Noteworthy Optimism
The Spurs lost a close Game 1 to the Suns on Monday. Losses can be tough, especially playoff losses to the Suns, but there are reasons to feel confident going into tonight's game.
First, something I meant to talk about before Monday's game but ran out of time; let's look at Phoenix's most telling thermometer, Jason Richardson. During the regular season, he averaged 17.8 ppg in wins and 11.7 ppg in losses. This point differential of 6.1 is ridiculously significant. Basically, when he is hot, the Suns are hot. To give you something comparable, Richard Jefferson owns the biggest win, loss point differential on the Spurs at 3.1. But Richard only scores 13.5 ppg in wins so his impact is even less meaningful than the 3.1 points indicate. So, if we can control Jason Richardson, we have a great chance at winning the game. Easier said than done, you might say, especially given J-Rich's production in Game 1. But if you look at Jason Richardson, his game is one that is purely offensive. Monday night, he did score 27 points, but with 0 assists and 3 turnovers. Historically, this is the kind of player that Popovich has excelled at shutting down; so let's give Pop a chance to put his defensive focus on J-Rich before we anoint the Suns.
Second, we have to talk about our boy, George. Nash is a terrible match-up for Hill for two reasons. First, Nash is too quick offensively for George to stay in front of. In addition, he has shifty, Manu-like moves that keep George on his heels. I feel that the best way to negate Steve Nash is to attack him on the offensive end, which leads me to the second reason that Nash is a poor match-up. Hill is a great spot-up shooter and attacks the basket well on the break. However, if we are talking about a relentless attacker off the dribble, Parker matches that description much better. Constantly attacking Nash will hopefully wear him out for the fourth quarter, and definitely take some of his quickness away over the course of a grueling 7 game series. I think we need to start Parker and bring Hill off the bench. I know this may seem an overreaction since it's based on one game, but Hill was destroyed defensively and his offensive game seemed to suffer from it. Furthermore, it's not just based off of one game. The Spurs have owned the Suns in its Nash era using Parker to negate Nash. Why stray from something that has clearly worked well over the years? In addition, we desperately need Hill to be productive in order to beat the Suns, and I think bringing him off the bench is the best way to optimize Hill's abilities in this series.
But now we have a problem. If we start Parker, Manu, RJ, McDyess, and Duncan, there is simply not enough ball to go around. Parker and Manu are both at their best when they have the ball in their hands, which cannot happen if we play them at the same time. In this way, we would be under-utilizing our talent if we start both. Also, our second unit would be awful unless we played one of the big three for a longer stretch than is preferable early in the game. Because of this, if we start Tony, we need to bring Manu off the bench. Basically, I am suggesting that Pop switches to our starting lineup pre-Tony's broken hand. This is all just speculation and opinion, but I think it's the way to go and would put our team in the best situation possible to win this series.
I was listening to Bill Simmons' Podcast with Ric Bucher yesterday and Simmons explained that Game 1 reaffirmed his stance that the Spurs would win the series. He said that if you were assigning grades, the Suns gave a mid 90's performance while the Spurs gave a 75, and the Spurs still almost won. This is exactly what I had been telling everyone that would listen. The Suns played about as well as they could, and the Spurs still nearly pulled out a win on the road playing fairly mediocre. Rewind to last series and think about Game 1 against Dallas. Dirk played the game of his life, just as Nash did in this Game 1, and key role players stepped up huge for Dallas, just as Richardson did for the Suns, while the Spurs seemed somewhat lackluster. In Game 2 against Dallas, things evened out, as they tend to do in basketball. If you shoot 60% from the field in the first half, expect to shoot 40% from the field in the second half. Similarly, if your team plays out of its mind in Game 1, you can expect a let down in Game 2. And conversely for the Spurs, we can expect a better performance. It's a seesaw and we should be on top in Game 2. If we control Richardson, clean up our execution and minimize offensive lapses, the Spurs should win Game 2. I think the Spurs win Game 2, convincingly.
41 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can someone please move this below the preview? I tried, but failed.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
"I mean, Dartmouth really sucks and Cornell only beat us by 18. Temple will beat the hell out of Cornell. Promise." -- Me
I don’t think the Spurs can afford Manu AND Hill off the bench. It’s gotta be one or the other or Nash gets an easy cover.
Bloody Elbow guys: I'm bob0912 on MMA Playground
i hope vujacic gets hit by a truck hauling stray cats that claw his eyes out before using his skull as a brood den.--kalone
by JamesR on May 5, 2010 12:50 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Don’t know why we need to whine about that. We had a good result in the previous series when Nash could “lay off” Bowen on defense.
And it’s not like we were lighting Stevie up by isolating whomever he was guarding.
Louder, my minions. LOUDER.
5 in 10
For those that still need reason for optimism, look at last game: Nash played at his ceiling. JRich played near his. Amare had a great game with limited touches.
No one on the Spurs played at their ceiling. RJ, GH and Dyce played below their ability, though no one layed down on the floor like dogs. Blair and Bonner didn’t bring scoring or rebounding.
We got this folks. One game is not a series. We’re built for series.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
On Point Bro.
I dont think Starting Parker and Manu together is a problem though.
They started together before during 3 Championship Runs Bro’s, But thats just my opinion.
Spurs by 14 Bro
Suns Fans check their closets for Manu Ginobili Bro.
by SpursNumberUno on May 5, 2010 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Pop is set in his ways. If you start, you are going to sit at the 4 minute mark of the first. That’s how he always manages his starters. So, if he sits Tony, Manu, and Tim, that’s a problem. And that’s why starting the three will not work unless he plays one of them the entire first. Or plays Manu the first 4 minutes of the game, sits him till we’re 8 in, and puts him back in the game when he sits Tony and Tim. we can’t afford to sit all three at the same time, so we probably shouldn’t start all three unless he is going to change his substitution patterns.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
"I mean, Dartmouth really sucks and Cornell only beat us by 18. Temple will beat the hell out of Cornell. Promise." -- Me
You guys have mentioned that several of our players pleyed at or above their peak. I agree with this, but most of our bench played well below their potential. I want to point something else out. Both Manu and Parker played at or near their peak as well (if we are talking about numbers then both were well above their avearges). Both teams have room to grow for next game. Should be a great series
by Suns Fan For Life on May 5, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it’s hard to measure someone like a Nash, Amar’e, Manu or Parker playing at their peak because of what they can bring to the table, but if you go by shooting percentages alone, then it definitely supports Fred’s comments.
Your big three:
Richardson 10-16 (63%)
Nash 13-19 (68%)
Amar’e 9-17 (53%)
Of those, I think Amar’e played closest to his season avg, as opposed to Richardson and Nash.
Spurs big three:
Duncan 8-15 (53%)
Ginobili 9-20 (45%)
Parker 11-21 (52%)
The Spurs’ big three shot closer to their season averages. If Nash and Richardson shoot closer to their season average, it’s probably a much closer game. The bench argument could be brought up by either team, considering that the Spurs bench was also sub-par. I don’t think there are going to be many blow outs, although as a Spur fan, I sure hope you guys are on the receiving end of them!
Your bench played below their potential in part because they played less. It may also be possible that our bench matches up well with them. Time will tell with the latter.
Manu and Parker didn’t quite play at their peak considering: A) the number of open missed shots that both missed, especially at or in the key, and B) how they historically play vs the Suns whose faster pace and match-ups favor them getting more shots and thus more points. Manu played well with the exception of some forced shots which could’ve been better to move the ball and go elsewhere. I expect he’ll have more ball movement tonight now that he knows how the Suns will play him.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Just a comment. I’ll give you guys something. When Manu is at his peak he is a top 5 maybe even 2-3 SG in the league (only gurantee is Kobe). Could it is possibly be that Manu forced a few shots because of the Suns defense. I know you may never admit it, but our defense has improved.
by Suns Fan For Life on May 5, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I think sometimes gets caught up in the moment. Like many people here will quote…“He is who he is”. Sometimes he’ll make a shot that will put you right back in the game or over the hump, but sometimes he’ll have an ill advised play. You definitely know if he has a bad play, he’ll make it up for it on the defensive side.
I honestly think Manu was a bit hesitant in the first two games this series. Everyone says that Grant Hill is playing superb defense against him but I don’t completely agree. I love Grant Hill and admire his game but there is something different with how Manu played the first two games. I am not sure if the nose is bothering him or there is something else, but I have not seen him hustling as intensely as he did during Round 1.
In Manu, we trust.
by day_late_friend on May 6, 2010 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Yep. Grant Hill is also getting lots of help, as Manu is being trapped. This is opening up scoring lanes for RJ and jumpers for Dyce. Grant is being given too much credit. It still doesn’t answer why Manu’s shot seems to be forced and fading, even when unguarded.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
The problem is that none of our guys, except Manu and sometimes Hill, are hitting the three. If we were making more threes, the Suns would not be able to pack the paint and trap Manu at will. It’s a huge problem. I don’t know how we solve it with the personel on this team.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
"I mean, Dartmouth really sucks and Cornell only beat us by 18. Temple will beat the hell out of Cornell. Promise." -- Me
There isn’t a “how to solve it” that exists outside expecting guys to knock down shots they’re used to making.
The first thing that I’m reminded of with Bonner, Mason et al., struggling as they are, is the ‘95 Finals (there’s that season again) only this time it’s not the Rockets that the comparison is to, but the Magic’s shooters, namely Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson.
Anderson had those four missed free throws at the end of Game 1, any of which would have iced the game – and that killed his confidence for the series, and likely for his carreer, but Scott also had his struggles from downtown during the playoffs. Most notably, in the earlier rounds.
I sure hope the lid comes off the basket when someone besides Manu and Cubits shoots a three.
Louder, my minions. LOUDER.
5 in 10
Starting Tony and Manu together works vs. the Suns. I see no “only one ball” problem, the ball goes to whomever Nash guards. The whole point is we give Nash nowhere to hide.
I’m not worried about the 2nd team, either. Pop normally makes sure either Tony or Manu is in the game at all times so George doesn’t have to run the offense by himself. But Phoenix plays a true 2nd team — five subs on the court at once. I don’t think George needs help running the offense against Dragic/Barbosa/Dudley/Frye/Amundson. The real question is who plays SG if Tony and Manu rest at the same time. I’d like to see Temple but as we all know Pop will go with Mason. That’s the main problem I see with starting Manu and Tony together.
I think Richardson’s scoring could actually be a benefit. I think we need to encourage him to post up Parker and Hill. Obviously, giving him anything in transition is idiotic, but I’d rather see him than Nash or Stoudemire with the ball in the half court. This could be similar to how made Butler a scorer last series, but it hurt Marion, Kidd, Terry, etc.
I personally think we need to force the ball out of Nash’s hands and force someone else to be the play maker…so it supports your argument of letting Richardson become a scorer/playmaker by himself.
If we can also force players like Collins/Amundson/Frye/Dudley to put up contested shots, then the Spurs will be in a good position.
Great post Fred.
Here is the source of my heart burn watching this version of the Spurs in the playoffs…
Historically, this is the kind of player that Popovich has excelled at shutting down; so let’s give Pop a chance to put his defensive focus on J-Rich before we anoint the Suns.
Does “the kind of player that Popovich has excelled at shutting down” = "the player that Pop assigned to Bruce" ?
You see, Bruce has always been my medicine.
In the 2003 WCF I had a case of the Digglers. Pop popped me a Bowen pill. It didn’t competely cure it, but it lessened the bleeding when I needed it then and worked for many years to come.
I had a bout of the 4th quarter Billups in 2005. Pop poured some Bruce on it.
In ‘07 I was bedridden with an early case of the Melo’s and some second round Nashty’s. Pop prescribed some more #12 with a side of corner 3’s.
Peja-itis? Mamba-bite? Same story.
I know we need to shut J-Rich down. I just need to know that in Bruce’s absence that we have the cure. Is it Bogans? I haven’t been convinced so far.
by BigFresh on May 5, 2010 1:39 PM CDT reply actions 6 recs
It’s true that Bruce was a better defender than Bogans. But remember, it was not simply Bruce that shut down star players, it was the team. And our team defense was outstanding against Dallas. If McDyess can keep up his strong play, I think our team, focused on limiting J-Rich, will be enough to slow him down.
"GINOBILI!" -- Sir Charles
"I mean, Dartmouth really sucks and Cornell only beat us by 18. Temple will beat the hell out of Cornell. Promise." -- Me
What happens if you focus so much energy on Richardson. I thought all your effort would be to stop Nash. I know you guys play great team D, but you can’t stop everyone. Just like we can’t stop everyone (duh). Will be an interesting chess game. Always interesting to see what pops out of pops head. I wonder if he gets his secrets from his old soviet buddies back on the block.
by Suns Fan For Life on May 5, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
PtRockers, this comment deserves more rec’s. Look at all of these gems.
a case of the Digglers
bout of the 4th quarter Billups
bedridden with an early case of the Melo’s and some second round Nashty’s
Peja-itis? Mamba-bite?
C’mon, credit where credit is due.
Also, BigFresh, I know whereof you speak, I needed a Lebronectomy, late in ’07, and Pop referred me to Dr. Bowen, who took care of it in record time.
Louder, my minions. LOUDER.
5 in 10
Great post Big. I miss Bruce also but he did give us compareolgy.
by indiancharlie on May 5, 2010 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Awesome post, Fred. I’d be shaking in my boots if I were a Suns fan.
"We'll see how our character is," guard Tony Parker said. "We don't have time to be sad. Nobody cares. It's just us. We're the only ones who can help each other."
by Josh Guyer (completely deck) on May 5, 2010 2:38 PM CDT reply actions
A couple of points. 1) What do we do with RJ if Manu comes off the Bench again. Do we start Bogans and bring RJ in off the bench? Part of the reason Manu starting worked so well was because he meshed better with RJ. Is this no longer a relevant concern?
2) Can we keep the starting lineup and use Manu on Nash and Hill on Richardson? I don’t see why Hill’s weakness against Nash wouldn’t prevent him from Guarding JRich. The size advantage might matter if he tries to post Hill up, which I don’t see happening. Manu also isn’t likely to fail mentally against Nash.
I remember both JRich and Grant Hill posting George up when he tried to guard them. George looked more effective against Grant Hill, JRich could overpower him.
by doggydogworld on May 5, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
From what I saw, Hill cannot effectively guard Nash or JRich. I think Hill needs to be used to guard the Suns’ 2nd unit of Barbosa, or Dragic (Hill couldn’t guard him either). I think RJ or Manu has to be put on JRich and GHill with spot up minutes by Bogans.
Maybe you don’t see it happening, but it already did. Jrich posted up hill several times in game 1 with pretty good success. This will be the biggest adjustment from the first game. Who does pop start and does he switch anybody’s defensive assignments. He may not do anything just to mess with all of us.
by Suns Fan For Life on May 5, 2010 3:04 PM CDT reply actions
imho, a playoff-series is about matchups — identifying them, exploiting them, and countering them.
If Hill, or any other Spur, doesn’t match up well against his opposing number, on offense and/or defense, the sensible thing to do is to bring in a player who does match up well and gives the Spurs an advantage. There’s no point in trying to force a round peg into a square hole, if one has a square peg available that fits.
I like George, his play is inspired and heady. I’m sure Pop gave him an earful about being more aggressive, so I fully expect George to start the game with an attack-oriented mindset. And if he doesn’t, Pop will put Parker in quickly and yell at George on the bench some more.
Manu, basketball genius that he is, ...

by 































