In boxing, they say the last thing to leave a fighter is his punch. Last time he fought, Mike Tyson still had his punch, but that was all he had. As fans have seen in the last few weeks - the San Antonio Spurs can still throw a few punches, too.
Anyone reading this will plainly see that the date on my previous post was in November, and there's a reason why I haven't written about the Silver and Black for almost four and a half months. By San Antonio standards, this has been a piss-poor Spurs season. When the Spurs can't beat playoff teams, and they uncharacteristically get out-classed in the clutch moments they used to stamp with their logo, I really don't have much to say. However, as Tony Parker's hand broke, mine became more nimble. Parker's injury has given me a few things to mention.
The Express News reported last week that Gregg Popovich is satisfied with team chemistry after a long period of adjustment by new players and over twenty different starting lineups. The Spurs gutted out a tough win in Oklahoma City, defeated the Cavaliers by guarding Lebron James as well as any team has this year, and then turned in their best defensive performance of the year in Boston last night. Derek and I said on the show yesterday that the Celtics was the biggest road game of the season, and that we would know the Spurs could make a run based on how they performed last night.
The team responded in a fashion that gave me 1999 and 2005 flashbacks. When Manu's running 3 at the third quarter buzzer hit the glass and went in the net I remembered a stunned Phoenix crowd in '05 when Manu made the same shot and triggered a 42 point fourth quarter. As Kevin Garnett hit the ground I could almost see Larry Johnston falling to the Madison Square Garden hardwood as before. Above all, the Spurs defended like the Spurs. An incredibly talented Celtics team was was suffocated by a team defense the Spurs HAVE NOT PLAYED since 2007. The Celtics scored only 73 points on 37% shooting, and a team with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and now Michael Finley shot only 7.1% from 3 point range. This is the kind of defense the Spurs have used to win championships, and they played it with an intensity like they were literally fighting for their lives.
Why now are the Spurs more focused, more defensive, more passionate, and led by an Argentinian shooting guard who is playing like Michael Jordan? Why is the team chemistry finally jelling and why is Richard Jefferson starting to look like a success? Simple: Tony Parker has not played a game in the last three weeks. Players are getting involved to the point that Pop's plan to rest Tim Duncan is coming to fruition. Duncan played only 26 minutes in Boston, and sat out most of the 4th quarter against the Cavs - and the Spurs won both games. This was the plan back in October, but it took a little longer.
When Tony Parker scores 27 ppg other players don't get in rhythm. Richard Jefferson said it best: He needs to play with Ginobili; when they're on the court together he plays better. Ginobili has averaged 27 points and 6 assists over the last two weeks and the Spurs are finally playing how we thought they would, but they WILL NOT win a title.
If Tony Parker is ready to play in the first round, then Pop will go with him just as an in-form Rafer Alston was cast aside by the Magic at the wrong time last year for Jameer Nelson's comeback. The right thing to do is bring Tony off the bench, but Pop won't do it. Parker's game is suited for the bench because he can score in bunches and hat this level a player does not have to start to be effective. Ginobili has been juggled out of the starting five since 2004 to ease the delicate sensibilities of Hedo Turkoglu, Brent Barry, and Michael Finley; and he will now have to indulge Tony Parker.
Manu Ginobili is the Spurs' MVP this year. For the first time since 2005, he is averaging better numbers after the All-Star break than before, but not starting Parker will be admitting defeat for Popovich. If Pop can admit his experiment failed and stop coddling a selfish, ego maniacal, Belgian, future Laker who has been playing the wrong position since he arrived in our great country - the Spurs have a shot.
However, he will still go with Parker because he knows Manu is a competitor. Ginobili doesn't care about starting because he's worried about finishing. The difference between arrogance and confidence is equal to the difference between Tony and Manu. Hopefully Pop will see the difference before he sees Parker wearing purple. Ginobili still has that punch; it's only a question of whether or not Pop lets him use it.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Center of Attention
San Antonio Spurs fans are naturally some of the most discriminating in the league when it comes to expecting a certain level of play from the "5," after watching a specimen like David Robinson for 13 years. Robinson could do it all, and that includes being able to guard The Big Charlatan better than anyone ever has. I could use literally all of the space in which I am allowed to type to list The Admiral's achievements, accolades, awards and honors. Instead, I will simply quote Charles Barkley - "David Robinson (is) the most athletic center, EVER."
According to Hoopedia: "The center is relied upon at both ends of the floor. On offense, the center must be able to score inside (close to the basket), while on defense, he must block shots and rebound" (http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Center). Since Mr. Robinson retired in 2003, the Spurs have definitely had players who met this description.
In 2005, the Playoff rotation of Tim Duncan, Nazr Mohammed, and Robert Horry was the best to take the floor since the Twin Towers patrolled the paint together, but Robert Horry spoiled the Spurs and their fans just as much as Robinson had. San Antonio had now seen a center who could hit threes, especially clutch ones, rebound, block shots, draw charges, and get steals - and do so with an uncanny sense of timing that heralds comparisons to Jordan and Bird. Following 2005, Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, and Kurt Thomas were fine players, but didn't seem to have any specialties.
Enter: Matt Bonner. With Horry slowly exiting the rotation and then the league, Bonner seemed like a logical step. He was the lesser of a few evils. None of the Spurs "big men" played the role of a traditional center, but Bonner's advantage was his three point shot. Maybe he could become the next Horry.... The problem, however, is that Bonner can be effective ONLY when shooting 3's, and, faced with no other options, Gregg Popovich told him that doing so was the only way to ensure playing time.
You've seen the first few games of the season, but think about them as you read the definition of a center again. Does Bonner do any of that consistently? The answer is no. Guards and Forwards are supposed to hit outside shots - and we have players who can. With Manu, RJ, Fin, Mason, and Hill we have three point shooters. Centers are supposed to rebound, block, and get put-backs, and the Spurs aren't short in that department either. Blair, McDyess, and Ratliff are all KICK ASS interior players, but one of them will see very few minutes because Bonner is INEFFECTIVE unless he starts, plays with Parker on the floor, and shoots a lot of 3's.
ANY of the Spurs big men should start, and play, instead of Bonner. McDyess can stretch the floor just enough for Duncan with his midrange game, Blair just tramples people to get rebounds, and if Theo Ratliff and Tim Duncan played together enough to develop good timing, they would block shots like David and Tim did in 1999 and 2003. What will the Spurs miss if Bonner is not on the floor? Nothing. By starting Bonner, Popovich is sacrificing defense for offense when he doesn't even have to, and we all know he is smart enough to know it. For the Spurs to return to the suffocating levels of defense with which they won championships, Bonner will have to go sit in his "Wicked Awesome Section" of the bench, and let the MEN play basketball. Somewhere, some day, there may be another Robert Horry, but it's not Matt Bonner. Not now.
According to Hoopedia: "The center is relied upon at both ends of the floor. On offense, the center must be able to score inside (close to the basket), while on defense, he must block shots and rebound" (http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?title=Center). Since Mr. Robinson retired in 2003, the Spurs have definitely had players who met this description.
In 2005, the Playoff rotation of Tim Duncan, Nazr Mohammed, and Robert Horry was the best to take the floor since the Twin Towers patrolled the paint together, but Robert Horry spoiled the Spurs and their fans just as much as Robinson had. San Antonio had now seen a center who could hit threes, especially clutch ones, rebound, block shots, draw charges, and get steals - and do so with an uncanny sense of timing that heralds comparisons to Jordan and Bird. Following 2005, Francisco Elson, Fabricio Oberto, and Kurt Thomas were fine players, but didn't seem to have any specialties.
Enter: Matt Bonner. With Horry slowly exiting the rotation and then the league, Bonner seemed like a logical step. He was the lesser of a few evils. None of the Spurs "big men" played the role of a traditional center, but Bonner's advantage was his three point shot. Maybe he could become the next Horry.... The problem, however, is that Bonner can be effective ONLY when shooting 3's, and, faced with no other options, Gregg Popovich told him that doing so was the only way to ensure playing time.
You've seen the first few games of the season, but think about them as you read the definition of a center again. Does Bonner do any of that consistently? The answer is no. Guards and Forwards are supposed to hit outside shots - and we have players who can. With Manu, RJ, Fin, Mason, and Hill we have three point shooters. Centers are supposed to rebound, block, and get put-backs, and the Spurs aren't short in that department either. Blair, McDyess, and Ratliff are all KICK ASS interior players, but one of them will see very few minutes because Bonner is INEFFECTIVE unless he starts, plays with Parker on the floor, and shoots a lot of 3's.
ANY of the Spurs big men should start, and play, instead of Bonner. McDyess can stretch the floor just enough for Duncan with his midrange game, Blair just tramples people to get rebounds, and if Theo Ratliff and Tim Duncan played together enough to develop good timing, they would block shots like David and Tim did in 1999 and 2003. What will the Spurs miss if Bonner is not on the floor? Nothing. By starting Bonner, Popovich is sacrificing defense for offense when he doesn't even have to, and we all know he is smart enough to know it. For the Spurs to return to the suffocating levels of defense with which they won championships, Bonner will have to go sit in his "Wicked Awesome Section" of the bench, and let the MEN play basketball. Somewhere, some day, there may be another Robert Horry, but it's not Matt Bonner. Not now.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
The DRIVE for Five
The San Antonio Spurs lost to the LA because they were deeper, more experienced, more clutch, hungrier, and had better chemistry. The following Spurs season began with questions, uncertainty, and new players who had yet to learn Gregg Popovich's defensive schemes. As they had the season before, most of the media picked the Lakers to win and Spurs fans were left wondering just how much emotion to invest in a season that may end on the purple and yellow Staples center floor. In case you're wondering why this is written in the past tense - it's because I'm talking about October of 2002. Tim Duncan had completed a dominant series against LA, but lost in five games. Stephen Jackson sat on the bench with an injury, Antonio Daniels was on his way out of town, David Robinson announced he would retire after the next season, old players couldn't defend LA, and a rookie named Emanuel was coming to town.
One year later, tears would stream down the face of Derek Fisher as the Spurs finished LA with a 20+ point blowout in the Staples Center. I recall the '02-'03 season because many of the same questions are swirling around the NBA season preview shows today. Spurs fans have been more excited this summer than they have been in a while, but the question still remains. Can we beat the Lakers. A former Spur said it best on NBA TV last week: "Realistically...yes," and Brent Barry would know.
Between 2002 and 2003 we swapped a Terry Porter, Steve Smith, Danny Ferry, and Cherokee Parks lineup with one that featured Parker, Claxton, Stephen Jackson, and Kevin Willis. Older players who were a step slow defensively could not hit enough shots. I see no difference now. Instead of a 2008 lineup of Barry, Finley, Udoka, and Manu Ginobili's healthy left leg, we now have Mason, Richardson, Bogans, Hiarston, and Ginobili with Finley laying down cover-fire.
Simply put: not only can the Spurs beat LA, but it's realistic to think they will. Not to dwell on the past, but San Antonio could have won the series in 2008. Ginobili was not healthy, and Parker was inconsistent. If Manu is playing like himself, the Spurs are able to win as they did in Game 3 in '08. Ginobili's 30 point game was a blowout. It was also the only game Ginobili performed in the series. The Spurs lost to LA in 2008 because of rebounding and interior defense, and they have solved each of those problems. Blair, McDyess, Ratliff, and Mahinmi are tougher and more athletic than Thomas, Oberto, and Bonner.
As much as it pains me to say, the Spurs' hope rests on Tony Parker. In 2004, Parker ran circles around Gary Payton as the Spurs raced to A 2-0 series lead. Previously known for his defense, Payton watched from half court as Parker made layups. For some reason, Game 3 arrived, and so did Parker's love for the jump shot. Parker quit driving, and we all know how that series turned out. Parker and "Hedon't" Turkoglu are jsut as much to blame as Derek Fisher for the failed repeat attempt.
In 2008, the Spurs stormed to a 20 point lead in Game 1, in LA. Parker threw a fast breaking fiesta and dashed past Fisher and Farmar for three quarters. An avalanche of missed jumpers in the fourth allowed LA to mount an impressive comeback through momentum they would not relinquish that series. Had the Spurs won Game 1, the series would have been different.
With all other positions potentially canceling each other out, the Spurs own the point guard match-up (Bryan will have a slight edge on Jefferson even if his defense returns to '03 New Jersey levels & Manu will have a slight edge on Artest while the paint will be deadlocked). I know George Hill is up to the challenge, but can Parker stick with his strength even if it means abandoning the desire to make jumpers that he gained watching MJ win games growing up? Parker still has more potential than any PG in the league, and that's scary. If he can keep driving and leave the shooting to the shooters, then Brent Barry will prove correct: "the Spurs can go all the way."
One year later, tears would stream down the face of Derek Fisher as the Spurs finished LA with a 20+ point blowout in the Staples Center. I recall the '02-'03 season because many of the same questions are swirling around the NBA season preview shows today. Spurs fans have been more excited this summer than they have been in a while, but the question still remains. Can we beat the Lakers. A former Spur said it best on NBA TV last week: "Realistically...yes," and Brent Barry would know.
Between 2002 and 2003 we swapped a Terry Porter, Steve Smith, Danny Ferry, and Cherokee Parks lineup with one that featured Parker, Claxton, Stephen Jackson, and Kevin Willis. Older players who were a step slow defensively could not hit enough shots. I see no difference now. Instead of a 2008 lineup of Barry, Finley, Udoka, and Manu Ginobili's healthy left leg, we now have Mason, Richardson, Bogans, Hiarston, and Ginobili with Finley laying down cover-fire.
Simply put: not only can the Spurs beat LA, but it's realistic to think they will. Not to dwell on the past, but San Antonio could have won the series in 2008. Ginobili was not healthy, and Parker was inconsistent. If Manu is playing like himself, the Spurs are able to win as they did in Game 3 in '08. Ginobili's 30 point game was a blowout. It was also the only game Ginobili performed in the series. The Spurs lost to LA in 2008 because of rebounding and interior defense, and they have solved each of those problems. Blair, McDyess, Ratliff, and Mahinmi are tougher and more athletic than Thomas, Oberto, and Bonner.
As much as it pains me to say, the Spurs' hope rests on Tony Parker. In 2004, Parker ran circles around Gary Payton as the Spurs raced to A 2-0 series lead. Previously known for his defense, Payton watched from half court as Parker made layups. For some reason, Game 3 arrived, and so did Parker's love for the jump shot. Parker quit driving, and we all know how that series turned out. Parker and "Hedon't" Turkoglu are jsut as much to blame as Derek Fisher for the failed repeat attempt.
In 2008, the Spurs stormed to a 20 point lead in Game 1, in LA. Parker threw a fast breaking fiesta and dashed past Fisher and Farmar for three quarters. An avalanche of missed jumpers in the fourth allowed LA to mount an impressive comeback through momentum they would not relinquish that series. Had the Spurs won Game 1, the series would have been different.
With all other positions potentially canceling each other out, the Spurs own the point guard match-up (Bryan will have a slight edge on Jefferson even if his defense returns to '03 New Jersey levels & Manu will have a slight edge on Artest while the paint will be deadlocked). I know George Hill is up to the challenge, but can Parker stick with his strength even if it means abandoning the desire to make jumpers that he gained watching MJ win games growing up? Parker still has more potential than any PG in the league, and that's scary. If he can keep driving and leave the shooting to the shooters, then Brent Barry will prove correct: "the Spurs can go all the way."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
