We fucking dominated those fucknuts, didn't we?
We're still cursing here. Let's get that straight right from the beginning. Anyways, I'm STILL knee deep in shit right now, so I'm going to have to keep this brief. Here's my thought on the series against PHX:
The Spurs won because the Spurs had the three best players. Not the three players that played the best in the series, but the three best NBA basketball players. Yes, I'm saying Duncan, Manu and Tony are all better basketball players than Amare and Nash. I don't even think this should be considered a controversial idea.
Defense matters. It's half the game. I don't understand why people don't get this about basketball. Baseball's different because pitchers are 90% of the defense; pitcher's obviously don't hit, so when you're talking about the best players (non-pitchers) you can focus on hitting and still basically come up with a good list. Obviously nobody plays two ways in football and nobody watches hockey.
Stoudemire is just no incomprehensibly bad at defense. He's horrible at one-on-one defense. He's horrible in the pick and roll. He's horrible at help defense. He's foul prone. He's not even a good rebounder; he's never eclipsed 10 a game playing for Phoenix (edit: as in, he's never averaged 10 per game during the regular season), a team that has played well above average pace since he's been there. He's 6'-10" with a ridiculous vertical leap, playing center on a team that jacks up a million shots a game... and he's never grabbed 10 boards in a season. That's pathetic.
And Nash? Jesus. His idea of defending Parker is to backpedal until he gets to the charge circle, make a guess and then fall down when Parker hits him.
Imagine if you had to play a seven game series where you got to pick your opponent. You got to pick different players for who you faced on offense and defense, but they had to be starters on playoff teams. Nash and Amare are no-brainers. It's obvious. Yet people ignore this and then get surprised when the Spurs score at will time and time and time again. And beat them in the playoffs time and time and time again.
It comes down to a simple elementary school level concept. If defense is half the game, and a player is defensively a zero, then at best you have an average player.
0 recs |
23 comments
Comments
That is absolutely right
And that is absolutely why Amare will never be a franchise player for the Suns. He is just too much of a defensive liability. Not to mention he can’t create his own shot half as well as it would seem (which is big reason why they moved away from him and to Diaw in the post). They may consider him a franchise player, but if he remains the centerpiece of the post-Nash suns, we will not have to worry about them for years to come.
by Kid_Dynamite on Apr 30, 2008 10:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As much as I love this blog, you probably shouldn’t just make up stats. Gives the Suns fans more ammo to be raging idiots, and violates the first modicum of respectable and legitimate journalism. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/amare_stoudemire/career_stats.html Amare’s career stats obviously show he’s “eclipsed more than 10 rebounds playing for Phoenix”. He’s a mental midget, a defensive liability, and a thug with his entire family currently in prison, but he’s averaged 10.7 and 12.1 rebounds twice in the playoffs and had 17 rebounds against New Orleans in February of this year, his career high
by One4theThumb on Apr 30, 2008 10:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I meant he had never averaged more than 10 rebounds in a season. I’ll edit and clarify.
by sungo on Apr 30, 2008 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
deĀ·fense
resistance against attack; protection
or in the sports world…
a. the practice or art of defending oneself or one’s goal against attack, as in fencing, boxing, soccer, football or BASKETBALL (phoenix!)
b. the team attempting to thwart the attack of the team having the ball or puck.
ok, i know i am a smart ass for posting the exact definitions but someone needs to print this in 300 size font and post it on every wall of mike d’antoni’s office… or, use to be office? i agree all the way to the spurs bank – why the hell do these people insist on playing a halfway game? steve kerr and everyone else in the league (its crazy how many offspring of the spurs are major pies in other organizations) know who we are and how we get there. someone should have taken notes back in ‘99 and every year since. grab your golf clubs mike and company. now they all know and we exploited that in this series. there is absolutely no excuse from today forward. hell yes, we rule. again.
moognish
yeah, the spurs are boss
by moognish on Apr 30, 2008 11:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure I agree with this.
I’ll post tomorrow about game 5 and preview the upcoming series with the Nooch, and I will sleep on the whole “3 best players” thing. But for now, I can’t say I’m inclined to agree.
by Aaronstampler on May 1, 2008 2:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
well i sure as hell agree with it
I think Powell’s math is right on, and if it wasn’t at least 2 of the past 3 playoff defeats with these guys having Nash should have gone to 7 games. However none of them did, the closest the Suns got was last year at 6 games and we handled them easily in game 6. I don’t think we have the 3 most athletically gifted or talented players but we have the three best in the league, much less the series. I’m not a homer, but look what our “Big Three” or what have you have done, something only Jordan and that great Boston team from the 60’s have done better. You can pull out #’s and stats, +/- , whatever other obscure stat you want from 82 games.com and it all comes down to the best team wins. And the Spurs are the best because of Manu, Tim, and Tony and i don’t think anyone else here can disagree with that. If any of our series with the Suns went 7 you could say its luck or a fluke (and i’m well aware we’ve had some lucky breaks against those guys) but its gone 5,6,5. Nash is amazing, Stoudemire is a beast on the offensive end, they have better role players than the spurs from a talent perspective, and ya their coach is not as good but if Nash and Amare were as good as people laud them to be these series would be closer.
by staves27 on May 1, 2008 10:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
AGREED
I agree whole heartedly, when compared to the Sons, we do have the 3 best on the floor, defense IS half the game, no matter how good the O looks. Their complete lack of D, in the end, makes them average and gets them bounced in 5 (could have been 4 if not for our Spurs lack of a KILLER- want to embarass your ass- instinct). Next up, the young and talented Hornets. They will see too, a different team than the one they split with in the regular season. Playoff mode is in effect
by raynorschiene on May 1, 2008 10:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree with that Stoudamire is a thug comment. Dude might be a horrible defensive player, but he went through hell growing up. You imagine having your a majority of your immediate family in prison and let me know how that would have worked out for you.
I never met anybody who said when they were a kid, "I wanna grow up and be a critic." - Richard Pryor
by DennardC on May 1, 2008 12:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I totally missed the thug comment. The notion that Amare is a thug because his “entire family currently [is] in prison” is poorly formulated at best. I think it’s laughable that sports fan feel like they can make judgments about people they, when you get down to it, only see on tv.
by sungo on May 1, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And thanks Dennard for making this comment.
by sungo on May 1, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you refer to yourself as “black Jesus”, get off the bench with the intention of escalating a fight, and you know he makes thuggish comments and is an overall loose cannon (see: technical with 4 minutes left of game 4). He’s just another thug in a thug league. Amazing talent, but thuggin none the less.
by One4theThumb on May 1, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, good call
Although I think ever bringing it up in the first place (likely Matthew’s feeling as well) was bush league and shouldn’t have happened, it IS hard to deny that it’s true. I don’t endorse mocking Amare for his family/background or openly using it as a negative against him, but the definition is definately right on.
by SgtinManusArmy on May 1, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
im not 100% sure that i will go along with our guys being the three best in the league, maybe i will. just have to think on it.
however, its plainly obvious about the poor defenive abilities of the suns and nash/amare in particular. agreed on that for sure. the suns might be able to beat a lot of team in the NBA with thier crap style of play, but by now you’d think it would be even obvious to them that it wont work against san antonio.
add error-prone and siezing up in the clutch to the list of the suns maladies. put it together and realize that our spurs might match up better against phoenix than anybody in the play-offs.
by bones on May 1, 2008 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The three best in THIS series
I agree with bones in saying that we may not have the 3 best players (talentwise) on a team in the whole NBA. However, I do agree with Matthew in that we DID have the 3 best in this series. Regardless, talent helps but doesn’t win championships. Team ball, good D, execution, and smart play does. And the Spurs have that in Spades
by raynorschiene on May 1, 2008 3:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let’s all just agree that the SPURS have the three best playoff players of any team in the league. There’s not any other 3 that I would take over ours, and I think in that, the assessment is right on.
Talent-wise; Amare/Nash/snaq, KG/gangsta/nancy, Kobe/Odom/Pau, etc. may be arguably more talented, but I’ll take Timmy/the Manu/TP in the playoffs 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.
by SgtinManusArmy on May 1, 2008 4:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome compliment that i had to post
was just diddling my study time away on the BSotS (i’ve already read every column on PtR and every single comment in the past two weeks) and, while i already know this and have used this in arguments, it’s good to know that other teams fans realize it as well.
“In these past four years, I’ve come to the realization that winning is not dependent on style, but how well you can perfect that style. Last year San Antonio pounded us in the paint with Duncan and Oberto. Make personnel changes and we have a good defense, and reaction paint offense for that. Now go to this year, the Spurs still attack the paint, but now with slashes, quick drives, and an up-tempo with Ginobli and Parker. Look at the numbers for Duncan in this series as compared to last year, not much of an impact now. Those who were meek last year, but made the difference this year were the two mentioned bastards. To me the Spurs are not a slow-paced, defensive team, or a running juggernaut, They’re both. Thats what makes this f**king team so superior. They know how to execute, wether it be grinding a team away or running you off the floor, they know when, where, and how to get it done. This is a team of many weapons and options, and Coach Pop knows how to use them.”
http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2008/4/30/470780/uncomfortably-numb
brought a smile to my face
by Hamer_SpursFan on May 1, 2008 5:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Says it all
“That’s what makes this team so F*ing superior”. Although I would HATE to be a Sons fan, if I were Phoenix born and raised and brainwashed to be one,I would have to give the silver and black props too. It’s kinda like the Pats, I hate ‘em, but have to admit they had a REALLY good run/team
by raynorschiene on May 1, 2008 5:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Most satisfying thing about it
I couldn’t get anymore joy out of the Spurs taking five games to oust a team that was put together with the sole purpose of beating them. This was a series Phoenix had to win to justify the Shaq trade and the Spurs wouldn’t allow for it. It felt like more than just a first-round victory.
by 0signal on May 1, 2008 9:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Objective evidence for "best three" sentiment?
In pursuit of a more or less objective answer to the question “Who has the best group of three players in the NBA?”, I examined John Hollinger’s Player Efficiency Rating stats for the 2007-2008 regular season. Whether PER captures what we’re looking for is subject to debate, but the results I found are nonetheless interesting. Teams with the highest average PER for their top three players are as follows:
1. Spurs – 22.93
2. Lakers – 22.86
3. Celtics – 21.98
4. Suns – 21.98
5. Hornets – 21.97
As you can see, this supports the conclusion that our top three are the best, though the Lakers are very close (and one might argue LA’s stats would be a little better had Gasol been with them all season).
Similarly, these are the teams with the best average PER for their top four players:
1a. Spurs – 21.38
1b. Lakers – 21.38
3. Celtics – 20.60
4. Suns – 20.46
5. Hornets – 20.40
As you can see, the Spurs still rank the highest (although now tied with the Lakers), and the top 5 teams remain the same.
Finally, these are the teams with the highest average PER for their top five players:
1. Lakers – 20.32
2. Spurs – 19.96
3. Celtics – 19.61
4. Suns – 19.53
5. Hornets – 19.42
Here the Lakers rank highest, but the Spurs are very close. What conclusions can we reach from these numbers? That’s hard to say, as team success obviously depends on more than the individual stats of a few players, but I think it’s safe to say the Spurs, Lakers, and Celtics have the best core groups of stars in the league.
Just my 0.02.
by Trustin on May 2, 2008 10:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
One conclusion: Bruce Bowen’s offense sucks ass, and kills us in Top 5 rankings. If we had a 5th that was averaging over .0087 points per game, we’d probably also take the lakers in the last category.
Great research though! I enjoyed your post!
by SgtinManusArmy on May 2, 2008 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4 X 21.38 = 85.52
5 X 19.96 = 99.80
99.80 – 85.52 = 14.28.
14.28 is way too high to be Bruce Bowen’s PER. Trustin’ probably looked at the 5 highest PER values on each team, not the starting five.
by sungo on May 2, 2008 5:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Since he said this...
...
Finally, these are the teams with the highest average PER for their top five players:
I think I’ll have to agree with you on this one Powell.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 2, 2008 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's why I disagree with Matthew...
And I meant to cover this on my long ass Game 1 recap Game 5 recap and other thoughts post that NOBODY read.
I think personally, out of Tim, Manu, Tony, Nash and Amare it’s patently ridiculous to suggest that the Spurs have the best three players because they’re the three best defenders. To me it’s fairly obvious that Tim belongs at the top of the list, and by a wide margin, as he’s one of the top 15-20 players to ever lace ‘em up. Also, I think Tony firmly set at the bottom, #5. He doesn’t get placed higher than Nash because of defense. We’re not playing Robert Horry ball here, regular seasons DO matter, and Nash has proven to be historically a superior player to Tony, both in terms of his individual offense and in setting up teammates.
The debate, to me, is what order you place Amare, Nash and Manu. Really you can make an argument for any of the six permutations and it would probably make sense. And I’m willing to listen.
But here’s the argument I won’t accept: Manu and Tony are superior to Nash and Amare because of defense. Sorry, that doesn’t fly. Offense can, in many cases, be individualistic. Defense in basketball is team oriented. Tony playing Nash one-on-one or Manu playing Amare have no more of a chance of stopping them defensively than you or I do of stopping Bruce Bowen. Manu, while an excellent team defender, is average, maybe a tick above that playing man-on-man d. Tony is a far worse team defender, but decent man-on-man when his heart’s in it (which it mostly not the case in the regular season).
Neither are lock down types like Bowen is, and even Bruce’s defense is HIGHLY overrated because he gets to overplay shooters, knowing he’s got Timmy behind him to save him on the drivers.
Also, I think it’s bullshit to say that for a basketball player offense and defense are 50/50. Team wise, yes. Individually no. It’s more like 75/25. One has to be far more talented to be a good offensive player than a defensive one. Defense mostly takes intelligence, desire, and the ability to move laterally and react quickly. To be a good offensive player though, you have to be able to do like 20, 30 things well, in combination.
In basketball a good offensive player can get any shot he wants against a single defender, regardless of how good that defender is. The offensive guy knows what he’s doing, the defensive guy can only guess and react. This is why good players get doubled and trapped.
Anyway, I don’t think we had the three best players. I think Nash and Amare are pretty damn good in their own right. What we have is the better system that showcases the talents of our three players and minimizes their weaknesses. We have better system role players, who do the little things like set screens, help out on defense, and space the floor so our three guys can look good. And most of all we have the better coach. I shudder to think what would happen if you put Pop at the helm of the Suns and D’Antoni shouting “let’s go guys” to Tim, Manu and Tony.
by Aaronstampler on May 6, 2008 3:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 























