The Zack Randolph trade is weighing heavily on my mind. Very rarely has a trade come along involving my Knicks that conflicts me so much. Was this a good trade? I think if you look at it from a certain perspective it absolutely is. There are four ways to evaluate this deal: From the talent standpoint, from the financial standpoint, from the chemistry standpoint, and from the standpoint of the bit players involved (Dan Dickau and Fred Jones).
Talent: A stand alone deal
If a knowledgeable fan were to pick up the paper and see the terms of this trade, on their own, he would rightly conclude that this was a steal for the Knicks. At its foundation the trade looks like this: An aging pg who produces well below expectation and a decent 4 whose growth as a player seems to have completely stopped in exchange for a franchise big man in a league devoid of franchise big men. If this were a one time deal, a stand alone exchange, the Knicks would be the clear winners. From a fantasy basketball or a video game perspective, the Blazers would have to be completely inept to make such a trade. However, the NBA is not a rotisserie league, and this trade does not have to stand on its own.
Finances
Going into the off-season, I thought the Knicks biggest challenge, other than getting a good distributor, would be to get rid of Steve Francis’ contract. On a team laden with over paid players who under perform, Francis, because of the size of his deal, was perhaps the worst. Francis’ deal ensured us of being over the cap until 2009, getting rid of him would allow the team to have its first summer of financial flexibility next year… Zach Randolph makes what Francis made, but his contract runs until 2011. The Knicks are going to be over the cap until 2011! What happens when David Lee’s contract runs out? What happens when Balkman’s contract runs out? For a team that prides itself on its young nucleus, the Knicks have continuously found ways to hamstring themselves against rebuilding. For the past seven years, since the Patrick Ewing deal in the summer of 2000, the Knicks mantra has been to spend money freely in order to sign the best player available and then hope it all works out. For seven years the Knicks have lacked financial flexibility because of their history of terrible deals. Well, its 2007 and all the Knicks have to show for this strategy is one winning season (2001), two playoff appearances (2001 and 2004), and little else. At what point will this franchise realize that their plan is not working and that they need to try and rebuild with rookie contracts and mid-level-exceptions? If the Knicks had more financial flexibility the could make serious runs at the free agents that have come along, and will continue to come along. But by trading away draft picks (who end up with the cheapest contracts) for big names, by trading players with two years left on a deal for players with four years left, the Knicks continue to handicap themselves financially. The Blazers, meanwhile, have the funds to buy out Francis’ contract, help Channing Frye continue to grow in a franchise that is looking to the future, and overall have maintained the type of financial control that the Knicks lack.
Chemistry
This is where the deal gets really perplexing from the Knicks’ perspective, both from a basketball standpoint and from a psychological standpoint. The Knicks are a young team desperately in need of leadership, unfortunately, their defacto leaders are their best and most veteran player (Stephon Marbury) and their coach (Isiah Thomas). Time has shown Marbury to be petty and immature at times, and at this point in his career he makes for a terrible role model. Thomas, whose voice is supposed to carry the calming influence of the wise, is the most volatile, immature coach I have ever seen at this level (other than Larry Brown). Thomas picks fights with opposing players, sanctions his team’s temper, and does not show any ability to handle hot heads such as Nate Robinson, Francis, and Marbury. Nor has he been able to motivate Eddy Curry, who continues to coast on his size and talent. Into this locker-room comes Zach Randolph, a player whose history of convictions and suspensions precedes him. A player who, while talented, refuses to put in the work on the defensive end; and a player who, in the bright lights of New York City, might just implode and take the whole team with him.
But even if this doesn’t happen, even if Randolph makes it to the court to suit up along side Marbury, Crawford, Richardson, and Curry, this acquisition raises all sorts of chemistry questions. The fact is, Curry and Randolph share similar strengths: Curry is great at using his size and soft hands to make his way into the lane and then finish strong. Randolph too is at home near the basket, though he is more adept at using his footwork to get open. Furthermore, Randolph has a solid game from 18 feet out, which the Knicks might tap even more than his back to the basket game. On offense, I think these guys will do more than coexist, they will wreck havoc on opponent’s defenses. However, Curry’s problem has always been that he can’t do anything other than put the ball in the hoop. He is turnover prone, can’t pass out of double teams well, refuses to put in the effort to rebound, and defends like a revolving door. Randolph isn’t so one dimensional, at least he rebounds, but he is an equally bad defender and also has trouble finding the open man out of the double. So we are left questioning where the Knicks plan to find interior defense, and what will stop teams from packing in the lane around the two big men.
To answer the first question, I expect/hope the Knicks will try some zone, both 2-3 and 3-2. A zone will stop teams from capitalizing so much on Curry and Randolph’s immobility, and will allow the two to do what they are most comfortable doing, standing in the lane contesting shots. A 3-2 would be especially neat, as the Knicks could put Jeffries or Balkman in the middle, ala how the Pistons use Tayshaun Prince. Still, this combination of big men raises just too many questions on the defensive end to be sound.
Finally, how long will Thomas bench David Lee? I like a lineup of Marbury, Crawford, Balkman, Lee, and Randolph, a bit small, but it might work in the east.
The role players
In addition to Randolph, the Knicks also picked up Fred Jones and Dan Dickau from the Blazers. Neither has had much NBA success, but both are young, don’t cost much, and might serve in limited minutes. Jones is an undersized (6’4”) shooting guard with a decent stroke (a career 34% from behind the arc) that will allow the Knicks to limit Richardson’s minutes, hopefully staving off injury to his bad back.
Dickau is, in my mind, the more promising of the two. For years I’ve been telling anyone within earshot that the Knicks need a traditional point guard. That Marbury, Crawford, and Robinson, are all scoring point guards who don’t have the skills or the mentality to run a successful offense. Is Dickau going to come in and get major minutes as the Knicks distributor? No. Still, Dickau could conceivably play 10 minutes a game with a more traditional, half court line up. A bit undersized, I envision Dickau running the court alongside Crawford, Balkman, Richardson, and Lee taking advantage of their speed to score in a hurry (and getting burned for 120 points on defense).
The bottom line
Dealing Francis was a great move because it could've taken 30 million off the books, gotten rid of a position redundancy, and relieved this young, impressionable, franchise of a bad locker room presence. Adding Zach Randolph put an extra 30 million on the books, created a new position redundancy, and added an even worse influence to our still young, leaderless franchise.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Allen Ray Ray Allen
Allen Ray and Ray Allen are on the same team. Also, the Knicks have Zack Randolph. A very interesting night for the Atlantic division.
(The Celtics' trade might be the worst move I've seen in a long time)
(The Celtics' trade might be the worst move I've seen in a long time)
The only Andrew Bogut Post You're Gonna See
Another hiatus, but as I said in my last post, Ballintellectual isn’t your ‘2007 NBA Draft headquarters’ (though I will be blogging on and off during the draft tonight). The Best of the Rest feature has also hit a snag, I’m slowly working on the late ‘90s Indiana Pacers and the 1990’s Seattle Supersonics. But that’s a ways away.
A while ago, Milwakee center Andrew Bogut made comments about the excessive lifestyle of American players in which he hinted at a possible cultural devide between the big spending players of America and the foreign players.
“The public’s got it right - a lot of NBA stars are arrogant and like to spend lots of money and have lots of girlfriends and all that.
“The smarter guys don’t do that. They like to live a regular life and want to retire and be set up. About 80 per cent of them go broke by the time they retire or come close to it.”
When I first read these comments I found them interesting, one of the few instances where an NBA player talks to the media in a seemingly unfiltered manner. I figured others would read the quotes, say a bit about it, and the whole thing would blow over. That’s exactly what happened, and Bogut’s comments were quickly forgotten; that is, until DWil (perhaps the most polished, most skilled writer I’ve encountered in the NBA blogsphere) called out members of the internet media for their neglect of this topic. Reading Bogut’s words again, I was struck by how much he is really saying, and what the implications are for the NBA.
First and foremost, I do not believe that this is a race issue. I will be the first to admit that race has been an unspoken social dynamic in the NBA for decades, and it still is . I understand that the compulsion is there to say that Bogut’s comments reflect some sort of racial divide in the NBA, Bogut is a white man calling attention to spending patterns often associated with black hip-hop culture. However, whatever the origin, white American players in the NBA are often just as guilty of the behavior called out by Bogut. The most thugged out NBA player I’ve ever met was Travis Knight, who spoke with a drawl that I could barely decipher. Frankly, hip hop culture is so closely entangled with basketball culture that white players, especially those from urban areas, have quickly adopted it as their own. Bogut’s comments were not racially charged, they were nationally charged.
Bogut’s comments draw attention to an issue that goes undiscussed, but that I suspect has been growing exponentially since foreign players began coming to the league in droves. After condemning the league’s players for their love of “bling bling,” Bogut argued that “that’s just the way the culture is in America.” Bogut went on to claim that “its just the culture over there (in America). I would never want my child to be brought up in an environment like that, where if you have money you’re supposed to flaunt it and make everyone jealous… That’s why the NBA guys who come from other countries, the Europeans, all sort of stick together away from the game.”
Whether or not you agree with, or are offended by Bogut’s comments, they are clearly symptomatic of the fact that the increasing foreign presence in the league has consequences that go beyond the product on the court. Think about how hard it must be to be in this league as a 20 year old, over 3,000 miles from your home. You’re teammates, with whom you must share a bond, range from 18 year old kids from the inner city to 40 year old fathers. Perhaps you don’t even speak your language. It is natural to develop feelings of isolation. The NBA is fast becoming a mosaic of cultural backgrounds, and while this is a wonderful thing that is a great example of the global era, it must be very hard for many players.
In the weeks leading up to tonight’s draft, a point that I’ve seen made time and again about Yi Jianlian is that much of his success at this level will be predicated on whether he is drafted by an ‘accepting’ program, one that will naturally accommodate him not only on the court, but off it as well. Yao Ming was very fortunate to be drafted by Houston team that was willing to expend the resources necessary to make Yao feel at home and was also willing to give him time for his game to flourish. These facts point to how important integration is for international stars. The barriers between these players and the rest of the league goes beyond language, there are cultural issues as well. This, however, is not a bad thing, nor should it deter the NBA from its current direction in foreign markets. At every point in our history, when Americans have interacted with other peoples in a new environment, there has always been a period of integration. What is important is that this integration period remains peaceful (such as 19th Century European immigration which was embraced economically) rather than hurtful (such as early 20th Century Chinese immigration which was heavily regulated by harsh government laws and met with disdain from much of the population). To create a fully integrated NBA, it is only natural that there would be hard steps for individuals such as Bogut as well as for his American counterparts. Still, I am happy that these issues are no longer repressed by the league and its players because they are important. The rest of the world needs to see both the highs and the lows of global basketball, because in a lot of ways international sports represent the growing international flavor of society at large.
A while ago, Milwakee center Andrew Bogut made comments about the excessive lifestyle of American players in which he hinted at a possible cultural devide between the big spending players of America and the foreign players.
“The public’s got it right - a lot of NBA stars are arrogant and like to spend lots of money and have lots of girlfriends and all that.
“The smarter guys don’t do that. They like to live a regular life and want to retire and be set up. About 80 per cent of them go broke by the time they retire or come close to it.”
When I first read these comments I found them interesting, one of the few instances where an NBA player talks to the media in a seemingly unfiltered manner. I figured others would read the quotes, say a bit about it, and the whole thing would blow over. That’s exactly what happened, and Bogut’s comments were quickly forgotten; that is, until DWil (perhaps the most polished, most skilled writer I’ve encountered in the NBA blogsphere) called out members of the internet media for their neglect of this topic. Reading Bogut’s words again, I was struck by how much he is really saying, and what the implications are for the NBA.
First and foremost, I do not believe that this is a race issue. I will be the first to admit that race has been an unspoken social dynamic in the NBA for decades, and it still is . I understand that the compulsion is there to say that Bogut’s comments reflect some sort of racial divide in the NBA, Bogut is a white man calling attention to spending patterns often associated with black hip-hop culture. However, whatever the origin, white American players in the NBA are often just as guilty of the behavior called out by Bogut. The most thugged out NBA player I’ve ever met was Travis Knight, who spoke with a drawl that I could barely decipher. Frankly, hip hop culture is so closely entangled with basketball culture that white players, especially those from urban areas, have quickly adopted it as their own. Bogut’s comments were not racially charged, they were nationally charged.
Bogut’s comments draw attention to an issue that goes undiscussed, but that I suspect has been growing exponentially since foreign players began coming to the league in droves. After condemning the league’s players for their love of “bling bling,” Bogut argued that “that’s just the way the culture is in America.” Bogut went on to claim that “its just the culture over there (in America). I would never want my child to be brought up in an environment like that, where if you have money you’re supposed to flaunt it and make everyone jealous… That’s why the NBA guys who come from other countries, the Europeans, all sort of stick together away from the game.”
Whether or not you agree with, or are offended by Bogut’s comments, they are clearly symptomatic of the fact that the increasing foreign presence in the league has consequences that go beyond the product on the court. Think about how hard it must be to be in this league as a 20 year old, over 3,000 miles from your home. You’re teammates, with whom you must share a bond, range from 18 year old kids from the inner city to 40 year old fathers. Perhaps you don’t even speak your language. It is natural to develop feelings of isolation. The NBA is fast becoming a mosaic of cultural backgrounds, and while this is a wonderful thing that is a great example of the global era, it must be very hard for many players.
In the weeks leading up to tonight’s draft, a point that I’ve seen made time and again about Yi Jianlian is that much of his success at this level will be predicated on whether he is drafted by an ‘accepting’ program, one that will naturally accommodate him not only on the court, but off it as well. Yao Ming was very fortunate to be drafted by Houston team that was willing to expend the resources necessary to make Yao feel at home and was also willing to give him time for his game to flourish. These facts point to how important integration is for international stars. The barriers between these players and the rest of the league goes beyond language, there are cultural issues as well. This, however, is not a bad thing, nor should it deter the NBA from its current direction in foreign markets. At every point in our history, when Americans have interacted with other peoples in a new environment, there has always been a period of integration. What is important is that this integration period remains peaceful (such as 19th Century European immigration which was embraced economically) rather than hurtful (such as early 20th Century Chinese immigration which was heavily regulated by harsh government laws and met with disdain from much of the population). To create a fully integrated NBA, it is only natural that there would be hard steps for individuals such as Bogut as well as for his American counterparts. Still, I am happy that these issues are no longer repressed by the league and its players because they are important. The rest of the world needs to see both the highs and the lows of global basketball, because in a lot of ways international sports represent the growing international flavor of society at large.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Waiting 'till October
Teams are jockeying for draft spots, trade rumors are flying around, and coaches are going back and forth among the many members of the inbred club we call the NBA. And I don’t care. Blogs are speculating about their team’s chances of landing Kobe or KG, major sites are sitting on edge hoping to hear just one leak coming out of one team official. And I don’t care. In my years of NBA fandom I cannot remember a single trade ever going through exactly the way a rumor says it will. I have yet to see the interest in speculating how a coach is going to fit a certain team considering the fact that this is a player’s league and nine times out of ten a team’s style is dictated by its roster and not its coaching staff. Don’t get me wrong, I read the rumors, because that’s the only basketball I can get for four months, and this off season is shaping up to be interesting; and yet, I am infinitely more interested in the product that will be put out in November. To me, the off season is four months of back stage maneuvering that exists solely to get everything ready for November. As far as I’m concerned, all speculation is worthless until the pre-season begins and we actually see some product. And, for the record, until Kobe actually goes somewhere, he’s still a Laker.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Best of the rest part I: The 1996-2000 Knicks
Avg Wins per season: 46
Playoff Finishes:
1997: Lost in 2nd round to Heat in 7
1998: Lost in 2nd round to Pacers in 5
1999: Lost in NBA Finals to Spurs in 5
2000: Lost in Eastern Finals to Pacers in 6
Here it is, the first in my 'best of the rest' series. Each post will feature some background about the team, speculation about what squashed their title hopes, and a chronicling of their best season in the run. Keep in mind that I am looking at teams that had, and sustained a level of excellence for a number of season. Usually this means stretches of making it to, and sometimes beyond the second round of the playoffs.
Absolutely a bit of bias here, I’m a Knicks fan and these four years featured some exciting Knicks basketball, but its my blog and if I want to feature these guys first I will! In 1995-1996, the Knicks went up against the Chicago Bulls once again, only to be ousted in five quick games. Though the Knicks had been an elite Eastern conference team for years (look for a separate post later on the 1991-1996 Knicks), their win total had dropped every year since 1993, bottoming out with their 47-35 showing in ‘95-‘96. With Patrick Ewing aging, the Knicks knew that they would have to retool, adding youth in their backcourt and increasing the depth of their bench. In the 1996 off season, the Knicks signed young guards Chris Childs and Allen Houston, and then traded backup forward Anthony Mason for Larry Johnson. That season featured a more perimeter oriented Knicks squad, crafted around a rejuvenated Patrick Ewing and recently promoted head coach Jeff van Gundy. The results were great, the Knicks win total increased ten games in ’96-’97 and were, arguably, the best team in the East not featuring Michael Jordan. Over the next four years, the Knicks continued to transition away from a Ewing-oriented game. These were fairly forgettable regular seasons, but this paved the way for two of the biggest upsets in NBA history in 1997-1998 the Knicks finished 7th in the East, only to upset the Miami Heat. The following year, after acquiring Latrell Sprewell and Marcus Camby, they upset Miami again, becoming the first and only 8 seed to make the NBA Finals, and they did so playing an exciting, up-tempo style. The Knicks enjoyed one more year of success before making the ill-fated Patrick Ewing trade that launched the team into a period of salary cap issues and irrelevance.
Highest High: Going into the lockout shortened 1999 season, the Knicks had a newly tweaked cast predicated on exciting, up-tempo guard play. It took time for the team to come together, they sputtered through the regular season just making the playoffs with a 27-23 record. However, the team began to mesh in the playoffs, upending the weak #1 seeded Miami Heat, sweeping the Atlanta Hawks, and taking the #2 seeded Pacers by surprise. Though they fell to the Spurs in one of the most lopsided finals ever, the Knicks had made their mark on history.
Why didn’t they win? Stu Jackson. This version of the Knicks was best in their first year, 1996-1997, and they coasted in the playoffs, sweeping the Charlotte Hornets and taking a 3-1 lead on the Miami Heat going into game 5. Late in the game, Knicks point guard Charlie Ward jockeyed for position with Heat forward PJ Brown. Agitated by Ward’s aggressive box out, Brown picked up the smaller player and body slammed him. The Knicks best players, Patrick Ewing, John Starks included, rushed off the bench to aid their point guard. Stu Jackson’s trademark suspensions resulted, and the Heat easily beat a depleted Knicks team in the next two games to come back and take the series. Many people believed that if the Knicks were going to beat Michael Jordan, this would have been the year they could have done it.
Playoff Finishes:
1997: Lost in 2nd round to Heat in 7
1998: Lost in 2nd round to Pacers in 5
1999: Lost in NBA Finals to Spurs in 5
2000: Lost in Eastern Finals to Pacers in 6
Here it is, the first in my 'best of the rest' series. Each post will feature some background about the team, speculation about what squashed their title hopes, and a chronicling of their best season in the run. Keep in mind that I am looking at teams that had, and sustained a level of excellence for a number of season. Usually this means stretches of making it to, and sometimes beyond the second round of the playoffs.
Absolutely a bit of bias here, I’m a Knicks fan and these four years featured some exciting Knicks basketball, but its my blog and if I want to feature these guys first I will! In 1995-1996, the Knicks went up against the Chicago Bulls once again, only to be ousted in five quick games. Though the Knicks had been an elite Eastern conference team for years (look for a separate post later on the 1991-1996 Knicks), their win total had dropped every year since 1993, bottoming out with their 47-35 showing in ‘95-‘96. With Patrick Ewing aging, the Knicks knew that they would have to retool, adding youth in their backcourt and increasing the depth of their bench. In the 1996 off season, the Knicks signed young guards Chris Childs and Allen Houston, and then traded backup forward Anthony Mason for Larry Johnson. That season featured a more perimeter oriented Knicks squad, crafted around a rejuvenated Patrick Ewing and recently promoted head coach Jeff van Gundy. The results were great, the Knicks win total increased ten games in ’96-’97 and were, arguably, the best team in the East not featuring Michael Jordan. Over the next four years, the Knicks continued to transition away from a Ewing-oriented game. These were fairly forgettable regular seasons, but this paved the way for two of the biggest upsets in NBA history in 1997-1998 the Knicks finished 7th in the East, only to upset the Miami Heat. The following year, after acquiring Latrell Sprewell and Marcus Camby, they upset Miami again, becoming the first and only 8 seed to make the NBA Finals, and they did so playing an exciting, up-tempo style. The Knicks enjoyed one more year of success before making the ill-fated Patrick Ewing trade that launched the team into a period of salary cap issues and irrelevance.
Highest High: Going into the lockout shortened 1999 season, the Knicks had a newly tweaked cast predicated on exciting, up-tempo guard play. It took time for the team to come together, they sputtered through the regular season just making the playoffs with a 27-23 record. However, the team began to mesh in the playoffs, upending the weak #1 seeded Miami Heat, sweeping the Atlanta Hawks, and taking the #2 seeded Pacers by surprise. Though they fell to the Spurs in one of the most lopsided finals ever, the Knicks had made their mark on history.
Why didn’t they win? Stu Jackson. This version of the Knicks was best in their first year, 1996-1997, and they coasted in the playoffs, sweeping the Charlotte Hornets and taking a 3-1 lead on the Miami Heat going into game 5. Late in the game, Knicks point guard Charlie Ward jockeyed for position with Heat forward PJ Brown. Agitated by Ward’s aggressive box out, Brown picked up the smaller player and body slammed him. The Knicks best players, Patrick Ewing, John Starks included, rushed off the bench to aid their point guard. Stu Jackson’s trademark suspensions resulted, and the Heat easily beat a depleted Knicks team in the next two games to come back and take the series. Many people believed that if the Knicks were going to beat Michael Jordan, this would have been the year they could have done it.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The world is Kobe's
I find it highly suspect that after being criticized for distracting from the playoffs with his trade requests, Kobe went silent until the DAY AFTER THE NBA FINALS. So basically, the NBA, not happy that Kobe was taking the spotlight off their season had him subdue his demands until after the season. This is a conspiracy theory, no doubt, but its a believable one, and it demonstrates how control the league has over media outlets.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Rise of the Combo Guard
In a twist that would have been unforeseen a few months ago, Tony Parker was named MVP of the 2007 Finals. There are a lot of ways people could spin this event, a lot of narratives were furthered when young Mr. Parker was picked. Some might say that this shows how the balance of NBA talent is shifting in favor of international players. Others claim this as evidence that the NBA is becoming a little man’s game. One overlooked factor, however, is the fact that Parker is the third combo-guard to win Finals MVP in the past four years.
In 1996, the Philadelphia 76’s picked Allen Iverson with the first pick in the draft and the era of the combo guard was officially born. Combo-guard usually refers to a shooting guard in the body of a point. Sometimes, combo-guards are simply described as ‘scoring point guards,’ but this definition does them a disservice. I never liked either of these definitions. A combo guard is a player with point guard skills who is as or more adept at creating for himself as he is for his teammates. Combo-guards in the league include Gilbert Arenas and Deron Williams, bigger point guards who use a combination of speed and strength to be 20+ scorers, as well as players like Iverson, who would be too small to play shooting guard. What makes these players different from traditional point guards such as John Stockton and Magic Johnson isn’t that they could score, Stockton had a terrific jumper and Johnson was averaged 20ppg at one point in his career, they differ in their superior ability to get themselves open. So while Johnson’s drives often took place as part of the Lakers’ transition offense, Iverson is more comfortable penetrating off an isolation play. Once thought of as a coach’s nightmare because they dominate the ball and often have a faulty shot selection, combo-guards have quickly become an integral part of the NBA, and this is manifested no where more clearly than in three of the past 4 NBA finals.
In 2004, Chauncey Billups, a prototypical ‘big’ combo-guard won the MVP due to his ability to balance creating points for himself and his teammates. At home dribbling up the court and jacking a 3, Billups is equally happy to penetrate, draw defenders, and pass off to Rasheed Wallace stalking in the corner. 2006 saw Dwayne Wade take home the MVP. Wade played the 2 on that Heat team, and will likely play 2 the rest of his career, but he handles like a point guard and is adept at orchestrating offense in transition. Wade plays like the prototypical shooting guard, only he stands two inches shorter than most. Finally, this year we saw Parker take home the trophy. Parker is as adept a playmaker as they come, he always operates within the Spurs offense. However, when teams take away Duncan’s shot, Pop is as happy with Parker taking the shot as he is with his big man. This is what defines a great combo-guard, the ability to be the first or second option and do it within a set offense. What some see as selfishness a good coach will identify as a weapon.
The rise of the combo-guard goes beyond the finals, these playoffs also saw the coming to prominence of Williams, whose size/speed combination rivals that of Billups, and who runs a near flawless 2 man game with his big man, Carlos Boozer. Still, when faced with undersized guards, Williams can muscle his way to the basket with the best of them, he is an even stronger scorer than he is a playmaker.
When Iverson came into the league, he was revered for his talent but mangled for his scorer’s mentality. Today, we can look back at the 1996 draft as one of the important moments in the evolution of the point guard position.
In 1996, the Philadelphia 76’s picked Allen Iverson with the first pick in the draft and the era of the combo guard was officially born. Combo-guard usually refers to a shooting guard in the body of a point. Sometimes, combo-guards are simply described as ‘scoring point guards,’ but this definition does them a disservice. I never liked either of these definitions. A combo guard is a player with point guard skills who is as or more adept at creating for himself as he is for his teammates. Combo-guards in the league include Gilbert Arenas and Deron Williams, bigger point guards who use a combination of speed and strength to be 20+ scorers, as well as players like Iverson, who would be too small to play shooting guard. What makes these players different from traditional point guards such as John Stockton and Magic Johnson isn’t that they could score, Stockton had a terrific jumper and Johnson was averaged 20ppg at one point in his career, they differ in their superior ability to get themselves open. So while Johnson’s drives often took place as part of the Lakers’ transition offense, Iverson is more comfortable penetrating off an isolation play. Once thought of as a coach’s nightmare because they dominate the ball and often have a faulty shot selection, combo-guards have quickly become an integral part of the NBA, and this is manifested no where more clearly than in three of the past 4 NBA finals.
In 2004, Chauncey Billups, a prototypical ‘big’ combo-guard won the MVP due to his ability to balance creating points for himself and his teammates. At home dribbling up the court and jacking a 3, Billups is equally happy to penetrate, draw defenders, and pass off to Rasheed Wallace stalking in the corner. 2006 saw Dwayne Wade take home the MVP. Wade played the 2 on that Heat team, and will likely play 2 the rest of his career, but he handles like a point guard and is adept at orchestrating offense in transition. Wade plays like the prototypical shooting guard, only he stands two inches shorter than most. Finally, this year we saw Parker take home the trophy. Parker is as adept a playmaker as they come, he always operates within the Spurs offense. However, when teams take away Duncan’s shot, Pop is as happy with Parker taking the shot as he is with his big man. This is what defines a great combo-guard, the ability to be the first or second option and do it within a set offense. What some see as selfishness a good coach will identify as a weapon.
The rise of the combo-guard goes beyond the finals, these playoffs also saw the coming to prominence of Williams, whose size/speed combination rivals that of Billups, and who runs a near flawless 2 man game with his big man, Carlos Boozer. Still, when faced with undersized guards, Williams can muscle his way to the basket with the best of them, he is an even stronger scorer than he is a playmaker.
When Iverson came into the league, he was revered for his talent but mangled for his scorer’s mentality. Today, we can look back at the 1996 draft as one of the important moments in the evolution of the point guard position.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Who will be the best of the rest?
For a while, I’ve been hyping up this project I’ve envisioned called the Best of the Rest. Going through recent history (starting with the 1993-1994 season) I want to go through and make a list of the best squads to never win a title. These are teams that contended year after year, yet for one reason or another never could make the step to the championship. I’ve already started doing research on records, statistics, and other data on great teams, but there are many holes in my memory. Many of those great mid 1990’s Western Conference teams went ignored by me because I was a kid in New York with a 10pm bedtime. So I’m asking you, loyal readers, to give me some recommendations. Maybe there is a team you have in mind. Maybe you can give me a few stories about some of the great teams I already plan to write about. Any contribution would be welcome. Just post a comment on this post!
Here is how I envision the series working. Every few days or so, I’m going to post about one great non-championship team from the past 13 years. Some good examples would be the 1991-1996 Knicks, the 1999-2003 Kings, and of course, the Jazz from the entire 1990s. I’ll talk about the highs and lows, what kept them from winning the title (usually this section will just say ‘Michael Jordan’) and some stories allowing us to remember just how great the teams were.
So anyway, feel free to contribute, I expect this project to be a fun distraction from our post-NBA season
Here is how I envision the series working. Every few days or so, I’m going to post about one great non-championship team from the past 13 years. Some good examples would be the 1991-1996 Knicks, the 1999-2003 Kings, and of course, the Jazz from the entire 1990s. I’ll talk about the highs and lows, what kept them from winning the title (usually this section will just say ‘Michael Jordan’) and some stories allowing us to remember just how great the teams were.
So anyway, feel free to contribute, I expect this project to be a fun distraction from our post-NBA season
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Tears for Lebron
There’s really nothing about this game that needs to be said. The Spurs won tonight just as the won game three, just as they’ve won most other games. I do think, however, there are a number of interesting stories that came out of these finals, and the first one was just made evident from Lebron James’ last press conference as a 2007 NBA Finalist. People have been saying for months how much pressure is on Lebron’s shoulders. He has to carry his team offensively, put up with intense scrutiny, and, according to some, save the floundering NBA. Well this past week he did none of these, and he is taking a lot of flak.
I am the last person who wants to make excuses for James. The type of criticism levied at him by Rick Barry is all accurate. He doesn’t have a reliable jumper, he has trouble moving without the ball, he has zero skills in the post (unheard of for a 6’8 guy), and he often makes bad decisions in crunch time. People have given him a free pass for four years, and have done him a serious disservice, there are clearly elements of his game that needs improving, and he needs to improve them under intense scrutiny. Which brings me to the depressing post-game press conference I just witnessed. I don’t have a transcript, but here are a few points about Lebron James in interviews. He is very charming, but he is also very polished. You can tell that years of molding have taught this young man exactly what to say and how to say it. The result? Lebron usually does not convey much emotion other than the arrogance expected from a young superstar. Tonight it was different. Lebron’s mouth was smiling but his eyes told a different story. James looked disturbed. Disturbed by the fact that, frankly, he did not do the types of things he expected himself to do. Disturbed because he knows that millions of people expect him to develop a jumper and a post game by October. Disturbed because he had the hopes of an entire city on his back and he faltered.
Now lets be fair, Lebron’s play had as much to do with San Antonio and Bruce Bowen as it did with Lebron’s flaws. But that’s not the way James saw it. Every question shot at him led to a downcast facial expression and an answer that basically said “I need to do better.” When asked whether he needed a better team around him, he basically responded by saying that the team’s progress will begin and end with him. This is true, of course, but maybe all of this is too much for him right now. Because looking at Lebron tonight I saw not a man-child, but just a child, a child who has a lot of questions and not so many answers. James looked worried, he looked worried that he might not have enough to make the necessary changes to his game. Not enough to make it back to this stage, and not enough to leave the Finals’ as a winner.
And I feel for him.
I am the last person who wants to make excuses for James. The type of criticism levied at him by Rick Barry is all accurate. He doesn’t have a reliable jumper, he has trouble moving without the ball, he has zero skills in the post (unheard of for a 6’8 guy), and he often makes bad decisions in crunch time. People have given him a free pass for four years, and have done him a serious disservice, there are clearly elements of his game that needs improving, and he needs to improve them under intense scrutiny. Which brings me to the depressing post-game press conference I just witnessed. I don’t have a transcript, but here are a few points about Lebron James in interviews. He is very charming, but he is also very polished. You can tell that years of molding have taught this young man exactly what to say and how to say it. The result? Lebron usually does not convey much emotion other than the arrogance expected from a young superstar. Tonight it was different. Lebron’s mouth was smiling but his eyes told a different story. James looked disturbed. Disturbed by the fact that, frankly, he did not do the types of things he expected himself to do. Disturbed because he knows that millions of people expect him to develop a jumper and a post game by October. Disturbed because he had the hopes of an entire city on his back and he faltered.
Now lets be fair, Lebron’s play had as much to do with San Antonio and Bruce Bowen as it did with Lebron’s flaws. But that’s not the way James saw it. Every question shot at him led to a downcast facial expression and an answer that basically said “I need to do better.” When asked whether he needed a better team around him, he basically responded by saying that the team’s progress will begin and end with him. This is true, of course, but maybe all of this is too much for him right now. Because looking at Lebron tonight I saw not a man-child, but just a child, a child who has a lot of questions and not so many answers. James looked worried, he looked worried that he might not have enough to make the necessary changes to his game. Not enough to make it back to this stage, and not enough to leave the Finals’ as a winner.
And I feel for him.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
FixitFixitFixitFixitFixit
Five Tool Tool is calling this the worst NBA season ever. Bill Simmons claims that the NBA has reached the point where fans want to forgo the playoffs in favor of the off season. John Hollinger calls the NBA Finals a joke. Can we blame them? The regular season featured injuries to many of the league’s best players, taking entire teams out of contention. Over the course of the regular season, many of the best teams (and Lebron James) dogged it to conserve energy for the playoffs. For the last few months of the season, Celtics, Bucks, and Grizzlies fans had to wittiness tanking, which is one of the biggest disgraces to sports. We then had an NBA playoffs that climaxed in the first round and was dominated by talk of conspiracy and legal-like rigidity on the part of the league office. In the Finals, we have an anti-climatic battle in which the league’s best team has successfully neutralized the playoff’s biggest sell. Finally, we have a champion so abhorred that major blogs spend more time figuring out what makes them boring than trying to explain what makes them great. Clearly, the NBA needs fixing.
There is no single issue with the league. Injuries, for example, had a lot to do with dumb luck, and a bit to do with the existence of international competition. Another issue is the fact that the regular season is just too long, individual games mean little compared with the energy one can save for the playoffs, and while this has always been an issue, we noticed it more this season because of all the league’s other issues. Tanking, as I said, is one of the biggest travesties in sports. We pay these men millions of dollars for the blood, sweat, and tears that comes with competition, and any system that rewards losing means that we are asking our athletes to give us less than their best. However, we got a bit of a temporary fix when the Celtics, Bucks, and Grizzlies all go their comeuppance in the lottery. Finally, events such as the Spurs/Suns series and the incredibly large amounts of flagrant foul calls that were, lets face it, pussy calls, shed light on two other issues. First of all, the league’s attempt to create and maintain a polished image has diminished the quality of physical play. The result is a set of rules that cuts down on some of the very elements that used to give playoffs their intensity: Physical confrontation within the confines of the game. Need any indication? Watch this clip , we will never see intense competition like this again because the league won’t allow it. A related issue came to a head during the Spurs/Suns series. Most fans have lost faith in the league office. Its become increasingly hard to believe their impartiality. We no longer (if we ever did) identify with or understand the league’s rulings. David Stern has alienated his fan base, and we are seeing it now with the ratings plummet.
All those issues are huge, but none of them looms as large right now as the complete irrelevance of the NBA Finals. Obviously, the reason for this is the fact that the Eastern Conference is far inferior to the Western Conference. Now, this has been an issue the entire decade, but for a number of reasons, this is the first year it has garnered so much attention. In the nine years since Jordan retired in 1998 (during which season there were exactly 2 great Eastern teams anyway), the west has won seven NBA titles, most in convincing fashion. So why is this an issue now? In 1999, the 8th seeded Knicks, a huge underdog from a large market, made the finals exciting simply by virtue of making it. In 2000, the East was represented by Indiana, the only dominant east team held over from the Jordan era. They made the finals competitive and fun. In 2001 and 2002, we were so beholden by the wonder that was the Los Angeles Lakers that we completely overlooked the fact LA was 8-1 in these games (though that one loss, Philadelphia’s game 1 victory in 2001 was a classic). In 2003, people didn’t hate the Spurs quite so much because they were taken in by the David Robinson retirement party. Furthermore, this series went six games, which is enough to make people believe a series is good no matter the quality of basketball (though Tim Duncan’s game 6 performance was, in my mind, the best playoff performance since the MJ era). In 2004 and 2005, we had the apparently short lived run of Piston dominance. The Pistons were a great team, they showed it by winning the title in 2004 and taking San Antonio to seven games on 2005. By sheer virtue of their existence, they made the finals interesting. Last year, the NBA was blessed to have the Miami Heat, a team built with a one year window to win the title. This gave the Heat and its veterans added motivation, enough to propel them past two superior teams. Unlike last year, the young superstar in the Finals is not having his way battling his Western foe, and the Spurs are hated enough to make people complain. And so they do, and the entire blogsphere has to deal with the fact that the NBA needs fixing.
A number of opinions have been thrown around for how to fix the East/West issue, but three caught my eye. Each of the three has its merits, but each comes with the bigger question of, are they doable? The bottom line is that everything the NBA does in terms of scheduling (for both playoffs and regular season) is done with an eye to whether it helps or hinders television revenue. The NBA’s last two major shifts, the change from a five to seven game first round, and the redistribution of teams into six divisions, were both done to increase revenue. The first is more obvious, by increasing the amount of games, you increase the amount of televised events that make the league money. Does a seven game first round series decrease intensity and make it less easy for us to have an upset? Yes. But the league cares about quality of play only as it relates to financial gain. And that is the operative rule that will underlie all of this speculation. The league wants to improve what you see on TV… but only if it can do it without losing money. The realignment of divisions was, in my mind, a response to the East/West differential by creating two more ‘titles’ that can be handed out. Winning the Atlantic division, for example, gives a team and a group of fans something to cheer for, even when it is clear that their team has no chance of winning either the East or the championship. Keeping people interested is the first step to selling tickets and getting them to watch.
The most straight forward of the remedies is to throw out all, or almost all, of the conference differentiation by seeding playoff teams 1-16 and pairing them up the same way as the NCAA tournament. Bob Fitzgerald of the official Warriors website proposes this (along with another suggestion that I think is just crazy). This would eliminate the East/West problem and do it in a simple manner. What it does, however, is completely remove all of the need for conference and division differentiation. Is the NBA willing to do this? Last year, I would have said no, but considering plummeting TV ratings, I’m beginning to wonder how far David Stern would go. The other problem with this would be coordinating TV schedules. In the first round you would have eight series would be going back and forth between multiple time zones, it might be difficult to come up with a TV schedule that allows networks to show every game of every series. This, however, might be easily remedied with creative scheduling, I doubt it would be a deal breaker.
Not all the proposed remedies are so straight forward. In an effort to fix the problem while continuing to give significance to the two conferences, John Hollinger proposes alternating the conferences so that we’d have a bracket that looks like this:
BRACKET
"East" Half
(1East) vs. (8West)
(4W) vs. (5E)
(2W) vs. (7E)
(3E) vs. (6W)
"West" Half
(1W) vs. (8E)
(4E) vs. (5W)
(2E) vs. (7W)
(3W) vs. (6E)
This format would ensure that the best team in each conference earns the right to a top seed. It would also make it so that the best team in the East earns the right to dodge the best team in the West, at least until the finals. Like all of Hollinger’s ideas, this makes sense on paper, and in a league with perfectly intelligent, informed fans, it might work. Unfortunately, I feel as though it would be too complicated to have to explain on a nightly basis, and it just feels too arbitrary. What if, somewhere along the road, we end up with a scenario where two of the better teams play in the second round (it could still happen with the right alignment), fans would still have reason to complain, all the more so because this system would be new and different to them. I doubt that the league would implement something like this, though that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.
Bill Simmons has the most creative idea, one that he hopes would root out both the East/West disparity and tanking. Simmons would try to allow the the conference system to maintain a semblance of significance by granting the top six teams in each conference automatic bids. Then, he would have the rest of the team battle it out in a double elimination tournament for the last four seeds. Then, the teams would be seeded 1-16. Simmons believes that this would eliminate the point in tanking because to do so they’d have to blow their chance in the double-elimination tourney, risking the alienation of all their fans (as opposed to now?). Furthermore, Simmons believes that the prospect of a team in the cellar sneaking in and grabbing an number eight seed would make for a wonderful story, and he is right. The Celtics could turn it on for two weeks, steal a playoff spot, and make a deep run. However unlikely that may be, Simmons’ system makes it a possibility.
Yet the flaws with this system are just too many. First of all, to have this tourney, you’d either have to extend the regular season further, only continuing to dilute the significance of earlier regular season games, or cancel around two weeks of games for the league’s best 12 team. Stern would never agree to this. It would mean two weeks where fans are forced to watch teams like New York and Minnesota at the expense of Phoenix and Chicago. You think TV ratings are low now? Imagine if for two weeks in the season, fans couldn’t watch the best teams and the best players. You know what they would do? Turn their TVs off, and some of them wouldn’t tune back in until the season was over. The second reason this idea would fail is because it would make the first few months of the season even less relevant. If the Grizzlies could lose 60 games and still make the playoffs, what’s the point of having a regular season at all. A system like this would put bad teams on even ground with mediocre teams, an unfair prospect on a number of levels.
Look, in a perfect world, I would make the season 22 games shorter (everyone plays everyone twice and each game means a whole lot more), remove the first round of the playoffs, and seed the teams 1-8. Not only would this eliminate clunkers from the playoff picture (sparing us from having to wait out series like Detroit/Orlando and Phoenix/Lakers), it would improve the play in later rounds by making fatigue less of a factor (and if you don’t think fatigue is a factor in the finals then you didn’t watch fro 2004-2006). Of course, this plan would never be implemented because it would cost the league over 100 games worth of TV time. And that’s my point, the issue is not whether or not the league can be fixed, it can. The issue is whether the league can find a way to fix the problems that the fans have while maintaining an equally successful business model. Frankly, I’m not sure if that’s possible. In this day and age, the quality of a product is just one of the many factors that go into corporate decision making. It would be nice if McDonalds made their burgers taste better, but that would cost more money. Similarly, the league will only make drastic changes if they will increase revenue, and I’m not convinced any of the changes discussed above could do that. And that is why I am very worried about the future of our league.
There is no single issue with the league. Injuries, for example, had a lot to do with dumb luck, and a bit to do with the existence of international competition. Another issue is the fact that the regular season is just too long, individual games mean little compared with the energy one can save for the playoffs, and while this has always been an issue, we noticed it more this season because of all the league’s other issues. Tanking, as I said, is one of the biggest travesties in sports. We pay these men millions of dollars for the blood, sweat, and tears that comes with competition, and any system that rewards losing means that we are asking our athletes to give us less than their best. However, we got a bit of a temporary fix when the Celtics, Bucks, and Grizzlies all go their comeuppance in the lottery. Finally, events such as the Spurs/Suns series and the incredibly large amounts of flagrant foul calls that were, lets face it, pussy calls, shed light on two other issues. First of all, the league’s attempt to create and maintain a polished image has diminished the quality of physical play. The result is a set of rules that cuts down on some of the very elements that used to give playoffs their intensity: Physical confrontation within the confines of the game. Need any indication? Watch this clip , we will never see intense competition like this again because the league won’t allow it. A related issue came to a head during the Spurs/Suns series. Most fans have lost faith in the league office. Its become increasingly hard to believe their impartiality. We no longer (if we ever did) identify with or understand the league’s rulings. David Stern has alienated his fan base, and we are seeing it now with the ratings plummet.
All those issues are huge, but none of them looms as large right now as the complete irrelevance of the NBA Finals. Obviously, the reason for this is the fact that the Eastern Conference is far inferior to the Western Conference. Now, this has been an issue the entire decade, but for a number of reasons, this is the first year it has garnered so much attention. In the nine years since Jordan retired in 1998 (during which season there were exactly 2 great Eastern teams anyway), the west has won seven NBA titles, most in convincing fashion. So why is this an issue now? In 1999, the 8th seeded Knicks, a huge underdog from a large market, made the finals exciting simply by virtue of making it. In 2000, the East was represented by Indiana, the only dominant east team held over from the Jordan era. They made the finals competitive and fun. In 2001 and 2002, we were so beholden by the wonder that was the Los Angeles Lakers that we completely overlooked the fact LA was 8-1 in these games (though that one loss, Philadelphia’s game 1 victory in 2001 was a classic). In 2003, people didn’t hate the Spurs quite so much because they were taken in by the David Robinson retirement party. Furthermore, this series went six games, which is enough to make people believe a series is good no matter the quality of basketball (though Tim Duncan’s game 6 performance was, in my mind, the best playoff performance since the MJ era). In 2004 and 2005, we had the apparently short lived run of Piston dominance. The Pistons were a great team, they showed it by winning the title in 2004 and taking San Antonio to seven games on 2005. By sheer virtue of their existence, they made the finals interesting. Last year, the NBA was blessed to have the Miami Heat, a team built with a one year window to win the title. This gave the Heat and its veterans added motivation, enough to propel them past two superior teams. Unlike last year, the young superstar in the Finals is not having his way battling his Western foe, and the Spurs are hated enough to make people complain. And so they do, and the entire blogsphere has to deal with the fact that the NBA needs fixing.
A number of opinions have been thrown around for how to fix the East/West issue, but three caught my eye. Each of the three has its merits, but each comes with the bigger question of, are they doable? The bottom line is that everything the NBA does in terms of scheduling (for both playoffs and regular season) is done with an eye to whether it helps or hinders television revenue. The NBA’s last two major shifts, the change from a five to seven game first round, and the redistribution of teams into six divisions, were both done to increase revenue. The first is more obvious, by increasing the amount of games, you increase the amount of televised events that make the league money. Does a seven game first round series decrease intensity and make it less easy for us to have an upset? Yes. But the league cares about quality of play only as it relates to financial gain. And that is the operative rule that will underlie all of this speculation. The league wants to improve what you see on TV… but only if it can do it without losing money. The realignment of divisions was, in my mind, a response to the East/West differential by creating two more ‘titles’ that can be handed out. Winning the Atlantic division, for example, gives a team and a group of fans something to cheer for, even when it is clear that their team has no chance of winning either the East or the championship. Keeping people interested is the first step to selling tickets and getting them to watch.
The most straight forward of the remedies is to throw out all, or almost all, of the conference differentiation by seeding playoff teams 1-16 and pairing them up the same way as the NCAA tournament. Bob Fitzgerald of the official Warriors website proposes this (along with another suggestion that I think is just crazy). This would eliminate the East/West problem and do it in a simple manner. What it does, however, is completely remove all of the need for conference and division differentiation. Is the NBA willing to do this? Last year, I would have said no, but considering plummeting TV ratings, I’m beginning to wonder how far David Stern would go. The other problem with this would be coordinating TV schedules. In the first round you would have eight series would be going back and forth between multiple time zones, it might be difficult to come up with a TV schedule that allows networks to show every game of every series. This, however, might be easily remedied with creative scheduling, I doubt it would be a deal breaker.
Not all the proposed remedies are so straight forward. In an effort to fix the problem while continuing to give significance to the two conferences, John Hollinger proposes alternating the conferences so that we’d have a bracket that looks like this:
BRACKET
"East" Half
(1East) vs. (8West)
(4W) vs. (5E)
(2W) vs. (7E)
(3E) vs. (6W)
"West" Half
(1W) vs. (8E)
(4E) vs. (5W)
(2E) vs. (7W)
(3W) vs. (6E)
This format would ensure that the best team in each conference earns the right to a top seed. It would also make it so that the best team in the East earns the right to dodge the best team in the West, at least until the finals. Like all of Hollinger’s ideas, this makes sense on paper, and in a league with perfectly intelligent, informed fans, it might work. Unfortunately, I feel as though it would be too complicated to have to explain on a nightly basis, and it just feels too arbitrary. What if, somewhere along the road, we end up with a scenario where two of the better teams play in the second round (it could still happen with the right alignment), fans would still have reason to complain, all the more so because this system would be new and different to them. I doubt that the league would implement something like this, though that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.
Bill Simmons has the most creative idea, one that he hopes would root out both the East/West disparity and tanking. Simmons would try to allow the the conference system to maintain a semblance of significance by granting the top six teams in each conference automatic bids. Then, he would have the rest of the team battle it out in a double elimination tournament for the last four seeds. Then, the teams would be seeded 1-16. Simmons believes that this would eliminate the point in tanking because to do so they’d have to blow their chance in the double-elimination tourney, risking the alienation of all their fans (as opposed to now?). Furthermore, Simmons believes that the prospect of a team in the cellar sneaking in and grabbing an number eight seed would make for a wonderful story, and he is right. The Celtics could turn it on for two weeks, steal a playoff spot, and make a deep run. However unlikely that may be, Simmons’ system makes it a possibility.
Yet the flaws with this system are just too many. First of all, to have this tourney, you’d either have to extend the regular season further, only continuing to dilute the significance of earlier regular season games, or cancel around two weeks of games for the league’s best 12 team. Stern would never agree to this. It would mean two weeks where fans are forced to watch teams like New York and Minnesota at the expense of Phoenix and Chicago. You think TV ratings are low now? Imagine if for two weeks in the season, fans couldn’t watch the best teams and the best players. You know what they would do? Turn their TVs off, and some of them wouldn’t tune back in until the season was over. The second reason this idea would fail is because it would make the first few months of the season even less relevant. If the Grizzlies could lose 60 games and still make the playoffs, what’s the point of having a regular season at all. A system like this would put bad teams on even ground with mediocre teams, an unfair prospect on a number of levels.
Look, in a perfect world, I would make the season 22 games shorter (everyone plays everyone twice and each game means a whole lot more), remove the first round of the playoffs, and seed the teams 1-8. Not only would this eliminate clunkers from the playoff picture (sparing us from having to wait out series like Detroit/Orlando and Phoenix/Lakers), it would improve the play in later rounds by making fatigue less of a factor (and if you don’t think fatigue is a factor in the finals then you didn’t watch fro 2004-2006). Of course, this plan would never be implemented because it would cost the league over 100 games worth of TV time. And that’s my point, the issue is not whether or not the league can be fixed, it can. The issue is whether the league can find a way to fix the problems that the fans have while maintaining an equally successful business model. Frankly, I’m not sure if that’s possible. In this day and age, the quality of a product is just one of the many factors that go into corporate decision making. It would be nice if McDonalds made their burgers taste better, but that would cost more money. Similarly, the league will only make drastic changes if they will increase revenue, and I’m not convinced any of the changes discussed above could do that. And that is why I am very worried about the future of our league.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Game 3 Notes
-Playing the Empire’s theme from Star Wars when the Spurs were introduced? Brilliant. You could tell some of the Spurs were having trouble keeping a straight face… Matt Bonner just broke up laughing.
-The Cavs tried to be classy with the benching of Larry Hughes, instead it came off as disingenuous. By claiming that the lineup change was due entirely to Hughes’ decision, they forced it to make it seem like his foot was worse than it was. Now he can’t play, he’s stuck in a suit. I think all parties would have been happier if the Cavs had been up front about the necessary lineup change, they could have utilized Hughes for a few minutes here and there, which he is definitely good for.
-Other than the fact that Gibson is actually starting, the biggest defensive change for the Cavs is that Gibson seems to be going over screens while guarding Parker. Now, traditioanlly, you go over screens on jump shooters and under on players looking to penetrate, going under usually gives a better angle to cut off the dribble. However, the Cavs are looking to trap off the pick and roll, and by sending Gibson over the screens they allow the trap to come more quickly. However, they are also making Gibson work harder, and setting themselves up for a couple of hand-check calls.
-Its midway into the first and the Cavs are doing a much better job on the glass, especially on the offensive end. This is the one area where they have the advantage over San Antonio and if they can keep it up they have a chance to win. Offensive rebounds give the Cavs extra possessions, every rebound represents another chance to get a good shot. Because the Spurs are so great at forcing teams into missed shots, the Cavs need all the chances they can get. The ability to get offensive rebounds is always important for the Cavs, its all the more important against a team like the Spurs
-If Tony Parker wins Finals MVP, are we going to be subjected to a David Stern speech about how this truly signifies the international, global nature of the NBA? Ten bucks says we will be. At least its better than his various verbal hand jobs to Michael Jordan during the 1997-1998 season.
-This game is playing right into the Cavs’s hands. A forty point half for both teams? What more could they ask for? Unfortunately, the Spurs might just be the best slow tempo team in the league (it just happens that they can play fast too). Still, the Cavs are outplaying San Antonio on both ends, the Spurs need to get it together because the Cavs are more than capable of stealing this game away from them.
-Bruce Bowen makes for a good interview. Its too bad he gets such a bad rep for his style of play. But, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all great on-ball defenders utilize tricks and play ‘dirty’ sometimes. Jordan did it, Kobe does it, I do it… the list goes on.
-Wow, I didn't update once in the second half, I was just that riveted. Truth be told, other than the finish, which was fun, this was pretty crappy basketball. The Cavs played fairly well at times, but their offense is just so stagnant you wouldn’t notices. Meanwhile the Spurs didn’t help out the game’s aesthetic quality by playing down to the level of competition. I’d rather watch one team play well in a blow out than this, does anyone not agree?
-Terrible no-call at the end there. It didn’t exactly cost the Cavs the game, but there’s a possibility it might have (Van Gundy says James would have gotten the continuation but I just can’t imagine that). People are going to be talking about this for days, and it will only take away from the Spurs’ eventual victory.
-Can we just forgo handing out MVP? After a game like this who deserves it?
-Props to the Cavs front line tonight for the job the did on Duncan and on help defense in general. Bigger props to Sasha Pavlovich for his amazing job on Manu tonight. If the Cavs have a future, it will be through his development as the Pippen to Lebron’s Jordan (and to Varejao’s Horace Grant). Mark my words, if this team is contending in 4 years its because these two international players have lived up to their talent.
-The Cavs tried to be classy with the benching of Larry Hughes, instead it came off as disingenuous. By claiming that the lineup change was due entirely to Hughes’ decision, they forced it to make it seem like his foot was worse than it was. Now he can’t play, he’s stuck in a suit. I think all parties would have been happier if the Cavs had been up front about the necessary lineup change, they could have utilized Hughes for a few minutes here and there, which he is definitely good for.
-Other than the fact that Gibson is actually starting, the biggest defensive change for the Cavs is that Gibson seems to be going over screens while guarding Parker. Now, traditioanlly, you go over screens on jump shooters and under on players looking to penetrate, going under usually gives a better angle to cut off the dribble. However, the Cavs are looking to trap off the pick and roll, and by sending Gibson over the screens they allow the trap to come more quickly. However, they are also making Gibson work harder, and setting themselves up for a couple of hand-check calls.
-Its midway into the first and the Cavs are doing a much better job on the glass, especially on the offensive end. This is the one area where they have the advantage over San Antonio and if they can keep it up they have a chance to win. Offensive rebounds give the Cavs extra possessions, every rebound represents another chance to get a good shot. Because the Spurs are so great at forcing teams into missed shots, the Cavs need all the chances they can get. The ability to get offensive rebounds is always important for the Cavs, its all the more important against a team like the Spurs
-If Tony Parker wins Finals MVP, are we going to be subjected to a David Stern speech about how this truly signifies the international, global nature of the NBA? Ten bucks says we will be. At least its better than his various verbal hand jobs to Michael Jordan during the 1997-1998 season.
-This game is playing right into the Cavs’s hands. A forty point half for both teams? What more could they ask for? Unfortunately, the Spurs might just be the best slow tempo team in the league (it just happens that they can play fast too). Still, the Cavs are outplaying San Antonio on both ends, the Spurs need to get it together because the Cavs are more than capable of stealing this game away from them.
-Bruce Bowen makes for a good interview. Its too bad he gets such a bad rep for his style of play. But, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all great on-ball defenders utilize tricks and play ‘dirty’ sometimes. Jordan did it, Kobe does it, I do it… the list goes on.
-Wow, I didn't update once in the second half, I was just that riveted. Truth be told, other than the finish, which was fun, this was pretty crappy basketball. The Cavs played fairly well at times, but their offense is just so stagnant you wouldn’t notices. Meanwhile the Spurs didn’t help out the game’s aesthetic quality by playing down to the level of competition. I’d rather watch one team play well in a blow out than this, does anyone not agree?
-Terrible no-call at the end there. It didn’t exactly cost the Cavs the game, but there’s a possibility it might have (Van Gundy says James would have gotten the continuation but I just can’t imagine that). People are going to be talking about this for days, and it will only take away from the Spurs’ eventual victory.
-Can we just forgo handing out MVP? After a game like this who deserves it?
-Props to the Cavs front line tonight for the job the did on Duncan and on help defense in general. Bigger props to Sasha Pavlovich for his amazing job on Manu tonight. If the Cavs have a future, it will be through his development as the Pippen to Lebron’s Jordan (and to Varejao’s Horace Grant). Mark my words, if this team is contending in 4 years its because these two international players have lived up to their talent.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What more can I say
-It’s a funny thing, half way through the game I thought to myself, I really had it wrong the other day talking about a typical Spurs blowout, the deficit was just too high. And then, it happens again! If you're a Cavs fan you walk away saying "see! We can run with these guys!" If you're a Spurs fan you walk away saying, "We were never not in control of this game, comeback or no!" If you are the rest of the NBA you wonder whether this was really control or whether this was a borderline collapse.
-Another thing I take away from this game is how important it is to have a big man who could pass. For all his size and athleticism, one of the most important element of Shaq’s game is that he has great hands and hit almost anyone, anywhere on the floor. As cool as it is to make an on-target ally-oop pass from half court, it is equally difficult to make a skip pass out of a double team. It is not enough to take a dominant post player and surround him with perimeter scorers, that big man needs to be able to pass. One of the reasons the Knicks never took it to the championship level in the 1990s was that Patrick Ewing is not a phenomenal passer (though he is certainly better than Eddie Curry). Duncan, like Shaq, is vastly underrated in his ability to see the double team coming, and make the appropriate pass. He certainly showed it tonight, racking up 8 assists. His passing ability allows the entire offense to run through him without worry of bad shot or turnover. Think about how great of an asset it is to be able to initiate your offense from the post area as opposed to from beyond the arc. Instad of having to go outside in, everything becomes inside out, allowing for more threes and more dump passes to guys cutting through the lane. Without big man passing, the Spurs would not be leading the NBA in 3 pointers this post-season.
-James really responded tonight, finishing with 25-6-7 in just 38 minutes of game time. Does this mean that he has ‘figured out’ everything Bowen and the Spurs are going to throw at him? No. But I like the fact that he could pick out the defensive weaknesses mid series, by the end of the career he will be able to do this mid game.
-Anderson Varejao just amazes me with his constant effort. He is not exactly intimidating built, yet he is supremely effective in pushing and shoving his way into rebounding position. He is also becoming adept at sliding over to contest everything. His weakness? Speed. Duncan just constantly blazed by him off the dribble (‘blazed by’ is not a phrase often associated with Timmy).
-Clearly, my call before the series to give Elson some more minutes went unheralded. He had 3 fouls in 13 minutes. Still, he netted 3 boards and shot 3-3, not a terrible outing. I really like this man’s game, he is a great backup center, and a wonderful third string center (which is how the Spurs play him).
-Jacque Vaughn and Eric Snow need to have a fight to the death for who is the most offensively challenged point in the league.
-Ladies and gentleman, we had a Beno Udrih sighting! After having a fairly good ’05 post season, Udrih was completely thrown under the bus, and is clearly at odds with Pop. He’s a talented young guy though, I hope they trade him to somewhere he can develop a bit more.
-Another thing I take away from this game is how important it is to have a big man who could pass. For all his size and athleticism, one of the most important element of Shaq’s game is that he has great hands and hit almost anyone, anywhere on the floor. As cool as it is to make an on-target ally-oop pass from half court, it is equally difficult to make a skip pass out of a double team. It is not enough to take a dominant post player and surround him with perimeter scorers, that big man needs to be able to pass. One of the reasons the Knicks never took it to the championship level in the 1990s was that Patrick Ewing is not a phenomenal passer (though he is certainly better than Eddie Curry). Duncan, like Shaq, is vastly underrated in his ability to see the double team coming, and make the appropriate pass. He certainly showed it tonight, racking up 8 assists. His passing ability allows the entire offense to run through him without worry of bad shot or turnover. Think about how great of an asset it is to be able to initiate your offense from the post area as opposed to from beyond the arc. Instad of having to go outside in, everything becomes inside out, allowing for more threes and more dump passes to guys cutting through the lane. Without big man passing, the Spurs would not be leading the NBA in 3 pointers this post-season.
-James really responded tonight, finishing with 25-6-7 in just 38 minutes of game time. Does this mean that he has ‘figured out’ everything Bowen and the Spurs are going to throw at him? No. But I like the fact that he could pick out the defensive weaknesses mid series, by the end of the career he will be able to do this mid game.
-Anderson Varejao just amazes me with his constant effort. He is not exactly intimidating built, yet he is supremely effective in pushing and shoving his way into rebounding position. He is also becoming adept at sliding over to contest everything. His weakness? Speed. Duncan just constantly blazed by him off the dribble (‘blazed by’ is not a phrase often associated with Timmy).
-Clearly, my call before the series to give Elson some more minutes went unheralded. He had 3 fouls in 13 minutes. Still, he netted 3 boards and shot 3-3, not a terrible outing. I really like this man’s game, he is a great backup center, and a wonderful third string center (which is how the Spurs play him).
-Jacque Vaughn and Eric Snow need to have a fight to the death for who is the most offensively challenged point in the league.
-Ladies and gentleman, we had a Beno Udrih sighting! After having a fairly good ’05 post season, Udrih was completely thrown under the bus, and is clearly at odds with Pop. He’s a talented young guy though, I hope they trade him to somewhere he can develop a bit more.
What's Gotten into Robert Horry (and other first half observations)
Game Two is half over, and the Cavs have about half the Spurs score. Of course, I didn't expect the game to be anything like this, but the way the Spurs are playing is exactly what they did in game 1 and the rest of the playoffs (but better). So there's really not much worth noting, its all just a day at the River Walk. First of all, what the hell is wrong with Robert Horry? He's not supposed to come on until the game's waning minutes, yet he has played phenomenally, with three blocks, and a whole bunch of boards.
-Tony Parker is just waltzing into the lane. What is wrong with the Cavs' front line? Where is Drew Gooden's help defense? I join Jeff Van Gundy in being absolutely blown away by the Cavs' ineptitude.
-When he airballed the FT, I really thought that Bowen had just broken Lebron James. Clearly, I was wrong. He is still not playing well, but he has forced himself back into this game. The emphatic dunk and the string of good hard drives show that this young man is not as easily daunted as I thought.
-Harvey Araton had a nice piece in the New York Times today where he asks whether the Spurs would have the same reputation if they played in New York. He certainly has a point. The Bulls were predictable, running their offence through a single player. The Lakers of the 2000s were predictable, running a bunch of plays that involved only two players. The NBA is a part of the entertainment business, and reputation is a facade. Nothing about the Spurs reputation has anything to do with what they actually do on the court. I just posted at length about this at Five Tool Tool. EDIT: True Hoop has some more on the same issue (and cites the same article). It seems that this season has seen a growing amount of voices calling for more Spur appreciation. Lets see how they are depicted next season (I expect the league and the fans to embrace the 'bad guy' persona, booing the Spurs in every arena).
-Tony Parker is just waltzing into the lane. What is wrong with the Cavs' front line? Where is Drew Gooden's help defense? I join Jeff Van Gundy in being absolutely blown away by the Cavs' ineptitude.
-When he airballed the FT, I really thought that Bowen had just broken Lebron James. Clearly, I was wrong. He is still not playing well, but he has forced himself back into this game. The emphatic dunk and the string of good hard drives show that this young man is not as easily daunted as I thought.
-Harvey Araton had a nice piece in the New York Times today where he asks whether the Spurs would have the same reputation if they played in New York. He certainly has a point. The Bulls were predictable, running their offence through a single player. The Lakers of the 2000s were predictable, running a bunch of plays that involved only two players. The NBA is a part of the entertainment business, and reputation is a facade. Nothing about the Spurs reputation has anything to do with what they actually do on the court. I just posted at length about this at Five Tool Tool. EDIT: True Hoop has some more on the same issue (and cites the same article). It seems that this season has seen a growing amount of voices calling for more Spur appreciation. Lets see how they are depicted next season (I expect the league and the fans to embrace the 'bad guy' persona, booing the Spurs in every arena).
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Turn on ESPN Classic
Tonight and tomorrow on ESPN Classic, they’re showing a marathon of classic games from NBA finals series of years past. Game five of Bulls/Lakers from 1991 just finished and got me thinking about how different the basketball landscape in the early 1990’s would have been had Magic not retired (or gotten sick). The Lakers, still rebuilding from the loss of Jabbar, were fortunate to have a young Elden Campbell (who exploded for 20+ in the game I just watched), the talented Vlade Divac, and Sam Perkens. Those were three quality centers. Combine that with A.C. Green and you have the making of a great front line. Magic, of course, was still in his prime, and you have to think the Lakers would have contended for years to come. Some other points about 1990’s basketball as I watch these games:
-People complain about bad calls these days, well I hate to break it to everyone but refs have been screwing up for years. One sequence in the fourth quarter of this game really blew my mind. Jordan and Campbell get tangled up fighting for a loose ball and a jump is called. Jordan gets up and starts screaming that he had called time out, and immediately, without even consulting the rest of the officiating team, the ref changes the call. If that had happened to Dwayne Wade in the finals last year there would have been riots on the streets of Dallas. EDIT: Lightning struck again in the fourth quarter of game six in 1992. Drexler fumbles the ball, Scottie Pippen looks at the refs and indicates a travel, and after a slight hesitation the call is made. Unbelievable.
-Scottie Pippen was a terrific rebounder. Watching him in these past two games (I’m now checking out the 1992 finals) brings Sean Marion to mind. He gets his rebounds less by taking his man out of position and more by using his length and athleticism creatively to snatch rebounds from opponents boxing him out. In the mid 90’s there was a camp of people who argued that Pippen was the second best player in the league behind Jordan. Back then I thought it was a crazy thought, but watching him today makes me not so sure, he was truly a complete player in every sense of the word. Was he better than Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Grant Hill, Olajuwon, or some of the decade’s other greats? I don’t think so, but you have to put him at least in the same category.
-Terry Porter really ran an exciting offence. This Portland team pushed the ball so effectively, and with Drexler’s athleticism, they were really a joy to watch. (Its funny to watch Drexler skying all over with youth-like athleticism, only to see him turn around and witness the huge bald spot. Its like watching a grandfather suddenly realize he can jump.) Not only did Portland run the floor effectively (99 possessions per game), they did it with the league’s second best defense (per 100 possession). Watching this team makes me more excited for my upcoming ‘best of the rest’ list because it’s a squad I never really appreciated. In the three seasons from 1990-1992, the Blazers lost in the Finals twice and in the Conference Finals once, one of the best squads in those early years of the Jordan era. Its amazing what wining a championship can do to a team’s legacy.
-Knicks/Rockets game seven is on now (2am). I skipped the second half of the '93 Game six in order to be fresh for this one. I haven't watched this game since I was eight years old when it was first played, and after watching the pre-game intros, I can tell you that the magic is still there. I felt a tug at my heart when my Knicks came out, and the moment Hakeem showed his face, I seethed with jealousy for just a moment.
-The game is over and, emotionally drained, I head for bed. But not before making this comparison. In 1994, Pat Riley had a player in John Starks who played through injury to help New York make the championship. Game 7 rolls around and Starks has one of the worst shooting performances of his career. As each 3-poiner grazes off the rim, New York fans world wide (including announcer Marv Albert) look down the Knicks bench to young Hubert Davis. Davis, a young man who has proven himself to be a great shooter, barely plays, sitting along side fellow guard Rolando Blackman. Riley hesitates to make the switch because of loyalty to his veteran, who deserves admiration for playing through injury. Starks ends up shooting 2/18, possibly costing the Knicks the championship. It is now 13 years later and a veteran point guard (Larry Hughes) on the overmatched Cavs team is starting and playing at the expense of exciting young Boobie. Loyal to his pg, Brown has said he will not make the lineup change because Hughes has battled through injuries so valiantly. Yet perhaps Brown should heed the words of Riley, who now calls playing Starks so much in games 6 and 7 the biggest mistake in his coaching career. Loyalty is a wonderful thing to see, but I bet if you asked Starks today, he would have rather won the championship on the bench than been faced with the disgrace of losing on the floor.
-People complain about bad calls these days, well I hate to break it to everyone but refs have been screwing up for years. One sequence in the fourth quarter of this game really blew my mind. Jordan and Campbell get tangled up fighting for a loose ball and a jump is called. Jordan gets up and starts screaming that he had called time out, and immediately, without even consulting the rest of the officiating team, the ref changes the call. If that had happened to Dwayne Wade in the finals last year there would have been riots on the streets of Dallas. EDIT: Lightning struck again in the fourth quarter of game six in 1992. Drexler fumbles the ball, Scottie Pippen looks at the refs and indicates a travel, and after a slight hesitation the call is made. Unbelievable.
-Scottie Pippen was a terrific rebounder. Watching him in these past two games (I’m now checking out the 1992 finals) brings Sean Marion to mind. He gets his rebounds less by taking his man out of position and more by using his length and athleticism creatively to snatch rebounds from opponents boxing him out. In the mid 90’s there was a camp of people who argued that Pippen was the second best player in the league behind Jordan. Back then I thought it was a crazy thought, but watching him today makes me not so sure, he was truly a complete player in every sense of the word. Was he better than Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Grant Hill, Olajuwon, or some of the decade’s other greats? I don’t think so, but you have to put him at least in the same category.
-Terry Porter really ran an exciting offence. This Portland team pushed the ball so effectively, and with Drexler’s athleticism, they were really a joy to watch. (Its funny to watch Drexler skying all over with youth-like athleticism, only to see him turn around and witness the huge bald spot. Its like watching a grandfather suddenly realize he can jump.) Not only did Portland run the floor effectively (99 possessions per game), they did it with the league’s second best defense (per 100 possession). Watching this team makes me more excited for my upcoming ‘best of the rest’ list because it’s a squad I never really appreciated. In the three seasons from 1990-1992, the Blazers lost in the Finals twice and in the Conference Finals once, one of the best squads in those early years of the Jordan era. Its amazing what wining a championship can do to a team’s legacy.
-Knicks/Rockets game seven is on now (2am). I skipped the second half of the '93 Game six in order to be fresh for this one. I haven't watched this game since I was eight years old when it was first played, and after watching the pre-game intros, I can tell you that the magic is still there. I felt a tug at my heart when my Knicks came out, and the moment Hakeem showed his face, I seethed with jealousy for just a moment.
-The game is over and, emotionally drained, I head for bed. But not before making this comparison. In 1994, Pat Riley had a player in John Starks who played through injury to help New York make the championship. Game 7 rolls around and Starks has one of the worst shooting performances of his career. As each 3-poiner grazes off the rim, New York fans world wide (including announcer Marv Albert) look down the Knicks bench to young Hubert Davis. Davis, a young man who has proven himself to be a great shooter, barely plays, sitting along side fellow guard Rolando Blackman. Riley hesitates to make the switch because of loyalty to his veteran, who deserves admiration for playing through injury. Starks ends up shooting 2/18, possibly costing the Knicks the championship. It is now 13 years later and a veteran point guard (Larry Hughes) on the overmatched Cavs team is starting and playing at the expense of exciting young Boobie. Loyal to his pg, Brown has said he will not make the lineup change because Hughes has battled through injuries so valiantly. Yet perhaps Brown should heed the words of Riley, who now calls playing Starks so much in games 6 and 7 the biggest mistake in his coaching career. Loyalty is a wonderful thing to see, but I bet if you asked Starks today, he would have rather won the championship on the bench than been faced with the disgrace of losing on the floor.
Things to Look for in Game 2
First of all, thanks to Jerusalem Joe for showing me how to do this
EDIT: Got It!!
Game one went exactly the way I figured it would the other night. It was a typical Spurs blowout, where they go up big to enter the fourth and then allow the lead to dwindle in the name of energy conservation. Seriously, the Spurs have invented a new type of domination, one where the final score doesn’t show the sheer depth of command the Spurs had over the game. Consider: Most would acknowledge that the Spurs have played dominant basketball this post season, yet of their 13 wins, only three were double figure victories. In game five in the Denver series the Spurs closed out by 15, leaving no doubt that they belonged in the second round. In games 4&5 against Utah, the Spurs had something to prove after they were drubbed by 26, so they won by 12 and 25. However, this is not to say that the Spurs were playing in close games all the way, only three of their games were won by two possession or less (and only game 5 in Phoenix was a one possession game by the end, the Spurs won by three). Other than those six games, the Spurs have won two games by seven points, two by eight points, and three games by nine. What this tells me is that they are proficient at knowing exactly how much of their lead they have to protect to ensure the win. A stat I’d like to see is the amount the Spurs have led after three quarters, but I haven’t been able to find it on either ESPN, 82games.com or basketball-reference.com (my sources for most statistics). Still, from the games I’ve seen, it always seems like the Spurs are up more at the end of the third than at the end of the fourth. Usually, it seems that they lose some of the lead in the fourth quarter (like in Game 1 of the Finals), but apply the breaks on the other team just enough to make sure they always keep the game out of reach. Of course, it is possible to interpret this as a team that easily gives up 4th quarter leads, but the Spurs always win these games, and seem to do it in a way that never makes the outcome in doubt.
A couple of things I’ll be looking forward to seeing in game 2:
How is Lebron going to adjust to the Spurs coverage? You know he will, but you also have to think that Popovich has other defensive schemes he’s going to be using. I hope to see a bit of a chess match between Bron Bron and the Spurs’ gurus on the bench.
I know Mike Brown has made it clear that Larry Hughes is his starting pg, but I cannot fathom him not giving Gibson more minutes. I want to see what Gibson does with these minutes and whether the Spurs have enough to put the clamps on him too.
Another Hughes related note. At this point, it is clear the Lebron is out defending Larry. Brown had some success when he stuck Lebron on Tony Parker and hid Hughes in the corner guarding Bruce Bowen. Clearly, with Hughes hobbling, this was a nice band aid in game one to stop some of the bleeding, but I don’t have faith that Lebron can effectively guard Tony for the rest of the series and keep up his energy on the offensive end. Who is Mike Brown going to go to that has the lateral quickness to keep up with Parker. Might we have another Eric Snow sighting?
Big Z is not going to score two points again. The question is, will he get enough help from the perimeter to keep the Spurs from camping out around him?
All in all, game two should be fascinating; I expect a bunch of adjustments from the Cavs and some interesting countermoves from San Antonio.
EDIT: Got It!!
Game one went exactly the way I figured it would the other night. It was a typical Spurs blowout, where they go up big to enter the fourth and then allow the lead to dwindle in the name of energy conservation. Seriously, the Spurs have invented a new type of domination, one where the final score doesn’t show the sheer depth of command the Spurs had over the game. Consider: Most would acknowledge that the Spurs have played dominant basketball this post season, yet of their 13 wins, only three were double figure victories. In game five in the Denver series the Spurs closed out by 15, leaving no doubt that they belonged in the second round. In games 4&5 against Utah, the Spurs had something to prove after they were drubbed by 26, so they won by 12 and 25. However, this is not to say that the Spurs were playing in close games all the way, only three of their games were won by two possession or less (and only game 5 in Phoenix was a one possession game by the end, the Spurs won by three). Other than those six games, the Spurs have won two games by seven points, two by eight points, and three games by nine. What this tells me is that they are proficient at knowing exactly how much of their lead they have to protect to ensure the win. A stat I’d like to see is the amount the Spurs have led after three quarters, but I haven’t been able to find it on either ESPN, 82games.com or basketball-reference.com (my sources for most statistics). Still, from the games I’ve seen, it always seems like the Spurs are up more at the end of the third than at the end of the fourth. Usually, it seems that they lose some of the lead in the fourth quarter (like in Game 1 of the Finals), but apply the breaks on the other team just enough to make sure they always keep the game out of reach. Of course, it is possible to interpret this as a team that easily gives up 4th quarter leads, but the Spurs always win these games, and seem to do it in a way that never makes the outcome in doubt.
A couple of things I’ll be looking forward to seeing in game 2:
How is Lebron going to adjust to the Spurs coverage? You know he will, but you also have to think that Popovich has other defensive schemes he’s going to be using. I hope to see a bit of a chess match between Bron Bron and the Spurs’ gurus on the bench.
I know Mike Brown has made it clear that Larry Hughes is his starting pg, but I cannot fathom him not giving Gibson more minutes. I want to see what Gibson does with these minutes and whether the Spurs have enough to put the clamps on him too.
Another Hughes related note. At this point, it is clear the Lebron is out defending Larry. Brown had some success when he stuck Lebron on Tony Parker and hid Hughes in the corner guarding Bruce Bowen. Clearly, with Hughes hobbling, this was a nice band aid in game one to stop some of the bleeding, but I don’t have faith that Lebron can effectively guard Tony for the rest of the series and keep up his energy on the offensive end. Who is Mike Brown going to go to that has the lateral quickness to keep up with Parker. Might we have another Eric Snow sighting?
Big Z is not going to score two points again. The question is, will he get enough help from the perimeter to keep the Spurs from camping out around him?
All in all, game two should be fascinating; I expect a bunch of adjustments from the Cavs and some interesting countermoves from San Antonio.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Best of the rest?
Hollinger strikes again with a great list posted today on espn.com. Hollinger uses a mostly bullshit formula to rank the 60 NBA finalists of the past 30 years. His formula is absurd, it weights all regular season wins equally, doesn't account for quality of competition, and is arbitrary with how much it weights scoring differential. Still, his results echo common sense, and make a couple of things painfully clear: The best teams in history were the 90's Bulls (by far), followed by the Celtics and Lakers of the mid 80's, the Pistons of the late 80's, and the Lakers and Spurs of this decade. The Rockets of the 90's and the Pistons of 2004 are two of the teams that were ranked much lower than I expected.
Anyway, according to the list, the best 'runner up' was the 1997 Jazz, followed by the 1998 Jazz, and the 1996 Sonics, which shows how strong the Western conference was in the mid 1990s. It also reminded me of an idea I had, to track through the many teams that were consistently among the NBA's elites, but failed to win a title. The Jazz and Sonics are definitely among these, as are the Kings of the early 2000s, and the Knicks of the 1990s. Who else deserve to be included? Right now I'd have to say the Mavs of the past few years deserve consideration, as do Clyde Drexler's Blazers.
Any others?
Anyway, according to the list, the best 'runner up' was the 1997 Jazz, followed by the 1998 Jazz, and the 1996 Sonics, which shows how strong the Western conference was in the mid 1990s. It also reminded me of an idea I had, to track through the many teams that were consistently among the NBA's elites, but failed to win a title. The Jazz and Sonics are definitely among these, as are the Kings of the early 2000s, and the Knicks of the 1990s. Who else deserve to be included? Right now I'd have to say the Mavs of the past few years deserve consideration, as do Clyde Drexler's Blazers.
Any others?
Remember the Spurs
“Tim Duncan is the best player of this generation.” Right now, you read this all over the internet, sports writers have been heaping praise on Duncan and the Spurs since their ousting of the Suns in the Conference Semifinals. Though the above statement has been manifest since around 2004, for a while there was a collective Alzheimer’s in the media regarding the accomplishments of this man and his team. All of that has suddenly changed. Whether it is because of the appalling (from some perspectives) lack of star power since round 1, or whether it is an attempt to make the public forget about the Spurs’ dubious win against Phoenix, sports writers in all avenues are suddenly figuring out what the rest of us have known for years: Duncan’s Spurs deserve to be recognized side by side with, if not above, Shaq’s Lakers as the best team of this era.
And yet, for all the praise going around these days, this is not how the Spurs are going to be remembered. Assuming Lebron James ends up sustaining his level of play and enters into the pantheon of over hyped NBA greats, Duncan and the Spurs will either be the faces of that insurmountable opponent that frustrated young Lebron’s first attempt, or they will forever be known as the giant that the young one felled at the tender age of 22. I compare it to the way we look at those great late 80’s Pistons teams. Today, we look at them as the obstacle that Jordan had to get over to become great. We don’t often remember the Pistons as their own team, instead placing them in the context of the Jordan legacy. I feel as though, win or lose, this is how the 2007 San Antonio Spurs will be remembered. Not that they care of course. It is well known that the Spurs care only about winning and Tony Parker’s rap career—reputation pales in comparison.
Even if Pop and Co will never admit to caring about their place in history, I wonder if the basketball world is doing itself a disservice. What the Spurs have done in the past 9 years is nothing short of remarkable. Their accomplishments have been muted for a number of reasons (such as the fact that they have failed to win two years in a row), but the fact is, they have been among the favorites to win a title every year. In 2000, they would have gone deep into the playoffs but for Tim Duncan’s foot injury that resulted in the champs getting ousted in round one. In 2001 and 2002 they were in a period of transition, they’re roster had huge changes between their 1999 and 2003 titles. Still, they remained the best team outside of California (I would have loved to see a Spurs/Kings series during these years. Could you imagine Tim Duncan going at Chris Webber in his prime?). In 2004 they would have won the title if not for that highly deflating Fischer shot and the resulting losses. (By the way, does anyone else see parallels between the Lakers/Spurs series in 2004 and the Mavericks/Heat series last year? In both cases, a team loaded with veterans found itself down, and rallied after a close victory to sweep the rest of a series against a superior team. Just a thought) In 2006, despite Tim Duncan’s severe foot injury, they played as well as ever, falling to a healthier, younger, and perhaps better Dallas team. People talk all the time about Jordan’s flu game, well Duncan had the plantar fasciitis season! I don’t expect people to suddenly give San Antonio their due, its much too late for that, but I hope that 20 years from now, we realize that we were witness to a wonderful era in basketball history, a time when the San Antonio Spurs defined success.
EDIT: Need confirmation of my fear? Kevin Pelton of supersonics.com, in his NBA Finals preview, writes: "Still, as Cleveland prepares to face San Antonio in the first NBA Finals in franchise history, the series is seen as largely about James. Will this be the first step towards his legacy or champion or another learning lesson along that path?"
And yet, for all the praise going around these days, this is not how the Spurs are going to be remembered. Assuming Lebron James ends up sustaining his level of play and enters into the pantheon of over hyped NBA greats, Duncan and the Spurs will either be the faces of that insurmountable opponent that frustrated young Lebron’s first attempt, or they will forever be known as the giant that the young one felled at the tender age of 22. I compare it to the way we look at those great late 80’s Pistons teams. Today, we look at them as the obstacle that Jordan had to get over to become great. We don’t often remember the Pistons as their own team, instead placing them in the context of the Jordan legacy. I feel as though, win or lose, this is how the 2007 San Antonio Spurs will be remembered. Not that they care of course. It is well known that the Spurs care only about winning and Tony Parker’s rap career—reputation pales in comparison.
Even if Pop and Co will never admit to caring about their place in history, I wonder if the basketball world is doing itself a disservice. What the Spurs have done in the past 9 years is nothing short of remarkable. Their accomplishments have been muted for a number of reasons (such as the fact that they have failed to win two years in a row), but the fact is, they have been among the favorites to win a title every year. In 2000, they would have gone deep into the playoffs but for Tim Duncan’s foot injury that resulted in the champs getting ousted in round one. In 2001 and 2002 they were in a period of transition, they’re roster had huge changes between their 1999 and 2003 titles. Still, they remained the best team outside of California (I would have loved to see a Spurs/Kings series during these years. Could you imagine Tim Duncan going at Chris Webber in his prime?). In 2004 they would have won the title if not for that highly deflating Fischer shot and the resulting losses. (By the way, does anyone else see parallels between the Lakers/Spurs series in 2004 and the Mavericks/Heat series last year? In both cases, a team loaded with veterans found itself down, and rallied after a close victory to sweep the rest of a series against a superior team. Just a thought) In 2006, despite Tim Duncan’s severe foot injury, they played as well as ever, falling to a healthier, younger, and perhaps better Dallas team. People talk all the time about Jordan’s flu game, well Duncan had the plantar fasciitis season! I don’t expect people to suddenly give San Antonio their due, its much too late for that, but I hope that 20 years from now, we realize that we were witness to a wonderful era in basketball history, a time when the San Antonio Spurs defined success.
EDIT: Need confirmation of my fear? Kevin Pelton of supersonics.com, in his NBA Finals preview, writes: "Still, as Cleveland prepares to face San Antonio in the first NBA Finals in franchise history, the series is seen as largely about James. Will this be the first step towards his legacy or champion or another learning lesson along that path?"
Monday, June 4, 2007
Cavs/Spurs
Who saw this coming? Well the guys at thepaintedarea.com for one, but few others. My instincts tell me that San Antonio will have no problem, but I'm tired of sleeping on the Cavaliers, who I think pose some interesting match up difficulties for the Spurs. In fact, both teams have questions in matching up with their foe:
Where will Lebron get his points? While the Pistons were known as a great defensive team, they did not show it in the conference finals. The Spurs’ interior D is not going to give up the kind of penetration that Rasheed Wallace felt compelled to ignore in game five. Furthermore, San Antonio’s disciplined rotation schemes are going to allow them to recover when Lebron penetrates and dishes, I don’t expect Gibson to go off game 6 style against the Spurs. Because of these two factors, Cleveland is going to live and die by Lebron’s midrange jump shot. Over the course of the Pistons series, James has shown that he has the ability to take, and make, the types of difficult shots that Kobe is known for. With Bowen covering him, James is going to have a tough time muscling his way into the post, and Duncan’s help is going to stop easy buckets off penetration. Until the Spurs start to send hard doubles at Lebron (on cnnsi.com, Tony Parker claims that the Spurs are opting for single coverage to start), James’ best scoring opportunities are going to come from jump shots. If Lebron can continue to make these, a lot of pressure will be taken off the rest of Cleveland’s offense. Something to note is that this is the first time throughout the playoffs that Bowen gets a defensive assignment that will rely on his strength more than his (diminished) quickness. While I expect Bowen to do better here than he did with his stints on Deron Williams, he has had trouble with Kobe in the past and might have more trouble with Lebron that people expect.
Who guards Tim Duncan and can Varejao fit into the offense? The way I see it, Duncan is too quick for Ilgauskas, and much too big for everyone else in the Cavs starting five. I expect hard doubles as long as Varejao is off the floor. However, Varejao has shown himself to be one of the league’s more reliable post defenders, and if he can deal with Duncan single coverage, the Cavaliers will be much better for it. With Varejao the question is, and always has been, whether he can play without bogging down Cleveland’s offence. I expect Varejao to get major minutes in this series, perhaps even more than the 26 he averaged in the Detroit series, it will be interesting to see how Cleveland’s offense works with him on the floor (can you even run the pick and roll with him, or do you send him to the far corner, running the P&R with Gooden instead?).
How do the Spurs guard the Cavs front line and which Drew Gooden will we see? I expect the Spurs to put Duncan on Gooden and use Oberto and Elson to use their quickness to bother Big Z. I think Elson will be especially useful in using his length, he is one of the few guys with arms long enough to really bother Ilgauskas. In the Utah series, however, it was Oberto who got the bulk of the minutes (31), while Elson languished on the bench. Pop has shown great aptitude at playing each of his center’s to their strengths, using them when the match up is most appropriate, thus I expect to see more of Elson this series, at least on defense (see below). Related to this is the question of Gooden, who has played significantly worse as the playoffs have gone on. Gooden netted only 9 ppg in the Pistons series, down from 14 in the Washington series. Even more important is the dip in rebounding, Gooden went from grabbing 10 a game in the first two rounds to just 5 in the Conference Finals. Its not like Duncan is going to make his life easier either, Timmy is, after all, one of the world’s best post defenders. However, if Duncan is forced to slide over and help on James’ penetrations, perhaps Gooden will get a few more open looks than he did with Wallace on him. Wallace was loath to slide over and help (explaining Lebron’s lay-up clinic in game 5), but the Spurs are going to want Duncan to help, giving Gooden a few open looks.
Should the Spurs run? YES! The Spurs are not known as a running team, but they are starting to get a reputation as a team that can play at any speed, shown most clearly in the Phoenix series this year. The Cavs defense absolutely smothers the pick and roll, as we saw against New Jersey, and I expect them to give Parker and Duncan trouble when they attempt to run the Spurs’ offense. In fact, with their combination of front court quickness and back court size, the Cavs are better equipped to deal with San Antiono’s pick and roll than any team not from Dallas. If their bread and butter isn’t their, how will the Spurs respond? How about going small, playing stretches with Parker, Manu, Bowen, Finley/Barry, and Duncan/Oberto, running the ball and forcing Cleveland to take one of their bigs off the floor? Parker and Ginobili form one of the best (and most underrated) running back courts in the game, and with Finley or Barry to spread the floor and Duncan and Oberto sprinting to finish long passes, the Spurs might want to do their Phoenix imitation in an effort to win the series.
All and all, I think Cleveland presents and interesting challenge for San Antonio, but the Spurs are playing as well as they ever have. Besides, San Antonio always wins in the odd years!
Spurs in 6
Where will Lebron get his points? While the Pistons were known as a great defensive team, they did not show it in the conference finals. The Spurs’ interior D is not going to give up the kind of penetration that Rasheed Wallace felt compelled to ignore in game five. Furthermore, San Antonio’s disciplined rotation schemes are going to allow them to recover when Lebron penetrates and dishes, I don’t expect Gibson to go off game 6 style against the Spurs. Because of these two factors, Cleveland is going to live and die by Lebron’s midrange jump shot. Over the course of the Pistons series, James has shown that he has the ability to take, and make, the types of difficult shots that Kobe is known for. With Bowen covering him, James is going to have a tough time muscling his way into the post, and Duncan’s help is going to stop easy buckets off penetration. Until the Spurs start to send hard doubles at Lebron (on cnnsi.com, Tony Parker claims that the Spurs are opting for single coverage to start), James’ best scoring opportunities are going to come from jump shots. If Lebron can continue to make these, a lot of pressure will be taken off the rest of Cleveland’s offense. Something to note is that this is the first time throughout the playoffs that Bowen gets a defensive assignment that will rely on his strength more than his (diminished) quickness. While I expect Bowen to do better here than he did with his stints on Deron Williams, he has had trouble with Kobe in the past and might have more trouble with Lebron that people expect.
Who guards Tim Duncan and can Varejao fit into the offense? The way I see it, Duncan is too quick for Ilgauskas, and much too big for everyone else in the Cavs starting five. I expect hard doubles as long as Varejao is off the floor. However, Varejao has shown himself to be one of the league’s more reliable post defenders, and if he can deal with Duncan single coverage, the Cavaliers will be much better for it. With Varejao the question is, and always has been, whether he can play without bogging down Cleveland’s offence. I expect Varejao to get major minutes in this series, perhaps even more than the 26 he averaged in the Detroit series, it will be interesting to see how Cleveland’s offense works with him on the floor (can you even run the pick and roll with him, or do you send him to the far corner, running the P&R with Gooden instead?).
How do the Spurs guard the Cavs front line and which Drew Gooden will we see? I expect the Spurs to put Duncan on Gooden and use Oberto and Elson to use their quickness to bother Big Z. I think Elson will be especially useful in using his length, he is one of the few guys with arms long enough to really bother Ilgauskas. In the Utah series, however, it was Oberto who got the bulk of the minutes (31), while Elson languished on the bench. Pop has shown great aptitude at playing each of his center’s to their strengths, using them when the match up is most appropriate, thus I expect to see more of Elson this series, at least on defense (see below). Related to this is the question of Gooden, who has played significantly worse as the playoffs have gone on. Gooden netted only 9 ppg in the Pistons series, down from 14 in the Washington series. Even more important is the dip in rebounding, Gooden went from grabbing 10 a game in the first two rounds to just 5 in the Conference Finals. Its not like Duncan is going to make his life easier either, Timmy is, after all, one of the world’s best post defenders. However, if Duncan is forced to slide over and help on James’ penetrations, perhaps Gooden will get a few more open looks than he did with Wallace on him. Wallace was loath to slide over and help (explaining Lebron’s lay-up clinic in game 5), but the Spurs are going to want Duncan to help, giving Gooden a few open looks.
Should the Spurs run? YES! The Spurs are not known as a running team, but they are starting to get a reputation as a team that can play at any speed, shown most clearly in the Phoenix series this year. The Cavs defense absolutely smothers the pick and roll, as we saw against New Jersey, and I expect them to give Parker and Duncan trouble when they attempt to run the Spurs’ offense. In fact, with their combination of front court quickness and back court size, the Cavs are better equipped to deal with San Antiono’s pick and roll than any team not from Dallas. If their bread and butter isn’t their, how will the Spurs respond? How about going small, playing stretches with Parker, Manu, Bowen, Finley/Barry, and Duncan/Oberto, running the ball and forcing Cleveland to take one of their bigs off the floor? Parker and Ginobili form one of the best (and most underrated) running back courts in the game, and with Finley or Barry to spread the floor and Duncan and Oberto sprinting to finish long passes, the Spurs might want to do their Phoenix imitation in an effort to win the series.
All and all, I think Cleveland presents and interesting challenge for San Antonio, but the Spurs are playing as well as they ever have. Besides, San Antonio always wins in the odd years!
Spurs in 6
Friday, June 1, 2007
I'm a (reluctant) Witness
A full week without a real post, I apologize. A number of bullets about the Cavs/Pistons series, and later this weekend I’m going to want to discuss the sudden surge of interest in the San Antonio Spurs:
-Lebron James is good, very very good. Scoring 29 out of his team's last 30 points , 48 total, was no mean feat and he should be acknowledged for the offensive weapon that he is. Furthermore, he has completely undermined what I wrote about him after game 2 (“is Bron Bron playing offense like a super talented version of Eddie Jones?”). The level of difficulty on those types of shots were exactly the type of shots I accused him of not being able to convert. The ability is there, the domination is there, and I truly believe this young man has shifted into another gear during this series.
-People need to stop bashing Mike Brown as a crappy coach. 75% of coaching is not the adjustments you make in the game but the preparations you make before it. Mike Brown has a superstar who has the tools to be a good defender but often lapses and a largely immobile starting center, yet he has crafted a defensive juggernaut. He reminds me Jeff Van Gundy’s work with the Knicks in the early Alan Houston era, where he kept the Knicks defensively dominant as a team with a lineup that consisted of poor individual defenders. Mike Brown has demonstrated a immense strength in getting his team on the same page defensively, instilling the discipline needed for the team to take the Pistons machine off their offensive game. Is he poor at planning his timeouts? Yes. But this team is here largely because of the creative ways he has used his lineup. This is a team of role players, players who are good at one or two things. Brown has played to this identity, creating a team that is very good at two things (offensive rebounding and defense) and poor at everything else. Give Brown credit, he is about to take a mediocre squad to the NBA finals.
-Is Cleveland wins on Saturday, can we call it a 6 game sweep? Cleveland has outplayed Detroit in every single game, including games 1 and 2. That said, I cannot fathom Detroit not getting their game together somehow, they are too good to go out like this.
-Prince does not have the quickness to stay with Lebron. When James decided to stop taking jumpers and penetrate, Prince was going to need help. There were sequences where the Pistons went to either a zone or a hard double team at the top of the circle. Yet on the biggest play of the night, they opted for single coverage, and for some reason pulled away the help defense. Why? Flip Saunders is the opposite of Mike Brown. While Brown has created a strong man-to-man team out of spare parts, Saunders inherited one of the most talented collection of man-to-man defenders in the league and over two years has made them a team that needs a zone or a double to thrive. THEN, to compound the problem, he opts not to double when it is needed? I said this last year, and I will say it again now, Saunders is a terrible playoff coach. With the T-Wolves it took the intensity of Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell to get that team out of the first round, and he is about to lose to an inferior team yet again. He does not spark the Pistons the way that Larry Brown and Rick Carlisle did earlier in the decade. For the second year in a row the Pistons are fighting, there are divisions between coaching staff and roster, and the head coach is doing nothing to quell it. Win or lose, Saunders needs to be fired.
-I'd still take a healthy Wade over a healthy Lebron... as of right now, ask me again next spring.
-One last point. I’ve been bloggin for a bit over a month now. I’d love some feedback. If you are reading this, post a comment or two, lets get some discussions going!
EDIT: Took most of the afternoon, but I found someone who shares my feelings about Flip Saunders (http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/flip-saunders-is-idiot.html). And while I'm pleading for people to offer comment, allow me to also ask someone, anyone, to teach this computer illiterate how to post a link. Thanks.
-Lebron James is good, very very good. Scoring 29 out of his team's last 30 points , 48 total, was no mean feat and he should be acknowledged for the offensive weapon that he is. Furthermore, he has completely undermined what I wrote about him after game 2 (“is Bron Bron playing offense like a super talented version of Eddie Jones?”). The level of difficulty on those types of shots were exactly the type of shots I accused him of not being able to convert. The ability is there, the domination is there, and I truly believe this young man has shifted into another gear during this series.
-People need to stop bashing Mike Brown as a crappy coach. 75% of coaching is not the adjustments you make in the game but the preparations you make before it. Mike Brown has a superstar who has the tools to be a good defender but often lapses and a largely immobile starting center, yet he has crafted a defensive juggernaut. He reminds me Jeff Van Gundy’s work with the Knicks in the early Alan Houston era, where he kept the Knicks defensively dominant as a team with a lineup that consisted of poor individual defenders. Mike Brown has demonstrated a immense strength in getting his team on the same page defensively, instilling the discipline needed for the team to take the Pistons machine off their offensive game. Is he poor at planning his timeouts? Yes. But this team is here largely because of the creative ways he has used his lineup. This is a team of role players, players who are good at one or two things. Brown has played to this identity, creating a team that is very good at two things (offensive rebounding and defense) and poor at everything else. Give Brown credit, he is about to take a mediocre squad to the NBA finals.
-Is Cleveland wins on Saturday, can we call it a 6 game sweep? Cleveland has outplayed Detroit in every single game, including games 1 and 2. That said, I cannot fathom Detroit not getting their game together somehow, they are too good to go out like this.
-Prince does not have the quickness to stay with Lebron. When James decided to stop taking jumpers and penetrate, Prince was going to need help. There were sequences where the Pistons went to either a zone or a hard double team at the top of the circle. Yet on the biggest play of the night, they opted for single coverage, and for some reason pulled away the help defense. Why? Flip Saunders is the opposite of Mike Brown. While Brown has created a strong man-to-man team out of spare parts, Saunders inherited one of the most talented collection of man-to-man defenders in the league and over two years has made them a team that needs a zone or a double to thrive. THEN, to compound the problem, he opts not to double when it is needed? I said this last year, and I will say it again now, Saunders is a terrible playoff coach. With the T-Wolves it took the intensity of Sam Cassell and Latrell Sprewell to get that team out of the first round, and he is about to lose to an inferior team yet again. He does not spark the Pistons the way that Larry Brown and Rick Carlisle did earlier in the decade. For the second year in a row the Pistons are fighting, there are divisions between coaching staff and roster, and the head coach is doing nothing to quell it. Win or lose, Saunders needs to be fired.
-I'd still take a healthy Wade over a healthy Lebron... as of right now, ask me again next spring.
-One last point. I’ve been bloggin for a bit over a month now. I’d love some feedback. If you are reading this, post a comment or two, lets get some discussions going!
EDIT: Took most of the afternoon, but I found someone who shares my feelings about Flip Saunders (http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/flip-saunders-is-idiot.html). And while I'm pleading for people to offer comment, allow me to also ask someone, anyone, to teach this computer illiterate how to post a link. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)