Kevin Love not the cause of Cavs Finals woes

Coverage of the NBA Finals tends to be extremely narrative-driven. Everyone is looking for an angle to either predict what will happen or else to explain what they believe happened. Often times a particularly provocative angle will make a good headline and become fodder for discussion over the next couple days, with little regard to the accuracy of the underlying premise.

For example, before the Finals started, Andre Iguodala was proclaimed as the “LeBron stopper.” A more careful examination shows that though Iggy’s defense is great, there are other factors that might have been as important to LeBron’s output than whether or not Iguodala is on him.

After Game 3, there’s another narrative getting huge run that I’d like to take a closer look at. Namely, the theory that the Cavs won Game 3 so handily because they were playing without Kevin Love, and therefore that they are better off without him/he should come off the bench when he returns from his concussion.

If you watched ESPN or jumped into the NBA Twitter-verse after the Cavaliers’ 30-point win over the Warriors in Game 3, you know exactly what I am talking about. I heard it said that Love’s presence clogged the offense, and that Richard Jefferson starting in his place opened it up. I heard it said that Love is terrible on defense, and thus his absence allowed the Cavs’ defense to buckle down. There was a major discussion about whether Love, as a 5-time All Star, would have the mental strength to accept a role off the bench since it would be for the betterment of the team.

Only one problem…I’m not convinced that the Cavs actually are better without Love, or that his absence really had all that much to do with their Game 3 win.  So, let’s put this theory in the cross-hairs, put the situation into context, and see if it was Love’s absence or something else that helps explain what happened in Game 3.

Theory: Kevin Love was holding the Cavs back

Evidence:The primary evidence against Love is that the Cavs played well and won Game 3 against the Warriors by 30 points, after getting blown out in the first two games. This resonated because there were many who opined even before the game that Love was not a good fit on this Cavs team, and that starting Richard Jefferson over him would lead to a good result. The thought was that Jefferson is quicker and a better defender, and that this move caused LeBron to move to the PF to match up with Draymond Green. Overall, the expectation was, the team would be quicker, better on defense, and better prepared to attack the Warriors’ strengths. When the Cavs then dominated Game 3, to many the supposition was proven.

For example Washington Post had a piece headlined “Kevin Love hurts Cavs’ chances of beating Warriors” making a numerical case against Love. The premise was that Love’s absence allowed Cleveland’s defense in the paint to improve, and that this was the key to the Cavs’ win:

"the Warriors didn’t have an edge in second-chance points but they did score 52 points per game in the paint compared with Cleveland’s 41. In Game 3, however, the Cavaliers outscored Golden State in the paint (54 – 32) and on second-chance points (23 – 3).” He goes on to point out, “During the Finals, the Cavaliers have been outscored 68 – 54 in the paint but have an 82 – 68 advantage when he’s on the bench. Cleveland has scored 20 second-chance points with Love on the court and allowed 22. With him on the bench, the differential is 31 – 9 in favor of the Cavaliers."

While this all sounds logical, and fits the narrative that has been built, there’s one main problem to me…there’s just not enough evidence. The case is essentially built on an n of one game, and there are other factors besides the absence of Love that haven’t been given as much narrative weight, that could have been more deterministic in the difference in the Cavs’ performance.

Counter-theories: A) Love is a positive contributor to the Cavs, and B) home court advantage (as opposed to Love’s absence) was much more likely the cause of their improved Game 3 performance.

Evidence for A):

1) Kevin Love has had a strong positive correlation with the Cavaliers’ scoring margin all season. According to a single year PI RAPM study from Jeremias Engleman, Love’s +2.6 score ranked 28th in the NBA with a positive correlation to both the offense (+1.71) and defense (+0.9) of the Cavs. His score was 2nd highest among Cavs starters, behind only LeBron’s +6.07.

2) Love’s playoff raw on/off +/- still strong. The postseason is too short to do a full RAPM-like regression and the raw +/- numbers are much noisier, especially due to very small “off” periods. That said, it is still a data point from the postseason that is worth noting in this case: Love’s playoff on/off +/- (through Game 3) of +10.4 per 100 possessions (per basketball-reference.com) is again second among Cavs starters, trailing only LeBron’s +19.7.

3) Cleveland’s performance in other games that Love sat for long periods. Game 3 against the Warriors was the first whole game that Love has missed these playoffs, but he has missed at least a quarter in three other contested Cavaliers games. Per popcornmachine.net, this is what happened in those three games:

• Raptors G3: Cavs were down 13 points at the half. Love played the entire third quarter, and the Cavs cut the lead by three points in the quarter. Love sat the entire fourth quarter, and the Raptors extend the lead by five to win the game by 15.

• Raptors G4: Cavs were down 16 points at the half. Love played the entire third quarter, and the Cavs cut the lead by seen points in the quarter. Love sat the entire fourth quarter, and the Cavs were able to cut the lead by three more points but lost by six.

• Warriors G2: Cavs were down by eight points at the half. Love played only two minutes and seven seconds of the third quarter, and left with the Cavs down by nine points. The Cavs were immediately outscored by 11 points for the rest of the third quarter and by another 13 points in the fourth quarter for the Warriors to turn a close game into a 33-point blowout.

Evidence for B): The Cavaliers have exhibited an extreme difference in level of play at home vs. on the road in these playoffs even before this Warriors series. In their 10 games leading into the NBA Finals, five at home and five on the road, these were their team splits:

For those same 10 games, let’s look at the splits for the non-Kevin Love starters by average game score (per basketball-reference.com):

Conclusion: The premise that Kevin Love was a problem for the Cavs, and that his absence is why they played so well in Game 3 of the NBA Finals is not well supported. Love’s presence has correlated with strong positive results for the Cavs all season, including the playoffs. In the other three games in which Love missed an extended amount of time, the Cavs tended to clearly play worse after he left the game. This was especially true in Game 2 of the Finals against the Warriors, when the game went from competitive to a blowout immediately after Love left with the concussion.

Meanwhile, the Cavaliers have exhibited a steep difference in caliber of play at home versus the road. And the difference wasn’t so much with LeBron, but with the other starters who have performed consistently and substantially better at home than on the road. Similarly, the Cavs’ defensive results have been dramatically better at home than on the road, with a 96.7 defensive rating in their last five home games before the Finals (with Love) that is 16 points better than that same time period on the road.

Thus, the Cavs’ great performance in Game 3 of the Finals was not surprising, nor was it a unique effect of Love’s absence. To my view, the universality of public opinion that Love is the issue speaks to the echo chamber effect of news and social media of today. A closer examination of the context and evidence demonstrates to my satisfaction that Love is taking a lot of unwarranted criticism.