performances in NBA regular-season history. Here it is. Here it is broken out by decade:

Conspicuously, we’re in the fifth year of the 2020s and we’ve already got more 60-point games than we did in any prior decade besides the 60s (it’s fitting that the 60s were the king of 60s). 32 of those performances in the 60s were by Wilt Chamberlain, though. By my count, ten different players have scored 60 already in the 2020s.

We’re into a high-scoring era.

The accusation here is that NBA players have stopped trying as hard as they used to on defense. Paul Pierce, for instance, made that accusation last night on Twitter. Is it accurate? It’s at least debatable. A better explanation is that this is generational. As a species, we’re still getting used to the three-point line.

When Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points, he did so by making 36 two-point field goals and 28 free throws. It was a fast-paced game, and possibly one without many turnovers (turnovers weren’t tracked in 1962). The Warriors (the Philadelphia Warriors, Chamberlain’s team) attempted 115 shots from the floor and shot 52 free throws. An average NBA game today has somewhere around 99 possessions. Those guys were running the break.

Again, though, Wilt Chamberlain scored his 100 without making a single three. Because the three-point shot didn’t exist yet. The three-point line wouldn’t exist in any widespread manner until long after Chamberlain retired. Wilt Chamberlain never shot a three himself in an NBA game, and he certainly didn’t grow up attempting them. Even Kobe Bryant came into this world before the NBA had a 3-point line. Kobe shot basketballs for years before the NCAA awarded three points for a longer shot from the floor.

When Kobe scored 81, back in 2006, he did so by making 21 two-point field goals, seven threes, and 18 free throws. Last night, Luka made 25 twos, eight threes, and 15 shots from the line. 26% of Kobe’s points that night came on threes. 33% of Luka’s last night were scored that way. That’s not an outlandish difference, but switching from an era when 18 threes were attempted per game (that’s the 2009–10 number) to one with 34 three-point attempts per game is going to yield higher scoring. Kobe Bryant made seven threes at a time when making seven threes was unusual. That’s part of how he scored so many points. Now that players make that many with some level of routineness, of course we’re seeing more guys top 60. Zooming out a little further…

Kobe Bryant might have grown up shooting threes. But his coaches didn’t. Older generations teach younger generations how to play. Older generations determine strategy in youth basketball. There’s a reason the college three-point line had to be moved back so dramatically within the last fifteen years. Players have gotten very, very good at this, and coaches have become very, very willing to let players shoot. Steph Curry might have been a cause, but his emergence was also probably a symptom. He grew up chucking. He was still something of a rarity in that sense. Now, everyone grows up chucking.

It’s possible defense isn’t as effective at stopping points as it used to be. Even if that’s true, though, it’s not necessarily a comparative lack of effort or the loss of some sacred art. The NBA has pushed for higher scoring through rule changes. They’ve shaped the game in a way that fosters points. It’s also happening organically, and we’re still growing into it. Our kids are growing up shooting tons and tons of threes. Kids Kobe’s age worked more on the mid-range game.

The NFL Has It Good

Lamar Jackson might beat Patrick Mahomes tomorrow. It’s likelier than not. If Lamar Jackson does beat Patrick Mahomes tomorrow, we will collectively rise and pivot ourselves to a discussion over whether Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes is the best quarterback in the NFL, counting MVPs and asking for the next two weeks whether Lamar Jackson needs to win a ring to be on Mahomes’s level.

Of course, it’s not as simple as Lamar Jackson beating Patrick Mahomes. It’s the Ravens beating the Chiefs, or the Chiefs beating the Ravens. One of the NFL’s greatest accidental assets is that quarterbacks are important enough that debates like this hold some weight, while not important enough that—as it is in basketball—the best of them have so much power that their move to a new team immediately shuffles the whole league’s power dynamic. We’ve spoken before about things that make the NFL so digestible for casual fans, and thereby America’s most widely followed league: It’s played when the most people are watching TV. The helmets are shiny. If you know ten different quarterbacks and nobody else, you can still follow the thing at a high level. In reality, quarterbacks don’t operate independently of their teams. There are reasons the Browns and Bears have cycled through so many over the years, and those reasons aren’t limited to poor drafting. That’s far from the primary cause.

Is Lamar Jackson the best quarterback in the NFL? Well, he’s about to win the MVP, so…yes? Patrick Mahomes isn’t even a finalist. Who, though, would you want as your quarterback next season if you could pick any in the league? Probably Patrick Mahomes. So…

The accidental genius of the NFL is that the play of Lamar Jackson and Patrick Mahomes has a solid chance of deciding tomorrow’s AFC Championship despite their organizations playing the primary role in getting them there. There’s a strong possibility the Super Bowl comes personally down to the quarterbacks, but it’s the franchises who won the games and helped develop the quarterbacks into the best versions that they, the quarterbacks, have set themselves up to be. It’s circular. The debates are ridiculous, and they’re also not. The NFL does it again. It has us hooked.

In high-level injury news, ahead of tomorrow:

• Mark Andrews is being activated for the Ravens ahead of the AFC Championship.
• Deebo Samuel is set to play for the 49ers in the NFC Championship.
• Jonah Jackson, one of the Lions’ starting guards, won’t play following knee meniscus surgery, but Frank Ragnow will play despite spraining his ankle and his knee while getting repeatedly rolled up on during the Divisional round.

One more thought on each game:

• Ben Fawkes shared a report yesterday implying that in Las Vegas, public bettors (non-professionals) are high on the Chiefs while sharps (professionals) are high on the Ravens. Sometimes with these splits, the public does win, but I’d be interested in seeing what the win–loss is when the public/sharp split is above a certain level of divided. My impression is that this is one of the ways sportsbooks make windfalls (their core business is taking a cut off the top, but they do make money by being right), and that in splits like this the true line might be even further towards the Ravens? Maybe I’m just high on the Ravens because that’s where our futures portfolio has hitched its wagon.
• Against playoff teams, the 49ers are 6–3 so far this year. The losses came against the Browns, against the Ravens, and in that Week 18 game against the Rams when the Niners rested a lot of starters. The Lions, meanwhile, are 5–3, having lost to the Ravens, the Packers, and the Cowboys in the lineman–eligibility game. (Each team got smoked by the Ravens, and again, I think that’s telling us something about the state of these playoffs.) I bring this all up because the Lions do have the only win between the two against a conference finalist. They beat the Chiefs back in Week 1. I don’t know if best win matters, but sometimes it gives a fresh angle if you apply a college football rubric to the NFL and vice versa.

The Rest

Georgetown’s visit to Providence is getting the attention in college basketball today, and that is perfectly fair and makes perfect sense. Providence has earned that, whether you support the vitriol or not. (I get the vitriol, but when it comes to crossing the line, I think this is one where the line is firm. There are bigger crooks than Ed Cooley.) In bigger games, the Big 12 and ACC have some doozies, and the Big Ten continues to be competitive even amidst a bad down year league-wide. The SEC, likewise, is producing good basketball, and we will miss the elegance of the Pac-12’s schedule when it’s gone. Some highlights:

• Auburn plays Mississippi State in Starkville just as Mississippi State’s season has gotten shakier and right after Auburn went down at Alabama. That’s a fun recipe.
• Arizona’s at Oregon two days after a debacle of a loss at Oregon State. The Ducks are mediocre on paper but have won a lot of Pac-12 games and have had a rotating crew with injuries. Washington State’s knocking on the door of the NCAA Tournament. They host Colorado.
• Kansas’s trip to Iowa State might be the day’s real marquee game. As someone with Iowa State loyalties, I am nervous. It feels like one Iowa State both should and shouldn’t win, which basically means that Kansas isn’t as good as they should be and I’m afraid of positive regression. The Cyclones need to play their game. That’s hard to do against the high-end players Kansas has, but thankfully, Iowa State’s game consists of going right at everybody. If you get any Jayhawk in foul trouble, the rotation is precarious enough to invite cataclysm.
• Clemson’s down at Duke, with Clemson edging towards a backslide in the bubble’s direction while Duke looks for a reasserting win.
• Speaking of reasserting: Michigan State looked like they might assert themselves last night in Madison, and then the game began, and it was instead a confirmation that this team just doesn’t seem to have that top level. The Baylor game is so odd in hindsight. At least at the time we thought Sparty was coming into its own.
• I’m excited for the MVC, where Indiana State hosts Bradley and Drake hosts UNI. Indiana State and Drake both have a bubble case, and Bradley and UNI are each very real MVC title contenders, especially if you view that title as coming from the tournament.

Chicago, the Packers, we covered Iowa State already:

• The Packers are confirmed to have interviewed or have asked for permission to interview Brandon Staley, Bobby Babich (Bills LB coach), Aden Durde (Cowboys DL coach), and Christian Parker (Broncos DB coach) for the vacant defensive coordinator job. One would imagine we see a lot more names come out and that this is not representative of the full list of candidates.
• The Bears are interviewing Joe Barry, among others, for their own defensive coordinator position. It’s unclear if he’s a serious candidate, and he wouldn’t necessarily be a terrible hire (the Bears averaged 17 points per game against the Packers during the Barry era’s six games, all losses), but it’s funny optically and would draw a great reaction.
• The Cubs signed Carl Edwards Jr. on a minor league deal. It would be a lot of fun if it worked out and he could rejoin the bullpen. He’s coming off some injury issues. I think that’s the worry more than performance.
• The Bulls lost to the Lakers on Thursday night in, true to theme, a high-scoring one. They get the Blazers tomorrow night in Portland before returning home. Zach LaVine will now be out a little longer than previously implied. I have no idea what that does to his trade market, to the extent it exists.
• The Blackhawks lost to the Oilers in Edmonton, as expected. Couldn’t get any serious offense going, couldn’t find the net. They’re in Calgary tonight to finish off their own road trip.

Four more:

• The Big Ten’s 15-team basketball tournament (this is the reported plan for next year, when it becomes an 18-team league) is a little surprising. I don’t know why they wouldn’t go with 16, which still lets you eliminate four teams per day on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday before holding the semifinals Saturday and the championship on Sunday, as has already been the case. You can still give byes that way, and you can still make some drama out of the race to qualify. Maybe they’re wanting an extra-special bye for the regular season champion? Whether that’s it or not, I hate that people are feeling the need to manufacture prizes for regular season champions. We’ve gotten too playoff-focused in American sports.
• Aryna Sabalenka, as expected, won the Australian Open title, making me curious about her rivalry with Iga Świątek for the number one ranking, and just that rivalry in general. Such different players. Both Eastern European, though. I think Świątek retains the number one ranking, but I’m not sure.
• I like Daniil Medvedev over Jannik Sinner tonight, but I don’t know shit about tennis. Medvedev just feels easy to sleep on, and the opposite seems true of Sinner. Maybe we’re entering a decade of Sinner vs. Alcaraz, though. Who can say.
• Michigan made the Sherrone Moore promotion official. Now, all eyes turn to Jesse Minter, who is expected but not guaranteed to follow Jim Harbaugh to the Chargers.