Because I wanted to drop my 2 cents on the state of the NBA, I present to you the latest IM chat with my fellow NBA-savant Vic. This is lightly edited and a bit thin on the analysis side, but should provide you readers with some food for thought, provided you can understand our shorthand. As context, Vic and I have been going back and forth about Lamar Odom (he thinks Phil Jackson should be meowing a la Kwame Brown when LO walks by, I say he's just another guy a la Derrick Coleman, who doesn't like basketball as much as we'd like him to) and Kobe, as you will see. And by the way, J.A. Andade, I don't really think you're an ####. You just make me really, really angry when you say stuff like Manu Ginobili is more valuable than Tim Duncan in 2008 on the basis of one playoff game. Here's the transcript:
Guru: hey man, got your messages from earlier, odom should be killing the spurs V: i saw a stat too Guru: not playing with enough intensity V: he's shooting like low 60s or high 50s from FT for Playoffs. Guru: he's got to play harder for LA to win at least on the road V: yeah man 2-11? and 63% FT shooting in playoffs so far 2-11 you can have a really really horrible night being guarded by a euro and all and blowing layups but the FT shooting? at first i thought it was a poor sample size but he's shot 80+ in FTs the playoffs so far its all mental with that guy Guru: if you watch, he's driving right into traffic every time, flipping up a shot and trying to get a call, ironically V: what's wierd to me is how streaky is statline looks one night 8-12 next night 2-11 Guru: he was the man in game 2, it is odd I think he's more important to the Lakers than Gasol in this series Gasol has his hands full with Duncan Odom needs to play well for them to win they really shoulda lost game 1 also V: yeah gasol tried to play TD 1v1 didn't work though Gasol has length Guru: for spurs, TD needs to dominate like games 1 and 3 V: TD and one other player has to have big games it was manu the other night Guru: I did like how gasol attacked duncan though, he's got good touch on that jump hook I was surprised to see that gasol had 18 shots, he blew a bunch of layups too as for another big game, I dunno about that they probably don't need 30 from any one player if the role players hit outside shots they just need to make some threes to keep LA from collapsing on dribble penetration by the Spur guards V: lakers have home court advantage so if they hold par and just win their home games as they have been they'll be fine but i think its more likely than not that this series goes to game 7 and it ends up being whether SA has enough gas to gut out yet another tough road game Guru: perhaps I like the spurs chances better in this series though V: as compared to the NO series? Guru: yeah, kobe aside, I think the hornets were a mentally tougher team then LA V: as I’ve been saying, spurs are most capable of winning it all question is do they have enough gas? spurs can take it to a higher level lakers, aside from kobe, can’t Guru: yeah, I guess the playoff this season have shown, you can't count out the old guys in SA the play of Finley, Thomas, Horry has been the most suprising to me I thought those guys were done yet it seems that in every series, there's been a game where Finley has made some huge baskets at crunch time to turn the tide game 1 phoenix, game 7 NO but we'll see V: yeah, they somehow muster up the energy but i can totally see them running out of gas these long series they probably have the toughest road Suns, NOs, lakers, east talk about murderer's row Guru: I was gonna say though, if Kobe's the Jordan-calibur player you think he is, LA could very well pull this series out V: i don’t think he's jordan at all i think he's the closest thing to jordan for all of the "next jordans" small, but significant difference Guru: that's a fairly non-controversial statement V: well yeah Guru: though the LeBron camp may take issue with it, but LeBron is too different I think V: Lebron has more god-given talent than kobe but it's comparing apples to oranges with lebron vs. jordan, or lebron vs. kobe Guru: I agree lebron is a forward/supersize guard more akin to magic and bird than jordan V: yep Guru: there was an interesting article today about the cavs, questioning whether the cavs #### offense is lebron's fault or Mike Brown's fault I never thought of it that way, but perhaps Lebron is more to blame? V: i dunno man lebron desperately needs a playmaker baron would actually be insane for him a playmaker PG would be optimal i dont know if the offense is either one's fault Z? big ben? wally world? joe smith? cavs aint exactly stocked with much more than role players and lebron Guru: hey man, some of those guys are better than you'd think V: lol Guru: z and joe smith can both shoot and post wally can hit open jumpers and move off of screens I'm not saying that they're main options but you could run some plays for them from time to time V: wally and Z in particular need the ball someone like jamison for example a scorer w/o needing to touch or dominate the ball Guru: well, minnesota used to use wally like a quasi-reggie miller/rip hamilton, running him off of screens off the ball, that's how he was a 20ppg guy V: yeah but reggie wasnt playing with a fool like lebron man i guess what i'm saying is that lebron needs opportunistic "junk" scorers hey dude put him on the hawks man Guru: guys who don't need plays run for them V: that'd be an awwwwesome team lebron, Joe Johnson and a bunch of athletes? i'd be scared scared scared of that team Guru: yeah, I think Lebron is better suited for an uptempo style too the transition game is where he's truly unstoppable but back to reality, I don't think that lets him off the hook, if indeed he is the reason, instead of the coaching staff, that the Cavs offense is so 1-dimensional V: he's probably better off in a free wheeling motion offense, with room to improvise i don't think its him or the staff i think its the GM Guru: personnel is a problem, but you think it's ok for him to play that way, even with the squad he has? V: i dont know for one he's not a PG he's a marvelously gifted passer but he's probably much better off being a guy who dumps the ball off of a double team rather than being the guy who tries to set things in motion to set up another Guru: yeah, but what the article points out is that maybe he takes on primary playmaking duties because he wants to make all the decisions because it's his team, etc V: he's still the best PG they got right? and really west, Z, wally, wallace none of then are playmakers west can dribble penetrate a bit, but i haven't seem him be a PG Guru: maybe it is academic, because it's true, none of the cavs "pgs" are true playmakers, but isn't all you need out of those guys is to bring the ball up and get the team into it's offense? that would allow lebron to work off of the ball a bit, set up and then kick out of double teams V: Lebron is ultimately the Cavs PG man. Guru: ok, so you're saying lebron has to have a true pg to win? V: not at all for one Guru: lots of teams have won without that kind of true pg V: they got the the championship round last year with a bad team second, they took a good celtics team to 7 games i'm saying that Lebron is limited by not having a true PG beside him. and he's being thrust into being the PG now is that his fault? or is that because they dont have a true PG? i say its more of the latter than the former Guru: yeah, but being the main playmaker of your team doesn't mean that you have to go 1 on 5 every time down the floor that's not what all of these teams that won without a conventional point guard has done well, if you watch, what was happening was that invariably lebron would bring the ball up in the middle of the floor, the other guys would clear out and stand around, while lebron tried to take on the Celtics D by himself V: well that's certainly not right Guru: the C's forced him into a bad shot almost every time V: that article just sounds like puffing up something small and trying to create something out of nothing fact 1 -cavs have a crappy lineup. Guru: well, Mike brown gets criticized to hell for the cavs' predictable offense V: fact 2 - i dont think anyone expected this current cav team to get anywhere very far fact 3 - just taking celts to 7 games and beating pistons last year would be, my most accounts, overachieving Guru: and if that is Lebron's fault, not the coaching staffs', well then that's interesting V: i mean damn man its like ignoring the big fat elephant in the room get bron some HELP YOU FOOLS i'd leave for jersey too or NYC #### cleveland has a cash cow and can't get their #### together? if so, they don't deserve him Guru: but I don't think lack of talent excuses playing the game the wrong way I mean yeah, cavs are ultimately not as talented as the top teams in the L V: i see it as just criticizing to criticize. Guru: its valid, if that is what's going on V: for all the cavs faults, that'd be the least of my worries they have a host of problems Guru: well, coaching may be one of them V: poor defensive team, poor offensive team, short on talent, coaching i'd address the talent one first you fix that i guaranfreakingtee you the others will be improved too wasn’t doc a much maligned coach until this years celts? Guru: he still is maligned in circles, and rightfully so V: probably would not have been if the celts swept through the east Guru: that cavs-celts series was one of the worst coached series I've seen in a while V: he was getting many kudos prior to the playoffs Guru: they might have swept through, if he wasn't such a ####kup with his lineups V: exactly so now he's getting exposed but it just goes to show how much talent can hide Guru: to the casual eye, yes V: for one i think the casual eye overrates this celtic team the 66 wins was an aberration Guru: they overachieved, because of Garnett's manic intensity, perhaps also because of the weakness of the east too more because of intensity V: they played playoff-type bball all year Guru: on defense especially V: but i remember when i first started watching them more seriously towards the end of the season and remarking dude they're a jumpshooting team who's going to take over in crunch? they're going to rely on Js? thats a huge flaw IMO Guru: one thing with the celtics, their offense is rather disorganized V: it's screen and pop for the most part Guru: if their guys are playing unselfishly, then they move the ball well and can get open looks from the perimeter but in cavs series, a lot of guys started playing 1 on 1 and the whole thing bogged down that's why ray allen has struggled so much he got no touches in the cleveland series because pierce, rondo and KG were all getting their points essentially playing 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 Guru: #### detroit though...what the #### no excuse for starting the game asleep in game 3 they were down 11-0 to start the game V: I was very suprised to see that they had lost at home i thought they were trying to make a statement by winning a game in boston WHUPS Guru: honestly, sheed and chauncey are the main problems rip has played hard every game tayshaun, I love him but on offense he has lamar odom syndrome I think he even shot 2-11 for good measure V: i am always surprised every time he backs his man down and posts him up. wtf? is he like incredibly dense or something and actually weighs 330 and doesn’t look him? wtf? Guru: hey man it works that lefty hook is lethal V: i'm surprised sometimes that he doesnt snap in half Guru: prince is surprising, they always said he needed to put on weight that was part of the reason he slipped in the draft V: so far it doesn’t look like he has he also wasn't your typical run jump athlete i recall him being a good shooter at KY Guru: he might have put on a little bit of weight since uk days, I think he looks more toned now yeah, he did post at UK V: he's probably up to a what Guru: he was a 4 in college V: bulky 209 now? Guru: something like that, 210-215 V: clearly a freight train in the post eh? Guru: hahah right I guess maybe he's too agile to dislodge down there? it's hard to say V: i dunno perhaps yeah so maybe he's too much of a threat to do a spin and go around you so guys are hesitant to lean on him too much? i dunno Guru: yeah, it's just frustrating to be a fan of this team sometimes they really needed some change after last season's debacle hopefully Flip has the balls to bench chauncey if he's playing like #### again in game 4 V: i heard he was injured Guru: with stuckey around and playing so well, it's inexcusable to leave billups in and have him hurt the team V: ah how has billups been hurting the team Guru: just being lackluster really he has no explosion going to the basket, so he's reduced to being a jumpshooter he allowed rondo to get into the lane on defense 1-6 shooting, 4 assists to 2 TOs V: ouch that hurts Guru: just did not get it done he still played 27 mins though btw, tay did shoot 2-11 V: ouch Guru: the odom comparison is pretty good actually, I always read stories about how flip is begging him to shoot more V: i'm wondering if flip is too lackadaisacal and not lighting a fire under their #### Guru: he is, for this group V: how about the challenge of beating a hyped up celtics team? if you cant get up for that then i dunno Guru: it sticks out, especially compared to larry brown brown didn't give a ####, he would bench guys if they weren't playing well it would #### off billups all the time, but they were more successful for it V: yeah brown does have a rep though 3 yrs then teams tune him out V: so i dunno if even having him would help this current team Guru: tru dat V: and to be honest, i'm confused as to why the pistons are so laissez faire about it. they won one champsionship Guru: but I wonder if they had more of a leader as a coach, it wouldn't make a difference V: they are more like the buffalo bills than the dallas cowboys if i was the latter, i'd be cocky, but not really the former Guru: the running analogy is that they're the atlanta braves of the nba V: ah yeah close, but not always on top Guru: yeah, it's stupid like I said, it's coming from their "leaders" sheed and billups Guru: even when they lose they're cocky like right after they lost to the cavs, you have quotes like "we still feel we're the better team" true perhaps, but wtf? V: yeah after getting booted in the playoffs you'd think they'd be more humble... if they had won like 2-3 in a row then lost i could see it but it's been a while since they won Guru: it's just sad really, those guys were in their mid-late 20's when they won their ring they really coulda made a dynasty of this team but they ####ked themselves with their arrogance V: starting to look a bit old man Guru: if you look, their playoff losses in each of the last 3 years can be traced to their attitude yeah, they don't have much time left V: after 3 yrs they have gotta say ok maybe its US Guru: exactly you would think Guru: actually, I wanted to go back to what we were discussing a while earlier so you don't think Kobe's as good as jordan, but you still think he's one of those #1 guys who can carry a team to a championship, right? is he in the same tier? (as you imagine, I say no, based on his record up until now) V: hehehe i'm not surprised it remains to be seen with kobe. he certainly has a good shot this year Guru: his stage is set I don't think they beat the spurs without him having at least one of those crazy games Guru: OMG, why do I even read espn anymore, I should really know better Andade is a freaking #### to say ginobili is more important to the spurs than duncan absolutely an #### of course we knew that already, but damn V: LOL yeah man i read that and i was like WHHHHAAA? that's like saying kobe was more important than shaq but are essential but one is clearly more valuable than the other. V: i'm gonna head out of the office ttyl
First, see the comment I made on the last post to get my last take (for now) on Bustomania 2007: The Detroit Pistons. I'ma try to move on now.
The finals. So I picked Cleveland to win, because I think they match up well with the Spurs, as long as they aren't too happy just to be in the finals. So what happens? They go and get intimidated by the bright lights and lose in a game that wasn't really ever competitive.
I could go on about Mike Brown's strategic ineptitude for a while (So it was a good idea to have Bron bring the ball up, even though you won in Detroit by playing him off the ball? What about leaving the only guy shooting the ball well on the bench for most of the game?), but fear of the moment was what made the Cavs miss open looks and get outrebounded more than anything the Spurs were doing. And then there was King James. 14 points and 6 turnovers won't get it done.
The good news for Cavs fans is that the team probably won't play as bad in game 2. And the Spurs? They did what they were supposed to do. Timmy played well, but wasn't as dominant offensively as he'll need to be when (if?) Cleveland shows up for this series. That's to be expected though, when Parker can get 20+ on mostly layups. Maybe the Cavs will make him shoot a jumper next time around. Or something. Just an idea.
The Cavs played badly, but this was the one game they could afford to use to get their finals sea legs. Game 2, though, now becomes a must-win for Cleveland, thanks to the 2-3-2 format that stacks the odds so strongly against the underdog. If the Cavs lose game 2, they would have to sweep their three home games to win the series. Last time that happened? Oh yeah, Pistons '04. So much for moving on.
This is really a double-shot of Guruisms. First, hitting clean-up for my second round slate:
Suns-Spurs: Before the series, I picked the Spurs in five. Although on paper, the Phoenix has matchup advantages with Shawn Marion and Steve Nash over Tony Parker, I couldn't shake the memory of what happened in the regular season and in 2005. The Spurs just have the perfect gameplan to counter what Phoenix does. The Spurs have the best transition defense in the league, and limit their turnovers, so Phoenix has a hard time getting out on the break against them. The Spurs are also supremely patient and disciplined on offense, meaning they don't rush shots, and they dictate tempo probably as well as anyone else in the league.
On top of all that, in 2005 they used Bruce Bowen on the Matrix, taking away all of his easy baskets and offensive boards, and basically reduced Phoenix's attack to Amare Stoudemire going one-on-one against one of the toughest half-court defenses in the NBA. The only difference I saw between this year and 2005 was that the Spurs are not quite as tough on the inside as they were two years ago. (Mohammed was huge on the glass in those playoffs, and Rasho, for all his flaws, was a 7-footer guy opposing teams had to watch out for in the lane. Nowadays, Oberto and Elson give the Spurs nothing in terms of inside presence. That's why the Spurs play more small-ball now than ever before.)
And then there was game 4. Wow. The Suns contradicted all conventional thinking, not to mention their own prior history, by pulling out this game. Check it out:
The Suns play no defense: The boys in orange pulled out some huge stops at the end of this game. Going from single coverage to aggressively trapping Duncan, which Phoenix didn't start doing until crunch time, resulted in turnovers, and completely disrupted the Spur offense. This was brilliant coaching by D'Antoni & Co., and why it so completely baffled the veteran Spurs is beyond me. San Antonio's perimeter guys looked more Lost than the tv show, dribbling out the clock and hoisting rushed shot after shot. I definitely took me back to the days when the Spurs were considered too soft to beat the Lakers. That said, don't think the Suns have stumbled on some defensive kryptonite to use against SA. I don't think the same tactic will be nearly as effective next time around.
The Suns don't rebound: Down the stretch, they more than held their own on the glass, exploiting the biggest weakness in the Spurs' game. The Spurs don't need to dominate the glass to win this series, but in the past their ability to do so helped them control tempo and keep Phoenix's offense under wraps. They cannot get dominated like they did last night if they want to win the series. Even if they pull it out against Phoenix (which I think they will, even before we find out that Amare and Diaw are suspended), the Spurs' weakness on the glass will be their eventual downfall. (hint...hint...hint)
All in all a great game, Phoenix really showed me something last night. Now do it again two more times. Then I'll be really impressed.
By the way, why isn't Popovic using Bowen against Marion like he did in '05??? Was it working too well? TP has shown that he can cover Steve Nash, so I have a hard time understanding this move. Then again, I have a hard time understanding many of Pop's "strategic" moves. Take, for instance, the 2001 series against Lakers, where leaving Fisher open (allowing him to average over 20ppg in a sweep) was the move du jour. Or the 2006 series against the Kings, where the counter to Ron Artest's bullying was taking Ginobili completely out of the offense until midway through the series (after the Kings built up a lead, and might have won had Bonzi and Artest not gotten hurt). Or how 'bout this series, where you let Phoenix get away with Steve Nash on Mike Finley for stretches, even though Finley's a former all-star who likes to post up. Maybe someday I'll learn enough about the game to understand...
Under the Radar Stuff
One of the reasons I started writing this thing is that I think the people writing about the NBA in the major outlets (all two of them) miss a lot of important things. Here are two stories I think are so under the radar, the military would classify them as stealth technology.
Fatigue and the Warriors:
This has been mentioned, but I don't think people appreciate how the fact that JRich, Stephen Jack, Matt Barnes, and especially Boom Dizzle are all running on E is torpedoing the Warriors' postseason efforts. Fatigue makes b!@#$ of us all. This shows up worst on defense, where Golden State is just not rotating or getting back nearly as well as they did against Dallas. In game 4, it started showing up on offense as well, with increased settling for jumpers, most of which were being front-rimmed. Throw in a mellower-than-usual home crowd (c'mon bay area, you gotta represent! I don't care how much the tickets are!), and you have the story of game 4. Unfortunately, I don't see a magic cure for game 5 tonight in the works. The core guys of this gutty Golden State team will have to find their second wind, because I don't see their young bench guys (Ellis, Pietrus, Biedrins) working any miracles on the road. That said, Utah is still an inexperienced playoff team, and Warrior fans can still hope that they get too comfortable with their 3-1 lead. But don't bet on it.
Flopping - it's Fann-tastic!
In the wake of Suns-Spurs, we're hearing lots of complaints about flopping in the playoffs. I'm with Bill Walton on this one (one of the few times you'll hear me say that), and think that flopping is an abuse of the rules. But it's interesting to think what the cause of this new trend is, because while flopping isn't new (is it, Reggie Miller fans?), it has greatly picked up in the last couple of seasons. There are many factors, but the biggest one seems to be that refs are much more willing to blow the whistle at any contact that occurs on a play, not just contact that gives a player an advantage (historically, what a "foul" is).
Who do we have to blame for this development? THE "FANS." Let me be more specific: the highly vocal "fans" of the game, who thought the physical basketball of the '90's sucked, and praise the Phoenix Suns as the messiahs of "good" basketball. These "fans," and their mouthpieces in the media, are arrogant pricks who think college basketball is better than the NBA, and at their core dislike the NBA for a littany of reasons, usually related to being too "playground," and worse, too "black." If you can't tell, I like these people.
Sadly, these people apparently have a lot of pull up in the League office. Why else would the Commish, generally a smart guy, be so hell bent on eliminating contact in the sport? The league has been pressuring refs to crack down on contact, both on the perimeter and around the basket, and this is naturally causing refs to be more trigger-happy. Developments like the circle under the basket (which I'm not necessarily against), which seemingly necessitates a call every time somebody falls down, only increase this pressure. As a ref, doesn't it make sense at this point to make a call every time somebody gets bump, since it's in line with league policy? At this point, doesn't it make sense for a player to exaggerate contact every chance you get, because the odds are in favor of the call going your way?
The only cure for this problem that I see is for refs to refocus on what constitutes a foul, which comes back to how hard the contact has to be for there to be an advantage. In cases where the contact isn't clearly enough to disrupt the play, the refs should #### their whistles and let the play continue. More non-calls like this will cause players and coaches to realize that its in their interest to keep playing after enough turnovers/easy scores are caused by flop-attempts (boy I'd like to see that statistic - Ginobili could average a double-double!).
So basketball "fans" around the country, this column's for you. Give yourselves a pat on the back every time you see a 6'10'' guy falling into the basket support when hit by a 6'1'' guy. You earned it.
