San Antonio Spurs Dynasty

Rolling the dice on McDyess

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:15:00 +0000

'Sheed is gone to Boston.

All the dreams (and nightmares) of Wallace wearing the Silver and Black can now be put to rest. I was really high on 'Sheed, and I think that this is a great pick up for the Celtics. And one way or another, we still need to find a veteran big man to play alongside Duncan and our suddenly youthful and athletic frontline.

A lot of speculation and attention has been paid to Antonio McDyess in recent days, which seems a bit ironic since he was Wallace's teammate last year. We are reportedly set to offer him a contract with our mid-level exception. Is this a wise move?

I would argue yes. I would also argue that the difference between McDyess and Wallace is much slimmer than many imagine. McDyess' stats for last season compare favorably to Wallace's. Wallace was a slightly better scorer; McDyess a better rebounder (a trait I find more favorable for a Spur, especially with 4 great scoring options on the roster right now). Look at the 4 playoff games against Cleveland, especially the deciding Game 4; McDyess had a monster 26-10 in almost 40 minutes, while 'Sheed had 0 points and 5 boards in 29 minutes. ZERO points in an elimination game!? This speaks to one of the knocks on Wallace--he'll check out when all hope is lost. McDyess on the other hand played his best game of a rather abbreviated postseason with his back up against the wall.

Ultimately, I think Rasheed gives a team a better chance at greatness. With his combination of skills, size, and intelligence, he has the chance in almost every game to be the best player on the court. Unfortunately, he seldom is. He is higher risk, higher reward.

McDyess, on the other hand, provides a team with much more consistency and reliability. His days of being the best player on the floor are long over. But you'll never doubt his commitment, his heart, his energy, and his devotion to the game and the team. He's a lot like Kurt Thomas--a player whom I loved on the Spurs--but with more talent and athletic ability, which would make him an upgrade for us. He'll never blow you away, but he'll never make a costly mistake in crunch time. And you can always count on him to get an important board, or take a charge, or hit the 15 foot jumper.

Ultimately, I think McDyess would be an outstanding addition to the Spurs. He fits our 'culture' like a glove. He has an intense desire to win--remember, he gave up money to leave Denver and re-sign with Detroit. In hindsight, that was a poor choice. But he did it to win. He's a high character guy. He'll fit seamlessly into the team and the system, and will be happy playing whatever role is asked of him.

If Rasheed was Option 1, I think McDyess is ultimately Option 1A. It may look like we're settling for the leftovers; but in the long run, I think McDyess has the potential to be as good of a signing as (if not better than) Rasheed Wallace would have been. I hope we get him.

Up and Down, Round and Round...

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:30:00 +0000

...the free agency carousel spins on.

But first, a look back at the draft. I don't really follow college basketball closely, so outside of the top prospects, I have limited and uninformed opinions on the players being chosen. Especially in the second round, when the Spurs tend to select. So imagine my surprise when the Spurs drafted not one but two potential impact players in the second round. Picking up DeJuan Blair was a coup. There is a lot of concern about his long-term potential due to his lack of ACLs. But when you look at it in terms of picking up a solid rotation player who rebounds like a beast for about as little money as possible, it's a no-brainer. Is he a long-term building block for our post-Duncan team? Maybe, maybe not. But can he contribute immediately these next few years? Of course.

I'm also pretty high on Jack McClinton, who is being billed as an Eddie House who can defend. I doubt he'll contribute right away, but maybe he'll surprise us and be a streak shooter off the bench for us. Lord knows we certainly need somebody on the bench who knows how to shoot.

But free agency is where the real juice is. For a supposed down year, there's been a lot of activity. A lot of teams are trying to clear cap space, either for the 2010 free agency class, or because they're bleeding money and would like to stop the hemmoraging. But there's a small group of teams who see a potential to steal a title while everyone else is cutting back or biding time. For these few teams, it's certainly a buyer's market. Luckily for Spurs' fans, we're one of those buyers.

Let's take a look at some of the interesting moves thus far:

--Shaq goes to Cleveland for a couple expiring contracts and a bag of balls. I'm indifferent on this move. I don't know what Shaq can do or how he'll fit in with "The King". I've always enjoyed Shaq's career as a nice counterpoint to Duncan's. While Shaq has been the floater, drifting from contender to contender, Duncan has been a rock, staying on one team for his whole career. While Shaq has been a media jokester, Duncan has eschewed any limelight. While Shaq has been inconsistent, perhaps lazy, usually coasting until the playoffs, Duncan has been the model of consistency, the Big Fundamental, the most reliable player for the last decade. And they both have 4 rings, each seeking to break the tie with the other one. I do think it's interesting that if Shaq gets a ring in Cleveland, he will have played with arguably the 3 best wing players of this generation in Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

--Orlando trades for Vince Carter. Again, indifferent. I guess moves in the East don't really excite me as much because they have less bearing on the Spurs. Carter is tough player to get a handle on. He has all the skill in the world, and is seemingly a good guy. Yet he has a stigma on him that will probably never come off. He is perceived as lazy, as a quitter, as a choker, as selfish, as unable to make a team great. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But I will say I'm glad that we didn't trade for him. The interesting part of this move as it more or less guaranteed that the Magic we're going to lose Hedo and Gortat. Is Carter worth that? I'm not sure. I think both have great value to that team, especially Gortat. What little I saw him play in the playoffs really impressed me. Especially the way Howard picks up fouls, the back-up center might be one of the most important positions on that team.

--Artest goes to the Lakers; Ariza goes to Houston. This works out to essentially be a trade. At first blush, this looks like a steal for the Lakers, picking up one of the best players in the league and adding it to one of the most stacked teams out there. Upgrading from Ariza to Artest seems like a no-brainer. And ultimately, it is. But count me in the group who wonders how long the honeymoon will last in LA for Artest. Artest loves to have the ball, and he loves to freelance, and he loves to shoot. These are three things that do not fit in the triangle offense. When the Spurs are playing a team with Artest, I'm always happy when he makes a couple of shots, because that means he'll keep shooting. By all accounts, Artest is a great teammate, and he led Houston deep into the playoffs. But I don't know how he'll fit alongside Kobe, Pau, and (presumably) Odom.

Ariza leaving LA also makes me happy as a Spurs fan. He was the one defender they had that could really put the clamps on Parker. Now I don't see who on that team guards Parker. Kobe? The Lakers are still the team to beat in the West, but I'm no more scared of them then I was a few days ago.

--Turkoglu commits to Portland, reneges, agrees to terms with Toronto. This is hard to figure. I guess money talks, and Toronto was offering the most. Portland would be a good fit for Hedo, as they were desperately in need of a 3, and someone who could handle, shoot, and drive. He can do all of those very well. There's a lot to be confused about here: Why did Orlando let him go so easily, when he was arguably their most important player last year? Why did he commit to Portland only to back out? What does Portland do now? I'll be watching this story develop, as the Blazers are my #2 (and hometown) team.

There are still plenty of big free agent names out there. At the top of the list is Rasheed Wallace, who the Spurs are wooing, despite Boston throwing a parade in his honor the other day. Rasheed is a controversial figure, and comes with a big risk. But he is the prototype of what we need. A big, long post player who plays good defense, can stretch the offense, and doesn't mind playing a role. Look, I know the knocks on Rasheed, and I've seen him melt down more times than I care to remember. But when he's playing for a well-respected coach and on a winning team, he can be a great contributor. I watched him play for a few years here in Portland. He was always a fan favorite (still is), and always very active in the community (though he deliberately does his charitable work away from the cameras). He's a good person, a great player. He is passionate, and he loses his cool often. But he also values winning above all else, and this is at the core of what the Spurs look for. Find your three stars, then surround them with players who will run through a wall to win. Count me in the pro-Rasheed camp.

That's about it for now. I'll be very interested to see what the Spurs continue to do in the offseason. They've already made a big move and had a great draft. But there's still lots of work to be done to catch LA. But with a healthy Ginobili and a yet-to-be-determined big man, I like our chances.

Back from Vacation; Anything Exciting Happen?

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:15:00 +0000

After our early playoff exit, I took a much needed (though maybe not well deserved) break. I continued to follow the playoffs and track all things Spurs related. I just chose not to write about it. But the Spurs decided to kick off the 'offseason' (which, for many teams, is much more exciting than the regular season) in high fashion, so I have no choice but to write about it.

But first things first: congrats, LA Lakers. I know it's not considered good form for a Spurs fan to acknowledge or appreciate the Lakers. They are arguably our biggest rival, and the team that has caused us the most pain these last 12 years. But for me, my fan 'hatred' is reserved for the Dallas Mavericks and the Phoenix Suns of the worlds, the pretenders to the throne. I view the Lakers as our truest 'rivals', the only team that can really compare to us equally these last 12 years (with the same number of titles to boot), and, as such, give them the respect a true rival deserves. I want nothing more than to beat them senseless every time we play them, but credit is due to them for winning a championship. Enjoy your 4th ring, Kobe; we'll battle for #5 next year.

But enough with this talk of basketball. Let's talk about what's really exciting; basketball related transactions. The Spurs made a big splash today, trading for Richard Jefferson of the Bucks. Timothy over at 48 Minutes of Hell has a great take on the deal. (Sidebar: I recommend, no, demand that you read 48MoH regularly, as it's the best place to stay current with all the machinations of the Spurs; just come back here as well. Please.) I more or less agree with his assessment, though have a little more reservation.

Richard Jefferson is no doubt an enormous upgrade for us at the wing. He gives us more than Bruce Bowen, Michael Finley, and Ime Udoka (our wing players last year) combined. He is athletic, smart, works hard, can score, and even defends. We know all of these things. He'll be a potent 4th option (making Mason, Jr. a deadly 5th option) behind our big 3, and will allow a tremendous amount of pressure to come off of Tim's knees and Manu's ankles. Before, we were always a little dead in the water with 2 of the Big 3 out; now, we should never suffer the offensive droughts we're so known for.

My reservation is not in Richard Jefferson, the player; it's in Richard Jefferson, the contract. He is owed a great deal of money, and by signing him, we are more or less maxing out our salary for next year (with a little wiggle room still left), and more or less taking ourselves out of the 2010 free agent frenzy. So the question is, is Jefferson worth that?

At first, I wasn't sure. But more and more, I'm coming around to the idea that he is. Tons of teams are saving up for 2010, when LeBron, DWade, Bosh, Amare, and many other high profile players hit the market. The Spurs had been very carefully cultivating their salary to have beau coup amounts of money available in that summer to offer. But the truth is, it was always an outside shot to land a big name. LeBron's not coming to SA. Neither is DWade. Bosh might because of his Texas roots, but that's a big bet to place. What do you do if none of the top 2010 free agents pan out? Where do you spend your money then? A lot of teams are going to be forced to answer this question in a year.

I think our best shot at another title is next year. And I think the Spurs FO agrees. Look at this year's playoffs. The two best teams going in--the Lakers and the Cavs--we're underwhelming. The Magic clearly exposed the Cavs lack of anything substantive besides LeBron. And the Lakers, despite winning the title, looked uninspiring for most of the playoffs, unable to finish off a depleted Rockets team on the road, and being taken to task by an undisciplined Nuggets team. By adding Jefferson, I think we've risen back to the top of the league, and have a great chance of winning the West next year, especially given the Lakers free agent situation.

Also, it's possible that the entire landscape of the NBA changes after 2010. And Duncan will be a year older. As will Ginobili, who may not even be with the Spurs at that time. For the Spurs, the future is now. And while the rest of the league is busy preparing for 2010, there's still a title to be won next season. Like it or not, we're in the countdown of our title window, and it would be silly to give up a year at an outside chance of something great happening. I'd rather take a known commodity and try to win now.

The other side of this story is what we gave up to get Jefferson. In terms of on the court production, we gave up very little. I'll miss Oberto, but his best days seem to be behind him. I'll miss Thomas, as he was a personal favorite. But Spurs fans will miss Bowen the most. He was an integral cog of 3 of our championships. Like any great championship role player, you love him when he's on your team and hate him when he's on the other. And boy is Bruce hated. And loved. He is Spurs family, and he always will be. If his jersey is not retired one day, it will be a shame. It's true that he had lost his ability to defend at a high level for an entire game, but I still loved using him as a cooler, or a change of pace. I still think he has some good basketball in him, and I wish him all the luck in the world. There are reports that he may be bought out and sign again with the Spurs. That would be great, but we won't comment on that until we know it's true.

We also gave up a big chunk of our front line to get Jefferson. So now our focus must be on shoring up the front line. Bonner is still a good fit for us as he spreads the floor, and Gooden could be back. And of course Mahinmi is on the roster, and hopefully will give us something this year. But there's still too many unknowns up front, and we need to get some more big bodies to truly be an elite team. I have no doubt that the FO is diligently working on this.

All in all, a very big day for the Spurs. Let's welcome Richard Jefferson to the Spurs, and bid farewell to three great players and great people.

Dunks Don't Win Titles

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:34:00 +0000

The 2009 NBA Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and Orlando Magic start tonight. If there is any correlation between the outcome of the series and how often each team dunks, the Magic should feel pretty good about their chances of winning.

Matthew Futterman writes in today's Wall Street Journal ("The Return of 'Chocolate Thunder'"):

During the past five seasons, Dwight Howard has amassed 1,062 dunks, 248 more than his closest competitor, according to Stats.

Mr. Howard's emergence is laced with irony, since he plays for a team that finished just 13th in the league in dunks this season. Without him, they would have had the second-lowest total in the NBA.

A review of dunking statistics from the past six seasons shows that dunks aren't a leading indicator of who wins and who loses in the NBA Finals. The 2002-03 New Jersey Nets, 2003-04 Lakers, 2004-05 Detroit Pistons, 2006-07 Cleveland Cavaliers and 2007-08 Lakers all had significant dunking advantages over their opponents in the finals, and they all lost.

The Lakers this season had 428 dunks, fourth-highest in the league, largely because defenders must chase Mr. Bryant on the outside, leaving his teammates open under the basket.

The lone exception is the 2005-06 Miami Heat, led by the nearly unstoppable, 325-pound center Shaquille O'Neal and the acrobatic Dwyane Wade. The Heat, who bested the Dallas Mavericks in the finals, led the NBA in dunks during the season with 499, tied for the highest total since 2002-03. Dunks accounted for 16.4% of the team's points, also tied for the highest in the past six seasons.

But the accomplishments of those one-season wonders are more than overshadowed by the Spurs, the most successful franchise of the past decade.

The Spurs won the title in 2003 despite converting just 322 dunks during the regular season, 10th in the NBA and 167 behind the Lakers' league-leading 489. Two years later, San Antonio won again with just 187 dunks, second-lowest in the league. In 2007, the Spurs won their fourth championship since 1999 with just 128 dunks, last in the NBA.

"You look at the Spurs and how they play with Tim Duncan, it's a very fundamental style," said Hall of Fame center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. "They didn't dunk a lot, but they got the ring."

What might have been

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:36:00 +0000

In just minutes, the Denver Nuggets tip-off against the Los Angeles Lakers in this year’s Western Conference Finals. Were it not for an unfortunate twist of fate, the Spurs would likely be facing the Lakers right now.

I look at the Nuggets-Lakers series and imagine what might have been, had Manu not re-injured his ankle last month, and going back further, had he not played in the 2008 Olympics. With Ginobili, the Spurs were 32-12 (.727) this year. Without him, they were just 22-16 (.579), which would have kept them out of the playoffs had it been their record for the season. In other words, one player was the difference between the Spurs being the second best team in the Western Conference and being a lottery team.

Maybe the Spurs would have gained more this year with a lottery pick instead of a first round elimination against the Mavericks.

Ok, I don’t really mean that. I guess sometimes I forget how good we've had it as Spurs fans. I expect our team to win, game after game, year after year. And they have -- four titles since Tim Duncan arrived in 1997. In fact, the Spurs have the best record of ANY professional sports franchise in the Duncan era. And yet, I always want more wins, more rings, more glory. I'm sure that the players wanted more this season, too.

As much as I hate to think it, let alone say it, the Tim Duncan era will come to an end. Maybe not next year, or the year after, but eventually Duncan will hang up his high tops.

Timmy turned 32 last month. How many players get rings when they’re older than he is now? Not many. The Houston Rockets won their second title in 1995 when Olajuwon was 32. The Chicago Bulls won their sixth and final title in 1998 when Jordan was 34. The San Antonio Spurs won their second title in 2003 when David Robinson was 37.

Tim's minutes played per game this season was 33.6, and they've gone down every season for the past three. Only in 2004-2005 did he play less. Next year we can expect him to play a little bit less.

As for Ginobili, he turned 31 and his body is in worse shape than Duncan’s, having gone through surgery twice in the past year. It's unlikely that he'll ever be as great as he was the previous two seasons.

I’ll watch this year’s Western Finals and I’m sure I won’t be disappointed. It promises to be exciting, matching great players against great coaches. If sports gambling were my thing, I’d bet on the Nuggets to beat the Lakers. Why? No team, except for the Cavaliers, has played better team basketball in these playoffs. The Nuggets are healthy and deep while the Lakers have looked vulnerable and unsure of themselves, struggling to beat an injury-riddled Rockets team in seven games.

All the same, while watching this series and cheering for the Nuggets, I’ll wonder about what might have been.

So This is What a Vacation in May Feels Like

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:30:00 +0000

And thus the season ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Giving little resistance to inevitability, fatigue, and the Mavs, we quietly walked away from the playoff stage.

There's little need to give analysis of last night's game. The writing was on the wall; we all knew we were outmanned and outplayed this series. Credit the Mavs. They are playing brilliantly right now, and are coalescing in a way that no other Mavs team of the past ever has. They whooped us, and they earned every win.

Pop searched in vain to find combinations of players that would give us a spark. He went very defense heavy last night, playing Udoka, Hill, and Thomas beau coup minutes, while giving Mason, Jr., Bonner, and Gooden (DNP-CD) precious few. But the team (save Parker and Duncan, who played brilliantly and refused to go without a fight) was resigned to its fate, and played without the proper aggression or passion needed in a close out game.

It's very clear what was lacking for the Spurs this postseason (besides the obvious "a healthy Manu Ginobili")--role players stepping up, those unsung heroes of playoff lore.

To achieve success in the postseason, you need superstars playing as superstars do. Only the Detroit Pistons of 2004 can say they've won a title without a superstar (and, in retrospect, they seemed more the beneficiary of a Lakers team falling apart at every seam). You have to have an otherworldly player on your roster.

But you need role players stepping into the spotlight, if only for a series or a game or just a solitary moment. You need those games that make people wonder "who is this guy?" The Mavs had plenty of those this series. JJ Barea is the most obvious. But Erick Dampier played well; Ryan Hollins may have been the difference in pivotal Game 4. And even Josh Howard was able to sustain continued excellence, something he's been unable to do in the past.

The Spurs, contrarily, had nothing. We had no other player step up in the slightest for us, save Bowen. All of our shooters lost their touch simultaneously. Even the reliable Thomas was shaky. Udoka played solid D, but could add nothing for us on offense, ultimately making him a liability. Hill seemed to be the only player ready to step up, but was given precious time to do so.

It's particularly hard to witness this lack of production from the role players, as Spurs' past is littered with just such players. Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, Michael Finley have all given us big, career-defining moments in the cauldron of the playoffs.

Where do we turn now? As the Spurs embark on their longest vacation in almost 10 years, they have a lot of questions looming into next season and beyond. Many are writing the team off, pronouncing the King to be dead. But I say there's still some fight in this team; long live the King.

From Bruce to George

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:16:00 +0000

Buck Harvey has an excellent article in today's Express News about Bruce Bowen, and the sobering realization that today may be Bruce's last game as a Spur.

Many argue that Bruce is just a step below Manu, Tim, and Tony in relevance to our last 3 championships. I might argue he belongs in the conversation as the 4th musketeer. Bowen took on the dirty work night in and night out for 3 championship runs with nary a complaint. His stats were never impressive and all his hard work has relegated him to being one of the most reviled players in the league.

But to Spurs fans, his value can not be measured. He will always have a home as a Spur, and his jersey should be retired someday.

There's been a lot of talk this year about George Hill, and his emergence as a defensive stopper, a la Bowen. The potential is certainly there, and I think every Spurs fan has fallen in love with our prized rookie.

What I find particularly amazing, though, is that Bowen has taken the young player under his wing and tutored him in the ways of being an elite defender, even as Hill was usurping Bowen's playing time and role as defensive stopper. This speaks volumes to Bowen's professionalism and team first attitude, and to Hill's willingness to take on the unglamorous aspects of the game and excel where he is needed.

Tonight may be Bowen's last game as a Spur. I hope not, for a variety of reasons. But tonight might also mark the first game of the George Hill era, and his run as a valued member of Spurs championship teams.

And the beat goes on....

Tony Parker and Tim Duncan Take on Mavs by Themselves; Rest of Spurs Take "Personal" Day

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:09:00 +0000

That about sums it up. Not much more to say about yesterday's game, but let's try regardless.

Pop made one major adjustment, starting Bowen in Place of Mason, Jr., hoping to have a defensive answer for Barea. I was actually in favor of this move and was happy with the results. Bowen has proven himself time and again in the playoffs, and if we're going to go down, let's go down with the people we know we can trust. And he has played quite well in this series on the defensive end, one of the few bright spots of our bench.

But there's one problem with this move: for whatever reason, Mason, Jr. has a difficult time coming off the bench. He seems to drift into the background, displaying neither the shooting touch nor the killer instinct that were so vital to us early in the season. And he was atrocious as our backup PG last night. By my unofficial tally, we were -12 with Parker on the bench (to be fair, some of that back-up time went to Hill). The answer here seems obvious: start Bowen and Mason, Jr.; bench Michael Finley. Finley plays hard, and he's a reliable vet and a professional, but he can't guard young slashers...and just about every team in the league has a young slasher on the wings. Howard is abusing us, and is probably the most important factor in the series right now. We're doing a great job stopping Dirk and Terry and daring the rest of the Mavs to beat us. But the rest of the Mavs are accepting the challenge and killing us.

To start the game we put Parker and Duncan in pick and roll and let them play. And it was working beautifully. Tony was getting into the lane and either finishing or dishing to Duncan for the easy lay in. This is exactly what I wanted to see as I think it's our most effective offense at the moment. Parker was an absolute beast in the first half, going off for 31 points. Duncan had a solid first half also, scoring 15.

But herein lies the problem. 31 plus 15 is 46. We had 55 points at half. That means everyone else accounted for 9 points. 9 points in 24 minutes from 7 other players. I can't even think of a word strong enough to describe that ineptitude.

We can dissect the numbers any way we want. 6 made shots from somebody other than Parker or Duncan stands out in particular. As does our putrid 3 point shooting (6 for 23, with 2 each from Hill and Parker, not our usual long range shooting specialists). But you don't need to look at the numbers to know that we're a two man team right now. We're getting nothing offensively from anybody else. Sure, we're getting some strong D from Bowen and Udoka. But we can't expect two people to outscore a deep and talented professional basketball team. Parker made some uncharacteristic mistakes at the end; but I'm not going to kill him for it. He was out of gas, completely expended from willing the Spurs to victory. And he came up short. That's no knock on him. Everybody needs help.

At the beginning of the series I thought that we had the stronger bench. I think we can safely say now that that is not true. Gooden, Thomas, Udoka, Mason, Jr., and everyone else is giving us nothing, while the Mavs are getting sparks from everywhere on their bench. Barea has been a huge spark plug for this team. Hollins? He outplayed Duncan down the stretch of last night's game, energizing the team and the crowd enough to get them over the hump. Right now, Dallas is the more balanced, effective, and better team.

I was also very displeased with our end of game offense. Down just 3, we started jacking up wild, contested 3s. And missing. And missing. And missing. We panicked, and we lost the game because of it. There was plenty of game left, and it was very uncharacteristic of our team. The book on the Spurs is that we outexecute the other team and don't beat ourselves. Last night, we did neither. We didn't play within our offense, we didn't trust in our teammates, we didn't play with poise, and we beat ourselves.

After 4 games, Dallas is dominating all of the keys I mentioned at the beginning of the series. Although we're getting a better, fresher, Duncan, he's still not 100% healthy, and he can't dominate a game wire to wire like we've seen in playoffs past. Josh Howard is playing inspired basketball, and we have no answer for him. Dallas has the far better bench. Our 3-point shooting has fallen off a cliff the last 2 games. We're getting nothing from the combo of Finley and Mason, Jr. And our defense, while good (especially on Dirk) hasn't been strong enough to account for our faltering offense. And we're still getting manhandled on the glass.

So yes, things look bleak now. But this is a lot like 2006. We came home down 3-1, and still pushed it to Game 7, which we almost won. All Dallas did was hold serve (to borrow a tennis analogy). We just need to win one game in Dallas, and now that has to be Game 6. We can win Game 5 and then go in to Dallas and hope to do what we couldn't do these last two games. But it's still possible, and there's no reason to give up hope yet. Game 5 is our first elimination game of the season; let's see how we respond. Even if we lose this series, we need to know what we have for next year. Is Gooden a keeper? What can we expect from Hill? Can Mason, Jr. be a playoff performer? Can Bonner be counted on? There is still a lot and stake, and plenty to play for.

Personally, I can't wait for Game 5.

Go Spurs Go.

At Least it Wasn't Joey Crawford's Fault

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:16:00 +0000

There's really not much you can say after a loss like that. Pop pulled his starters midway through the third and ceded victory. Pop gets a lot of criticism for giving up on games too early, but it was pretty obvious last night that we didn't have it, and Dallas did. With the quick turnaround before Game 4, it was the prudent choice.

But I also think that he was sending a message to the starters: proper execution requires proper effort. Execution is the only way we can win this series, as we have a talent deficit with Ginobili out. So we have to work harder. Last night Dallas overwhelmed us with talent and effort. We all saw the results.

In my last post I said that Dallas has yet to show that their defense can stop us. And while only scoring 67 points (and 42 through 3 quarters!!) would seem to emphatically state that their defense did indeed shut us down, a lot of it to me seemed like we just couldn't hit any shots. They definitely protected the paint and the rim much better, blocking shot after shot at the rim. But we were getting some good open looks that we just couldn't hit. I tip my hat to Dallas and their defensive effort, but I'm not willing to cede that last night was an indicator of them figuring out our offense.

Dallas made two key adjustments to start the game. They started JJ Barea; and they had Kidd guard Parker. Both seemed to work in their favor, as Barea torched us in the first quarter and Kidd seemed to have Parker figured out. I don't know what the counter to Barea is. Starting Bowen on him and bringing Mason, Jr. off the bench?

But I do know what the answer to Kidd on Parker is: run the offense through Parker. Last night we started the game running the offense partly through Parker, but mostly through Duncan in the post. Normally I would be fine with this. But Duncan, hampered with his knee problems, is clearly struggling against the size and bulk of Dampier, unable to get to the rim from the low post. Parker has proven that he can be our offensive load and shred the Mavs to pieces. But we didn't even try to get Tony going. Tony needs to feel involved with the offense from the opening tip, or he loses focus and concentration and usually has an average (for him) game. But if he's involved and active and gets off to a hot 1st quarter start, you can usually count on him to continue his dominating ways.

Why did we go away from him? Were we worried about Dampier's comments? I have a hard time believing that. We're we playing a bit of psychological warfare? Was it strategy? You've keyed your defense in on Parker and now we're going to completely change our offense. I just don't understand. Hopefully in Game 4 we'll go back to running the offense through Parker, using him in high screen-rolls with Duncan. I still believe that Dallas can not stop that.

One other thing I'd like to point out from last night's game. Late in the 3rd quarter, George Hill was on a fastbreak. He drove in for the layup and was blocked by Josh Howard. After the block, as Howard was running back downcourt and Hill was sprawled out under the basket, he turned and started talking trash to Hill. In a game that they were winning by 30. You stay classy, Josh Howard.

This is why I despise the Mavs. Can it be seen as a sign of strength and courage to trash talk someone you just knocked to the ground in a 30 point win? Is it a sign of mental resolve to start criticizing the other team (without provocation) after a tough loss? Is it a mark of composure to announce that you're going to try and physically harm the other team's best player?

They are poor losers; they are poor winners. They get up by 3o and they're world beaters, Jordan and Gary Payton in their prime. They get down by 20, and they start dropping their shoulder into players driving through the lane and complaining about dirty tactics or bad officiating.

And this is precisely why I love the Spurs. They are proffesionals, and conduct themselves as such on and off the court. They do not trash talk nor gloat over fallen opponents. They hold themselves accountable, and don't make excuses for losses. They are mentally tough, and they don't worry about anything that they can't control, like bad officiating.

There's an underlying theme here: each team has taken on the personality of their most important figure. For the Mavs, it's Mark Cuban; for the Spurs, it's Gregg Popovich. Look, I like Cuban. I think he's good for basketball, and I like owners to be passionate and willing to make basketball decisions, not financial decisions. But he is outspoken and reactionary. He looks for others to blame when things go wrong, and complains to whomever will listen. And we all know how Pop is. He is not like Mark Cuban, in any way. And that is why, when things started going wrong in the 2006 Finals, the Mavs fell apart and let all of these perceived slights ruin their best chance at a title. And that is why, in 2005, after the Spurs got their asses handed to them in Games 3 and 4 in Detroit, we had the mental and emotional resolve to eke out one of the greatest wins in Spurs history in Game 5 and go on to win our 3rd championship.

OK. Enough ranting about the Mavs.

Graydon Gordian at 48 Minutes of Hell thinks that getting blown out in Game 3 is better than losing a squeaker. I tend to agree. I think we'll come out in Game 4 sharper and more energetic, and that Dallas will come out a little complacent after their great, great performance in Game 3. If we can get the jump on them early and keep the game close, I like our chances coming down the stretch.

Go Spurs Go.

I'll Take Tony Parker, Thank You Very Much

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:08:00 +0000

I said that this game was a referendum on our team and our season as a whole, and we responded in resounding fashion. Tony Parker continued his ascent to rarefied air. He has been unbelievable this season. His play should give all of us hope that as Duncan and Ginobili slowly decline in advancing years, we can still compete for a championship by relying on Parker to be our main offensive impetus. Dingo already touched on this in an earlier post, so I won't say too much about Parker's game. But I did write that Parker's "improvement in subsequent games is more important than any adjustment that Pop can make. As Tony goes, so do the Spurs go." I think Game 2 was validation of that statement.

But let's take a look at some of the key elements of Game 1, and how we adjusted in Game 2.

"Bonner puts out effort, but if he's not hitting his 3s, he serves very little purpose to us in this series."

I wrote that in the Game 1 recap. Luckily, Bonner hit 3 of his 4 3-point attempts. Nabbing 7 rebounds was nice, too. Getting production out of our starting "center" is critical.

"Keep an eye on Bowen, and who he guards, and if we use him to slow down somebody else at the expense of leaving Terry open."

As I thought might happen, Bowen was used as our cooler. I've had this theory about Bowen all year. He clearly can't compete for 35 minutes a night guarding the other team's elite scorer any more. Age has finally beaten him. But he still has the ability and the knowledge to work great defense in spurts. And part of Bowen's defensive brilliance is that he can guard just about every position effectively. We've seen him give Steve Nash fits. We've seen him take Okur out of games. I think Pop's use of him this year has been brilliant. He's our cooler. Someone on the other team gets hot, here comes Bowen to cool him off.

Bowen guarded Barea last night, and pretty much took him out of the game. Barea was trying to recapture the glory from Game 1, and really forced the issue. Bowen gave him no room and forced him into some bad decisions and turnovers. Sure, he hit a few shots. But he tried to do too much and Bowen shut him down.

But we also saw Bowen on Nowitzki, on Terry, and even a little on Howard. He can guard whoever is currently our biggest threat. That's a very versatile weapon to have.

"Keep an eye on our bench, and if we can get any more output from them."

Obviously, we got another great game from Bowen. But we also got a solid game from Udoka (7 boards, 1 stl, and plenty of disruption) and Gooden. Gooden especially played with a lot of energy and passion. It was great to see him own the Mavs on the low block and be our go to scorer with the second unit, especially when Mason, Jr. was running the point. In fact, in the first half, we were a +5 when Parker was out of the game. If we can extend or hold our lead when Parker goes to the bench in the first half, then we can afford to rest him longer and keep him fresher for the closing kick.

"Keep an eye on our defensive rebounding, and if we can limit the Mavs and their second chance point opportunities."

We crushed the Mavs on the boards, 44-28. We only allowed 5 offensive boards for a total of 8 second chance points. That is fantastic. Consequently, we got 9 offensive boards of our own, a category in which we usually suffer mightily. It was clear that rebounds were a primary focus of our team going into the game; let's hope we keep up the intensity.

"Keep an eye on if we change our overall Defensive schemes, especially on Dirk."

There was an overwhelming feeling after Game 1 that we didn't have bad schemes, just that we didn't execute them well enough. I didn't see too many changes defensively; just more effort, both mentally and physically. We finally looked like the Spurs of playoff runs past. The numbers speak for themselves.

I want to touch on one more thought about this game. By the numbers, Duncan had a more impressive night on Saturday. But I think last night's game was a much stronger performance from Duncan, and the Duncan we need going forward. Parker has proven time and again that he can carry the offense, most off of pick-and-roll and penetration. This means much less of Duncan in the low block. Which means two things: less physical pounding on Duncan's body; and more energy and effort from Duncan on the defensive end.

And the defensive end is where we need him the most, and probably for the rest of his career. We all know Duncan is the immovable object at the heart (literally) of our stifling D. He is probably the most clutch shot blocker of the last 15-20 years. He always seems to come up with a big block in the last 2 minutes of close games. But he can't afford to carry both the offensive load (like he did Saturday) and the defensive load. When we rely on him too much offensively, we suffer defensively, as in the opening game. But when Parker can run the offense, Tim can run the defense. And when that happens, we are an efficient, scary team, deadly on both ends of the court. Like last night.

And we need both. Defense wins championships. But to win championships, you need to win games along the way; and Parker's offense can win us games, just as a Duncan-anchored defense can win us championships.

Looking Ahead:

In the playoffs, too much can often be made of one game. After the first game, the Spurs were too old and too injured and our 12 year playoff run was at an end. Now we're the tested playoff veterans that know how to win in the postseason. We needed Game 2, and Dallas didn't. They wanted to win, sure; but in the face of our effort and energy, they more or less ceded the game to us.

Now we head to Dallas, where, much like the Mavs, we need to win at least one. I'm very confident that we can return to San Antonio for game 5 with a 2-2 tie in the series (though I would be ok with a 3-1 lead). Let's see what adjustments the Mavs make and how they feed off the home crowd. The Spurs aren't intimidated playing on the road, but the Mavs were a superlative home team this year.

I won't make a list of things to watch for. The key match-ups and questions still stand. But there's one thought I keep going back to that I'll leave you with: Dallas has proven that they can score on us; but we've also proven that we can stop Dallas when our defense is right. However, Dallas has not shown that it can stop our offense at all. Even in the first game, we put up nearly 100 points. If we keep our defense keyed in the rest of the series, can Dallas match our defensive intensity and slow down Parker and our effecient offense? We've proven our offense; it's time for Dallas to prove their defense.

Go Spurs Go.

Tony Parker's Team

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:39:00 +0000

The statline read 38 points, 4 rebounds and 8 assists in 33 minutes of game play. What it didn't say, but seemed perfectly clear last night, is that the 2008-2009 San Antonio Spurs are Tony Parker's team.

Forget all those cliches about winning as a team. Yes, there are five players on the court and 13 on the roster. But just as certain as we are that the Cavaliers are LeBron's team and the Lakers are Kobe's, so the Spurs are Tony's team.

"Trust me."
(AP Photo/Eric Gay)
We suspected as much back in November, when Parker scored a career-high 55 points against the Timberwolves. We knew almost for certain in March, when Parker dropped 42 against the Hawks, even with Manu Ginobili back in the lineup.

Parker said then:

"In San Antonio there are high expectations. Nobody cares if Manu is out for 30 games and Timmy is in and out. They want to see us in the top and that’s what we’re trying to do."

After witnessing Parker's stellar playing from the court that night, instead of the bench, Ginobili said that Parker, "managed the game from the opening tip to the last whistle."

Parker managed the game last night, too, starting by scoring the first five points for the Spurs, a four-foot jumper And-1 against Antoine Wright, followed by a layup. By the end of the first quarter, Parker had scored 19 and the Spurs led by 11. With 5 minutes left in the fourth, Parker left the game to a standing ovation and the Spurs leading 95-73.

If Parker believes I shouldn't care whether Manu is out or Timmy is playing well, then I trust him. All he cares about is winning, and I trust he'll do whatever it takes to win. I trust that Tony Parker's team will reclaim its home court advantage this Thursday in Dallas.

(Editor's notes: It looks like AP writer Jaime Aron stole some of my notes ("Parker’s evolution becoming obvious for Spurs")).

Someone Interviewed Dampier...

Austinjt34@gmail.com (JT) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:18:00 +0000

And he said some things that are perplexing.

If I considered myself the second best center in the league, perhaps I would call my shots a little differently. I'd say: "Next time Parker comes into the lane I'm swatting his shiznit to the border. That ball will be all up in the drug wars."

But no, Dampier threatens dirty play.

* * * * * * *
Game 2 was a joy to watch. I don't need the drama of a close game, thanks.

One thought on this quick post: Jason Terry's shoulder check was every bit the same or worse than Robert Horry's check two years ago. Yet because Parker didn't flop around like a bled-out trout causing a riot, nothing will happen. Horry was suspended, but Terry will be in the next game seeking out his next target to get all Rocky 3 on. His special move: the speedbag.

You Have Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, and JJ Barea. Who You Picking?

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:00:00 +0000

What a dispiriting loss. After roaring out to an early 13 point lead, we slowly let it slip away over the 2nd and 3rd quarters, before finally folding and getting run off the court in the 4th. We didn't play particularly poorly, either, which is the scariest part of the loss. What adjustments can we make? Let's dive in to the keys I looked at in my last post and see where things went wrong.

Key Match-up #1: Tony Parker.

They started the game with Antoine Wright on Parker, and Parker abused him mercilessly. He actually missed 2 or 3 early lay-ups, but he was driving to the rim with impunity, and was getting any look he wanted for himself and for teammates. Life was good.

Then they put JJ Barea on him, and, as Pop likes to say, the worm turned. Barea is a gadfly, and he pestered Parker. He induced two charging calls, and Parker seemed to take the challenge personally, opting to go at him at every opportunity, often to the detriment of our team game. Don't let Parker's nice stat line fool you; he played poorly, and his improvement in subsequent games is more important than any adjustment that Pop can make. As Tony goes, so do the Spurs go.

Key Match-up #2: Tim Duncan.

Duncan played great. He was in playoff mode. He was abusing Dampier on the low block, even as he was getting fouled time and again with no calls coming. If we had doubts about which Duncan we were getting, they were answered in this game. Hopefully he can stay relatively healthy and rested and be able to give us these performances most nights in the postseason.

Key Match-ups #3 and #4: Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Terry.

We actually defended these two very well. We employed a liberal switching defense on Nowitzki, rarely allowing him into isolations or favorable match-ups. We would often double him, but we were never consistent in our attack, and we kept him off guard most of the night. In the first half we forced him into two offensive fouls that sent him to the bench early.

However, we can not afford to keep Bonner on him one-on-one. That's more or less a guaranteed 2 points. Bonner puts out effort, but if he's not hitting his 3s, he serves very little purpose to us in this series. Bonner was in foul trouble most of the game, but his offense was non-existent.

We did a great job on Terry, as well. He had Bowen sicced on him most of the game, and this was definitely a vintage Bowen performance. Terry was rarely able to get the ball, and when he did, he had almost no room to rise up and shoot or drive. When Bowen was on him, he was mostly a spectator. This is exactly what I wanted to see, and I feel good about this match-up going forward.

Key 1: Which Duncan?

I think we got this answer. We're seeing Playoff Duncan, and I think we continue to see him.

Key 2: Josh Howard.

This is what I was afraid of. He came out firing early, but was off the mark, so did very little damage in the first quarter, where he should be most feared. But apparently he thought the third quarter was the first, because he torched us in the third quarter and was responsible for the momentum that turned the game in the Mavs favor in the second half and left us playing catch-up the rest of the way. He's playing on a bum ankle that will need surgery in the offseason, so perhaps he won't be able to keep this production up through the entire series. But if does, we're in trouble.

Key 3: The Benches.

Well, I was way off on this one. And this, more than anything else (besides Parker's lackluster play), was responsible for loss. JJ Barea and Brandon Bass played like seasoned playoff vets. Bass was on fire late in the 2nd to close the gap into halftime. He doesn't have a lot of size, but he does have the athleticism that often gives us trouble.

I don't even know where to begin on Barea. We've seen this before. Barea had a great game in our double overtime victory against the Mavs earlier in the season. But I didn't expect Barea to be the best point guard on the court, which he was. Halfway through the 4th quarter, I was begging for Jason Kidd to get back on the court just so the Barea onslaught would end. This might be our single most important adjustment going into game 2: how do we slow Barea? Back in that double OT game we eventually put Bowen on him, which slowed him down. So do we put Bowen on him and let Terry run free? If we only have one stopper, who does he stop? At some point, Parker is going to have to take the challenge defensively, and either slow down Terry or Barea. If he doesn't, one of them will be able to go off. (I would suggest that we also use George Hill, but since it seems unlikely that he'll make the court in this series, we won't give it too much consideration.)

Meanwhile, our bench was average. They didn't play horribly, but we didn't get much production from Gooden or Thomas. If Duncan is our only productive big, we're in trouble. Bowen actually played a great, vintage Bowen game (as I stated earlier), and was our most valuable bench player. Udoka was ok, but we need a little more offense out of him.

Keys 4 and 5: 3-Point Shooting/ Mason, Jr. and Finley.

We shot the lights out from 3. Probably our best shooting performance of the season from downtown. In fact, it's doubtful we can continue to shoot that well. But we need our offense from 3 to be consistent.

Both Mason, Jr. and Finley played solid games. Finley was definitely keyed up and is still looking to exact revenge on his former team. He shot well, but he played with a spring in his step and an aggressiveness that we don't usually see from him. But I was expecting this.

I was happy with Mason, Jr.'s play. He's been great for us all season, but the playoffs are a different beast. He seemed a little out of sorts early, and got the early hook from Pop. But he calmed down, and played a good game. He hit shots, and he ran the point well in Tony's absence. My only concern is that when he is at the point guard, he has a lot of trouble defending opposing point guards, especially Barea (who he will often be matched up against).

Key 6: Defense.

Kind of a mixed bag here. Our defensive schemes to slow down their biggest threats (Nowitzki and Terry) worked beautifully. But everyone else on their team played great and made us pay. We were also a little weak in the interior, as we had nobody to secure defensive boards when Duncan was drawn away from the glass. This is where we need Gooden and Thomas. Dampier killed us on offensive boards, put backs, and second chance points. We gave up 21 second chance points. That's obscene. We have to shore up our rebounding, limiting them to just one shot.

Looking ahead to Game 2:

The postseason is all about adjustments, and Pop is the master of mid-series adjustments. They struck first, but the losing team is often in the driver's seat for the second game, as they get to make the adjustments that can give them the edge in Game 2.

Keep an eye on Josh Howard, and see if he stays aggressive and healthy.
Keep an eye on Parker and see if we get a more focused, aggressive, yet controlled Tony.
Keep an eye on Barea and Bass, and if we make any adjustments to slow them down.
Keep an eye on Bowen and who he guards, and if we use him to slow down somebody else at the expense of leaving Terry open.
Keep an eye on if we change our overall defensive schemes, especially on Dirk.
Keep an eye on our bench, and if we can get any more output from them.
Keep an eye on our defensive rebounding, and if we can limit the Mavs on their second chance point opportunities.

The loss in game 1 stings; but it's a long series, and we're very capable of winning in Dallas. However, we must secure one of these first two games, making Game 2 a must win. I'm eager to see how the Spurs respond. This is a referendum on our season and on our team as a whole.

Go Spurs Go.

Series Preview: The Mavs? Who? Never Heard of Them.

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:25:00 +0000

Of course every Spurs fan remembers the 2006 Playoffs and our series against the Mavs. To me that is still the most heartbreaking loss as a Spurs fan. I watched 0.4; but that didn't end the series, as dream-shattering as it was. But that Game 7 in 2006 crushed me. To take our first lead on that Ginobili three, followed by the foul, and then Duncan missing the shot for the win...

Stop. Let's just not go there.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 2007 Warriors, as their historic defeat of the Mavs in the first round paved our path to the Finals. Those Mavs teams were built to beat us. They had favorable counters for all of our advantages. Devin Harris gave Parker fits like no other guard really ever has. Diop and Dampier teamed up to make life very difficult for Duncan. Ginobili was usually our slight edge, but even Howard could slow him down. Pop could never outmaneuver Avery, almost in deference to his dear friend and point guard of his first championship team. And Dirk is the prototype of the player that gives our defense the most trouble, the sweet shooting big man with range. As good as Bowen always is guarding him, we've never really figured out how to stop Dirk.

But these aren't your father's Mavs, and that brief period when the Mavs and Spurs battled and maneuvered like the US and Russia during the cold-war are long over. The inevitable clash in 2007 never came, and the Mavs overhauled their team in 2008. And now here we sit, the 3 and the 6 seed, shadows of our former selves for various reasons. This eerily recalls last years playoffs, where we met our other former nemesis, the Suns, as the 6 seed, but in a completely altered state, grasping to the memory of their former selves, and hoping for one more chance at exorcising the demons of playoffs past. Perhaps, as we did last year with those Suns, we can beat the Mavs and complete their death knell.

The Match-Ups

Lucky for us, the Mavs have jettisoned the 2 players that made life the most difficult for us, Deven Harris and Dasagna Diop. Coincidentally, those match-ups happen to be where our two best players are.

The Mavs have no answer for Tony Parker. Parker is playing the best ball of his life, and Kidd, who was once a great defender, just can't stay with him anymore. In fact, they probably won't even have Kidd guarding Tony Parker. But nobody else is guarding Parker either. And with Diop gone, Dampier is the only big body they have to protect the rim...a big body that Parker can abuse and rack up fouls on. I expect Parker to be our leading scorer and be the barometer of our team in this series. As Parker goes, so do the Spurs. If Parker can play well, we can easily win this series. We all remember how we handled the Mavs without Ginobili and Duncan a few months ago, with Parker turning in a masterpiece. I'm sure the Mavs remember that, too.

The Mavs have very little to throw at Duncan anymore, either. Dampier is a big body and can defend Duncan well. But he is it. Who do the Mavs have coming off the bench? Brandon Bass? He's very undersized and will not be able to body up Duncan on the block. I also expect big things from Duncan in this series.

On the other hand, we still haven't figured out Dirk. Bonner will most likely start on him. That is a major advantage for the Mavs. We've always had our best success on Dirk with smaller, more physical defenders on him. Look for Bowen to see duty against him, and look for Udoka to see some time against him as well. Kurt Thomas probably won't see as much time as our back up big, because Dirk is not a good match up for him, nor is Bass. And I fully expect to see Duncan on Dirk in crunch-time, as Pop loves to save Duncan for these key match-ups until late in the game.

The other match-up we need to figure out is Jason Terry. Easily my least favorite Mav, Terry is having a great year as their 6th man and, really, as their closer. He's the one taking (and very often making) the big shots at the end of games. If we get in close games with them, expect the ball in his hands. How do we guard him? Who matches up with him off the bench? Do we use Bowen on him? Udoka seems a little too big to guard him. Perhaps Mason, Jr.? I don't have the answer, but I'm pretty sure Pop has some ideas.

Keys to the Series

--Which Duncan are we getting? Tendonosis Duncan? Or 24-12 playoff Duncan? My gut feeling is playoff Duncan.

--Josh Howard. I didn't mention him in the match-ups, but he may very well be the key to the series. He's been battling injuries all year, and has been in and out of the line up. He can be a great player; he can also seem disinterested and fall out of the game relatively quickly. At his best, he's a first quarter player. He always seems to torch the Spurs for 10-12 points in the first quarter. In fact, the Mavs always seem to jump out to early leads on us. It is important that we can stay in contact in the first quarter so we're not playing from behind all game.

--The benches. They have the best bench player in this series in Terry, but we can easily have the better bench. What we can get from Gooden will be huge. If he can give us 10-15 points and 6-10 rebounds a game, that will be huge. But will Pop trust him in the playoffs? Are we going to see the reverse-dunking Udoka who plays stifling D? Will we see some vintage Bowen performances? Will Thomas be our enforcer? Can we please not get beat by Barea, for crying out loud?

--3 point shooting. Will we shoot it well? Or like crap?

--Finley and Mason, Jr. If one or both of these players can have a big game and be our 3rd offensive option, we'll be in good shape. We need our outside shots to fall, and these two tend to be our best and highest-volume shooters. I expect Finley to have a big series, as he still feels the need to exact revenge on his former team.

--Defense. What it's always about. Our championship runs have always been predicated on great defense. We have the system, we have the players. Will we execute?

Final Thoughts

We never got our chance to avenge 2006. This is the only team besides the Lakers to knock a Tim Duncan-led Spurs team out of the playoffs. If you don't think the players know that and want that revenge, you're crazy. I love this first round match-up for us. I think it will be tough, but I think it's exactly the right series for us.

Remember 2006; remember the Alamo.

Poll: Who will win the Spurs-Mavericks series?

noreply@blogger.com (Dingo) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:23:00 +0000

UPDATE: ESPN.com readers were asked this same question, and with 34,031 responses so far, they favor the Spurs, 51-49. However, six out of 10 ESPN experts pick the Mavs to win, and nine out of 10 experts think the series will go to at least six games. We'll see who is smarter, the fans or the "experts."

Wow! If last night's game is any indication of what the playoffs will be like for the Spurs this year, saying that I'm excited is an understatement.

The Spurs tip-off against the Mavericks this Saturday. Given the playoff history between these two teams, their best of seven series promises to be exciting.

These teams split their regular season series, 2-2:

In November, Dallas won in San Antonio, 98-81, against a Spurs team that hadn't yet adjusted to playing without Manu, that had Bruce Bowen starting and Desmon Farmer playing 12 minutes off the bench. Seems like ages ago, huh?
The Spurs prevailed in December's double-OT barnburner in Dallas, 133-126, thanks to 79 points, 25 boards and 22 assists from a relatively healthy Big Three.
In February, the Spurs won easily at home, 93-76, despite the fact that neither Duncan nor Ginobili played. Parker was unstoppable, with 37-5-12.
Dallas won the last contest, 107-102, thanks to big games by Nowitzki, Howard, Kidd and Terry. Roger Mason had 23 for the Spurs, who played without Manu.

Who will win the Spurs-Mavericks series?
Spurs in 4
Spurs in 5
Spurs in 6
Spurs in 7
Mavericks in 7
Mavericks in 6
Mavericks in 5
Mavericks in 4

See Results

Which brings us to today's poll question....

Southwest Division Champs

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:53:00 +0000

Oh my, what a game.

I hate playing the Hornets. I hate the way the games 'feel'. I hate how good David West and Chris Paul are. I hate how floppy Paul is, yet mainly gets a pass from the media because he's one of the new 'superstars'. I hate how we almost always lose to two players and not much else. I hate watching us brick three after three.

Most of the game I felt that dread. We played well for upwards of three quarters, yet couldn't get any breathing room. Then we went ice cold in the fourth. And we fell behind. Down 2 with 13 seconds left we almost get the steal. When we came up short on that play and fouled Posey, I thought the game was over. I was so angry because by this time we knew that Dallas had beaten Houston, leaving the door open for us to win the division and be the 3 seed.

Posey goes to the line and sinks the first. Our only chance is for him to miss the second one. And he does. We call time out.

And then...the play.

Say what you want about Pop, but the man knows how to draw up inbounds plays. That play was beautiful. I love his guile, his fearlessness. We're going to get one great shot and live with the outcome. No trying to extend the game, no "let's have our best player go one on one and try to create something".

As Finley took the inbounds and gave it up to a cutting Mason, Jr. I was freaking out. We're running out of time and we're not even in a position to get up a decent shot. Then the Duncan screen shakes Finley free, Mason passes it over the top, and Finley hits the most gorgeous 3 you could ever hope to see. Again, say what you want about Finley, but he's earned his Spurs bona fides. He can take a game changing shot any time he wants.

In overtime, the Hornets ran out of gas and we found a second wind. Duncan was unstoppable, and it was capped off by a Udoka reverse dunk. Are you kidding me?! I love Udoka more than most Spurs fans, but even I assumed he couldn't dunk, let alone reverse dunk. If this is the Udoka we're going to get in the playoffs, we'll be in better shape than expected.

It's hard to talk analytically about such an emotional game. So I won't. We got the win, the division, and the three seed. And we avoided Portland in the first round (a strong hope of mine). In the coming days we'll start to delve into the match-up with Dallas. But for now, let's enjoy the win, the strong end to the season, and the Division title. I know it's the company line in San Antonio that we don't play for Division titles, we play for championships. But in a season as up and down as this one and a season in which our most dynamic playoff performer was lost for the season, dashing almost all hope of a Championship, I say to hell with the talking points. Let's enjoy a banner, no matter how insignificant it really is. We battled for 82 games, and in the end, we were the best team in the toughest division without ever really having our best team. That says a lot about us and bodes well for our future. And that is worth celebrating.

Go Spurs go.

Manuless

Austinjt34@gmail.com (JT) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:14:00 +0000

During the Sacramento game on Easter, there was a play where Drew Gooden got the foul and the shot. During the replay you could see the Spurs' bench, who were mostly sitting and clapping as most professional athletes do during a regular season game. However, the injured Manu Ginobili, from behind the bench, jumped up in the air and screamed.

That encapsulates one of the things we'll be missing in the 09' playoffs, a player with that kind of competitive spirit. People around the NBA can say what they will about him: flopper, a player on a team who is "bad for the NBA", but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who questions how much Manu Ginobili wants to win.

Manu's competitiveness and the Spurs relying upon him as a late game go-to-player are the two things that will be missed the most this Spring.

It's not so bad, right? The Spurs won a championship without Manu before--it can happen. Sure, we had The Admiral then, but now we have Jacque Vaughn, a savvy, non-talented, but high IQ basketball player. He can't jump high, but he's really smart. That changes everything.

As bleak as another run at the finals may look, I still believe it's possible, but there are a few things that have to happen:

Stop Dying by the 3 Ball

The second half of the season brought the Spur's three point percentage back to reality. The question here is: which is the real figure, the Christmas time Bonner and Mason Jr's 40 percent plus, or the 30 percent and below we're currently shooting?

There's not much you can do for shooters who are in a slump, except let them shoot out of it. They need carte blanche, sadly. You have to crawl through that mile of poop-lined sewage before you're freed up to shoot the lights out, if anything is to be learned from watching the Shawshank Redemption on cable.

Punch Someone in the Mouth

If the Spurs don't do this figuratively, I hope they do it literally. Other teams are going to be more athletic en masse, and to make a deep run the Spur's defense has to be the key. I heard Bowen say this during a pre-game interview, so I decided to plagiarize him here: we need more defense.

And God willing, if they make it to see the Lakers, they'll have to be physically tough. As gifted as Gasol is, he's a softie--someone needs to belly up and frustrate him, or he'll have a field day with those short, European, non-deodorant wearing jumpers. Kobe will get his, relatively, but you can't get killed by Gasol and Bynum down low.

If the Spurs go out early I'll be bummed, however with the key injury, Duncan's lack of mobility, and the overall bad luck the team has had this season, if they make any sort of run you have to label it as a good season. They have nothing to lose, so maybe they'll win it all.

This is my first post at SpursDynasty. Thanks to everyone for allowing me to contribute.

Taxes and Playoff Seedings

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:53:00 +0000

Both should be resolved by the end of the night.

With the Lakers beating Utah last night, the 1-8 matchup was determined. Utah will stay at the 8 and open the playoffs against the Lakers. Good luck with that.

I was going to write something explaining how the other 6 seeds might shake out, but, as usual, Hollinger beat me to it. You should read the article; it's quite good and very informative, with handy charts and all.

So I'll focus this post (briefly, I hope) on all the possible places for San Antonio. I've played out all the possible scenarios for tonight (there are 8) and crunched the numbers. Keep in mind, all my odds are based on the assumption that each game tonight is a 50/50 toss-up, ie, New Orleans has as good a chance of beating us as we do, etc. We all know that's not true (we should be slightly favored, as should Portland and probably Dallas), but for our sake, let's pretend.

First off, if we lose, we are the 5 seed. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. And if we lose we have a 75% chance of facing Portland, and a 25% chance of facing Houston. If we win, we can be either the 3, 4, or 5 seed. If we win, we have a 50% chance of seeing Portland and a 50% chance of seeing Dallas.

If we win, we have a 25% chance of being the 5 seed, a 25% chance of being the 4 seed, and a 50% chance of being the 3 seed. I like those odds.

If we're the 3 seed--which can only occur with a Spurs win and a Houston loss--we will play Dallas, because in that scenario Dallas will have beaten Houston to jump past the New Orleans, who we would have beaten. Overall, there's only a 25% chance of this happening.

If we're the 4 seed--which happens with a win, a Portland loss, and a Houston win--we would face Portland with home court advantage. Overall, this only has a 12.5% chance of happening.

If we're the 5 seed--which happens with a loss, OR if Houston and Portland both win--then we would have an 80% chance of facing Portland, and a 20% chance of facing Houston. There are 5 different scenarios in which this can happen (4 of them include us losing tonight), and, overall, there is a 62.5% chance of this happening.

As for our opponents, there is a 62.5% chance that well face Portland (5 out of 8 scenarios), a 25% chance that we'll face Dallas (2 out of 8--the two where we are the 3 seed), and a 12.5% chance that we'll face Houston (1 out of 8).

There is a 37.5% (3 out of 8) chance we'll have homecourt, and a 62.5% (5 out of 8) chance that we'll open on the road.

Again, all of these numbers are based on the assumption that New Orleans has a 50/50 shot of beating us tonight. But I think we'll win; and if we win, we have a 75% chance (3 in 4) of being the 3 or 4 seed with home court advantage.

My ideal scenario is us winning, Houston losing, and Portland winning. This gives us the 3 seed against Dallas. And this puts Portland as the 4 seed against Houston as the 5 seed, giving the Blazers home court over Houston. I don't want to face Portland in the first round (for purely selfish reasons as I'd like to not have to root against my hometown team), and I want Portland to have homecourt against a tough Rockets team.

Thank God all of this will be settled tonight. Enjoy the game, and let's get ready for the playoffs.

An Interesting Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:11:00 +0000

The Lakers face an interesting choice tonight. They play the Jazz in what is both teams last game of the year. If the Lakers win, they seal Utah's fate...as the 8 seed. Which means that Utah would then open the playoffs against the Lakers. However, if the Jazz win tonight, they open up the possibility that they could secure either the 6 or 7 seed, pushing either the Hornets or Mavericks into the undesirable 8 slot. (I played out all the possible permutations, and if the Jazz win, they have a 75% chance of moving up from the 8 seed; basically, they need a win coupled with either a Hornets or Mavs loss, as they hold the tiebreaker against both.)

So do the Lakers, who have nothing left to play for after the Cavs secured the overall #1 seed, go for the win, knowing that a win brings along with it a date against the Jazz, a very physical, tough-to-beat-at-home team? Or do they "rest their stars" and let the Jazz win, knowing that it greatly increases the odds of them meeting the Mavs (50%) or Hornets (25%) in the first round, two more favorable match-ups?

For an interesting discussion of this question from Lakers fans, head over to www.silverscreenandroll.com.

After the Lakers-Jazz game tonight, I'll write a more comprehensive post about all the possible outcomes and implications of the three main games tomorrow night.

Finally, a Relaxing Fourth Quarter

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:17:00 +0000

Not a lot to say about this game. They played us tight for a quarter and a half, but we had a big run to finish the first half, and quickly pushed a 19 point lead to well over 30 in the 3rd quarter. I didn't realize just how depleted the Warriors were until the game started. Playing against only 7 players, most of whom are neophytes in the league, should lead to a blowout. Still, with all the close calls we've had this season against teams we should've beaten easily, it was nice to sit back, watch some 'garbage time', and cruise to a victory. No illegal miracle 3s tonight. Personally, I really enjoy watching the Spurs during garbage time. The team still competes hard and executes the game plan offensively and defensively. While the talent level may drop off, the effort does not. And it's good to get meaningful minutes for the Obertos and Vaughns of the world, because you never know when they might have to step in to a playoff game and give us a few solid minutes.

There are a lot of positives to take away from this game. Parker was his usual brilliant self, orchestrating the offense effortlessly. Duncan looked good. He was active and aggressive, and those are two great indicators that he's ready to go for the playoffs. Gooden had a monstrous game for us off the bench. We outrebounded them handily. We started the 3rd quarter strong, refusing to let them back in the game (something that we're not always great at). We held them to 24, 14, 13, and 21 points. That's good D, especially against the 2nd highest scoring team in the NBA.

Unfortunately, Houston, Portland, and Denver all won tonight as well. With the win, Denver clinches the Northwest. But things get complicated after that. Denver own the tiebreaker against us, but not against Houston. If Houston wins and we win, we'll have identical records, but Houston will get the tiebreaker because they have a better record against Western conference playoff teams. So Houston would win the Southwest. If Denver loses and Houston wins, then Houston would climb to the 2 seed by virtue of having the tiebreak over Denver. If we win and Houston loses, we win the Southwest, but can do no better than the 3 seed, as we can't pass Denver.

Things get even more complicated when you throw Portland into the mix. Portland can't pass Denver either. But if they win Wednesday and both us and the Rockets lose, then they would jump to the 3 seed, Houston would win the Southwest and be the 4 seed (as they still would hold the tiebreaker against us), and we'd be the 5th seed, opening the playoffs in Houston. If Houston, Portland, and the Spurs all win, then Houston gets the 2 seed, Denver gets the 3 seed (because they would've just lost to Portland), Portland gets the 4 seed, and we get the 5 seed, opening the playoffs in Portland, because Portland holds the tiebreaker against us.

There are 2 scenarios in which we can get the 3 seed. One, if we win and both Portland and Houston lose. Then Houston gets the 4 seed, and Portland gets the 5 seed. However, if Houston loses but Portland wins, we'd still get the 3 seed by virtue of winning the division. Even though Portland would have the season head-to-head advantage on us, we win the tiebreak by being a division winner. That's something new that the league added this year. So we'd get the 3 seed for winning the division, Portland would get the 4 seed, and Houston would get the 5 seed.

So the games to pay attention to on Wednesday are Houston at Dallas, New Orleans at San Antonio, and Denver at Portland, the very last game of the NBA season, and quite possibly the game that determines all of the seedings for the Western Conference.

It can all be quite convoluted and confusing. Obviously, the most important thing is to just win the game. Of the 4 teams discussed, we're the only ones who really don't have any say in where we get seeded. If Houston wins, they get the division. If Denver wins, they get the division. If the Blazers win, they ensure they can be no lower that 4th and secure home court in the first round. But even if we beat the Hornets on Wednesday, our final seed is more dictated by the outcome of the Rockets and Blazers games; we could still be anywhere from the 3 to 5 seed. So my advice: don't worry too much about it. Leave that to me, and my poor numbers-obsessed, seedings-addled brain.

Chocolate Bunnies and Michael Finley 3s with the Shot Clock Expired That Still Miraculously Count

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:47:00 +0000

Those are the two best gifts I got this Easter.

What a frustrating game. And I didn't even watch the first half, as I was driving down I-5 coming back from Easter with my girlfriend's family in Seattle. I can only imagine I'd be even more enraged (and more relieved) if I'd seen us fall behind by 16 to the Sacramento Kings without their best player.

Because I missed the first half, I won't dive into the numbers or do my usual recaps. I don't feel I can fully appreciate what the numbers mean if I don't get to watch the game unfold. From my untrained, naked eye, it appeared that we were settling for too many 3s and long jump shots; that when we did drive to the hoop, it was reckless and rarely resulted in anything good; and that we were playing too much one-on-one and not relying on ball movement and spacing. Kurt Thomas was an offensive rebounding machine, and it was nice to see us turn the tables on a team in that department for once.

The game was close, we probably didn't play our best, but a win is a win, and we move on to Golden State tomorrow. Just two more points I want to touch on: resting Duncan, and Finley's game winning shot.

I'm glad that Pop rested Duncan in this game. If we're going to rest Duncan for one game in a back-to-back, why not make it the first? Why not play him in the game he is better suited for and/or the game that we need him for the most? Both of these opponents are playing out the string, and neither really have a dominating inside presence (Spencer Hawes great game notwithstanding). But as Popovich correctly notes, Duncan usually has big games against Golden State, and can help us get that win. It's a gamble for sure, but I like the decision.

Kings fans have a reason to be angry. It's fairly clear that Finley's shot did not beat the shot clock. As the rules stand, it is a non-reviewable play. The ironic thing is, if the game clock had expired during the shot, they could have reviewed it and made the correct call. But since a second and some change was left, they could not go look at it. This rule seems silly to me, and I hope that they can amend it in the future. Obviously, I don't think that every potential shot clock violation should be reviewable; but I don't think it's unreasonable to make a rule that says any clock situation within the last minute or thirty seconds of either half can be reviewable. Small little errors happen all game long, and it's easy to look back and play the 'what if' game. But these moments are compounded when they happen in the waning seconds of a close game, and it'd be nice to have some way to ensure that things are as accurate--and fair--as possible. I'll take the lucky break, and I'll take the win. But I won't begrudge the Kings fans their ire.

We have a Monta Ellis-less Warriors team tomorrow night with a fresh Tim Duncan. I expect good things.

Happy Easter. Go Spurs Go.

"Jazz flute is for little fairy boys"

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:35:00 +0000

Some quick thoughts about last night's game:

Things I Didn't Like:

--Rebounding. Again, I thought we gave up too many offensive rebounds. The Jazz are a good offensive rebounding team, and to our credit, we did lock them out of too many put backs in crunch time. But this is something to keep an eye on.

--Fouling. Too much of it. Especially in the third quarter, as a steady march to the foul line kept them in the game.

--Officiating. I'm not one to usually gripe about officiating, but man was it awful last night. Both ways. Touch fouls getting called, hard fouls being missed. As a Spurs fan, whenever I see Joey Crawford working a game, I always brace for the worst.

--The last 30 seconds of the game. Which, more or less, took about 2 hours to finish. Ugh. This is what basketball detractors point to when they talk about how unwatchable the game is. I understand the strategy (though to call that foul on Marcus Williams was a bit much), and I can't fault the Jazz for trying to steal a win. But nobody wants to watch that.

What I Liked:

--The rotation. With 3 games left, it looks like we almost have one. One thing in particular stood out for me, and it seemed to happen almost by accident. Parker picked up his second foul pretty early, forcing him to the bench and Mason, Jr. to the point earlier than normal. But because of this, Duncan was still on the floor. Because of this, the offense was still really smooth and efficient. I believe we scored or had scoring opportunities on 4 of 6 possessions before Duncan went to the bench. One of the remedies for the second unit may be to have Duncan play with them as much as possible. Basically, we can go very short stints with both Duncan and Parker on the bench. However...

--Drew Gooden. We can still run an offense through the post with Duncan on the bench. Gooden has a good post game. Not an adequate one, a good one. As Sean Elliott was saying, he has 'junk' in his game. He can hit the mid-range jumper. And he's a big body for setting great screens. Most teams won't double him in the post; which is fine, because I think that gives us an advantage every time.

--Ime Udoka. I was in Portland for Udoka's breakout season. During that offseason, I was hoping that the Spurs would pick him up. During his first two years, he's been very inconsistent and, honestly, disappointing. But I still believe he can be good for us. He's not a Bruce Bowen type defensive stopper. But he plays really good defense. What he does do, that no one else on the team really does (save Manu Ginobili) is create havoc, create turnovers. He gets steals. He deflects passes. He gets his nose in places it doesn't belong. And he rebounds like a beast. And his offensive game is not bad. He can't hit the corner three like Bruce, but he does have a more varied attack, and I don't cringe when he dribbles. I think it's important to note that the 5 players that closed the game were Duncan, Parker, Mason, Jr., Gooden, and Udoka. Pop is showing a lot of faith in a newcomer and a player that was left for dead a few months ago.

--The Big 2. Duncan had a good game. He looked spry, and he was effective in the post. When his knees ache, it's very evident in his post game because he pretty much doesn't do anything. Last night he was doing it all. But Parker was dominant. He could score at will, he was finding all the open shooters, and he completely controlled the game in the last 4 minutes, a role usually reserved for Manu. Last night's game had the slight whiff of a playoff game; and if we can get that Tim and that Tony, I think we'll be ok, at least for a round or two.

Looking ahead:

We have Sacramento on Sunday, followed by Golden State on Monday. Those are both very winnable games, but also both trap games. It would not surprise me if we split those games.

Does Duncan play both? Or does he sit one out? And if so, which one? There are reports that Duncan's knees are getting much better, and that he's feeling ready to go. Duncan has always come up big in the playoffs, even with lingering injuries. I'm thinking we'll see that Duncan again real soon.

As always, keep an eye on the rotation, and if Udoka and Gooden continue to earn playing time and closing game minutes. Keep an eye on Portland and Houston, who both won games last night and who we need to lose some games so we can pass them in the standings. Keep an eye on how we come out to start these games. End of season games against non-playoff opponents can be dangerous, and we need to not play down to their level. There's no reason why we shouldn't win all three of our remaining games, but I'm worried we may look past Sac and GS to our home finale against the Hornets on Wednesday.

The playoffs start 1 week from today. This is the best time of year.

The Remainder

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:44:00 +0000

Hollinger wrote a great column sussing out how the Western Conference seeding chips may fall. I highly recommend you read it.

He claims that there are two three-team tiers remaining after the Lakers and the Nuggets (who more or less have the #2 seed locked up). Tier #1 consists of the Spurs, Rockets, and Blazers. Those teams will end up 3, 4, 5 in some order. The team that secures the #3 seed will be at a great advantage for a couple of reasons. First, they'll get to play the 6 seed in the first round with home court advantage. That will be either the Hornets, Jazz, or Mavericks. All formidable teams, certainly. But also very inconsistent teams all year. Second, assuming seeds hold, they'll get to face the Nuggets in the second round and, more importantly, avoid the Lakers. The 4/5 seeds, however, will have to play each other in the first round, which would most likely be a more difficult match-up than either of the lower 3 seeds. And then they would have to face the Lakers in the second round.

Basically, we want that 3 seed.

But how do we get it? Obviously, we have to win as many of our remaining games as possible. (I know you come here for razor sharp analysis like that.) We don't hold the tiebreaker against Portland as they won the season series 3-1 (except in one scenario, which i'll get to in a moment). The tiebreaker between us and the Rockets gets very complicated, but according to Hollinger's article, it looks as if the Rockets would have it. So if all three teams end up with the same record (a very distinct possibility), then the Rockets would end up 3 by virtue of having the tie-break over both us and the Blazers. The Blazers would be 4 due to the tiebreak over us, and we'd be 5. Which means we'd have to open the playoffs on the road in Portland, one of the best home court advantages in the NBA.

However, if we can win the Southwest Division, we'd get the 3 seed, even if we tie with the Blazers, because winning the division overrides other tiebreakers. That is the best case scenario.

Unfortunately, Houston won last night and is a half game up on us. They play at Golden State tonight. Golden State is the most chaotic team in the league, and a 30 point win or a 30 point loss wouldn't surprise me. Let's hope for a Golden State win. After that, the Rockets play New Orleans at home then Dallas on the road. Both very losable games for them. If they win only one of those games, they would end up with 52 wins. If we can win at least 3 or our remaining 4 games, that would give us the division with 53 wins. I think that is a real possibility, even with one more back-to-back remaining on our schedule.

The Blazers close the season with the Lakers at home (tonight), then on the road against the Clippers tomorrow night, followed by OKC and Denver, both at home. There's a distinct possibility that they could sweep those 4 games. The last time they Lakers came to the Rose Garden, Portland annihilated them. Denver could be another loss in there, but they'll probably have the 2 seed locked up by then and might not have anything to play for. We can hope there's at least one loss in there and that we can tie with 53 wins, thus giving us the 3 seed by virtue of winning our division.

I love numbers.

They say that God makes problems just to see what you can stand

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:42:00 +0000

I love Portland. I really do. I've lived here for over 7 years. It's green and beautiful. We have the best public transportation in the country. The amount of rain we get is vastly overstated. We have this. And this. We're home to The Decembrists and Gus Van Sant and Tonya Harding. Elliott Smith and Everclear have written songs about our town (cf., the title of this post). The first George Bush called us Little Beirut; we take that as a compliment. There's no sales tax. Really, it's a great place to live.

And we have the Blazers.

And I like the Blazers. Quite a bit. The roster is (finally) filled with very likable players. They have an emerging superstar in Brandon Roy. They have an overabundance of young talent. They have a great, well-respected coach. They have a loving and supportive fan base. Honestly, they're a lot like the Spurs in the way they go about their business, play 'the right way', and play for each other.

And until today, I've never had to worry about them. They were the up and comers, the young, pesky challengers that could always give us a good game, but could be counted on to fold in the end. We might meet them in the first round, and they might even take a game or two. But eventually our experience and poise would win out. And everyone would talk about what a bright future they had as we marched on towards another championship.

*sigh*

The Blazers are legit, and they are here to stay. Yes, we had no Manu; yes, Tim played like a man with no knees in the second game of a back to back at the tail end of a season in which he's been asked to carry an unfathomable load. But those things do not and should not take away from the Blazers impressive win tonight. After being down by 19, they totally and utterly destroyed us. They spotted us 19 and still beat us by 12. Think about that. That's a 31 point swing in about 30 minutes. A point a minute. Insane.

Things I liked:

--The first quarter. We outscored them 33-16. Our offense was a smooth, efficient machine. Our defense was tenacious and aggressive. We had it all going. We were firing on all cylinders. Mason and Finley combined to hit our first three 3s. Finley even drove around Batum! Gooden had a sick drive and dunk around Aldridge. It looked like we had an easy win in front of us.

--Mason at back-up point guard. After killing him last night, I need to give him some props here. I kept an unofficial tally of his time at back up PG overlapping the 1st and 2nd quarters. Of nine possessions, I had 5 positive marks, 2 neutral marks, and 2 negative marks. That's not bad. Our offense didn't die. And we did more than spot up for long 2s. I'm still not convinced this is the long term answer (a post for another day), but, at least for tonight, it didn't spell our doom.

--Marcus Williams. Today we waived Malik Hairston and called up Marcus Williams from the Toros. (Check out the excellent 48minutesofhell for plenty of great Spurs related content.) I'm always interested to see how our youngsters play in their first brush with the big team. Though he only played a few minutes near the end, with the game mostly decided, he played well, hitting his only two shots and guarding Brandon Roy reasonably well. After the final buzzer, Roy and Williams had a brief exchange; given the nature of Roy, I'd like to think he was saying encouraging, complimentary things to our newest player.

Things I didn't like:

--Rebounding, rebounding, rebounding. In yesterday's post, I mentioned that Portland was a good rebounding team. Having seen their offensive rebounding abilities doom us in a heartbreaking loss early in the season in person, I knew that it was something to watch out for. But tonight was just embarrassing. They outrebounded us 43-26. Those number can be a bit misleading, as they had far more chances for defensive rebounds than we did because, well, we missed so many more shots. They bested us in offensive boards, 11-5. Ok, now we're starting to get a clearer picture. How about this: they had 11 offensive rebounds to our 21 defensive rebounds. I'm just going to let that sink in. On our defensive end, there was a total of 32 possible rebounds, and they collected 11 of them, or better than 33%. That is horrible. Moving on...

--The numbers. There are so many ways to parse this game. 16, 18, 16. Our scoring totals for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters. 31, 23, 25. Theirs. 53. Their shooting percentage. The rebounding numbers. The 31 point swing.

--Live by the 3, die by the 3. We hit our first 3 3s. We went 2 of 12 the rest of the night. We are in a horrible, team-wide, 3-point shooting slump. It's like a train wreck. You don't want to look, but that little masochist inside of you won't let you turn away. It's fascinating, really, how so many shooters can go so cold at the same time. With Manu out and Tim down, if we can't hit our 3s, we're in huge trouble.

--Zone defense. In the second quarter, Portland started playing zone, and it completely changed the complexion of the game. Before that, we were scoring at will and running our offense like the smooth machine it is. Without the ability to hit outside shots (see above), we were unable to break the zone, and they climbed back into the game. Our offense never regained its hum.

--Our big men. Duncan is playing on bad knees. Quite frankly, I'm very worried about him. Not for this season, but for the rest of his career. His game has never been predicated on overwhelming athleticism, but it is reliant on grace and immaculate movement, and he needs his knees for that. Bonner has reverted back to his form from years prior. If he can't make his shots, he gives us almost nothing on the court. Gooden gave us all the bad traits with none of the good. And Kurt...well, Kurt played reasonably well. But Kurt is an 'over the top' player. He can make a good team great, but he can't make an average team good.

Looking ahead:

The loss to the Blazers put us in a 3-way tie for third with the Blazers and Rockets. With the Hornets losing tonight and the Mavs beating the Jazz, the Western Conference 2-8 just keeps getting more and more interesting. I think the Blazers, Rockets, and Spurs will end up in some combination of 3-5, and the Hornets, Jazz, and Mavs will end up 6-8. The permutations and implications are a bit overwhelming, so we'll wait until things get a little clearer before delving into the possibilities.

The Jazz come into town Friday night. The Jazz are the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde of the Western Conference right now. They are almost unbeatable at home, yet completely putrid on the road. They've only beaten 2 over .500 teams on the road all year. That's not good. Despite our troubles today, I think we can take this one.

Continue to keep an eye on the rotation. Pop seems close to settling on one, but there are still tweaks to be made. Will Bonner continue to merit playing time? Will Hill ever see daylight, as either the backup PG or the 2-guard? Will Marcus Williams get any playing time? Keep an eye on rebounding, as that will be a bugaboo for us for the rest of the season. Keep an eye on Duncan. If he can play like a reasonable facsimile of himself with rest, then we may be okay in the playoffs, as there is often 2 or 3 days off between games, especially in the first round. And keep an eye on Tony. He was unimpressive tonight, and we need him to more or less carry our offense for the balance of the season if we're going to have any chance of winning night in and night out. Defenses can more or less key in on him now, but he has shown an uncanny ability to take what the defense gives him and still score at will.

We have 4 game left; I want at least 3 of them.

Apparently, Thunder only strikes twice

noreply@blogger.com (secretchord53) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:08:00 +0000

Tonight's game was a must win. Not for playoff seeding or for vengeance (ok, a little bit for vengeance); but for confidence, belief, and trust. And for healing.

I never thought I would be this excited for a game against the Thunder. Admittedly, I've only seen the first halves of each of our previous three games against the Thunder. Imagine my surprise after the last two games, coming home to check the box score and seeing that we had lost both. Really, we could only score 76 points on OKC? Really, we got out-executed and lost our poise down the stretch to one of the worst teams in the league? I began to suspect I was somehow responsible for jinxing the team by missing second halves. So I cleared my calendar for tonight, knowing that we needed all of the mojoxie (mojo and moxie--apparently we need it all against this team) I could muster.

I was particularly interested to see how we would start the game. Would we be flat? Would we be overhyped and overcompensating? Would we be lost? I was disappointed with how we started, giving up an unconscionable 32 points in the first quarter, thanks to some stellar 3-point shooting and lax defense. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was thinking, "here we go again...." But we tightened up from there, and came away with a great win, all things considered. That a win against a lowly opponent this late in the season can be a great win is another topic entirely.

Things I Didn't Like:

--Finley guarding young, athletic swingman. Durant was going off to start the game. And not just scoring, but getting assists and just controlling the game on the offensive end. LeBron James did the same thing Sunday afternoon. And Pop stubbornly continues to go with him single coverage on elite scorers. It's frightening.

--32. When a team shoots 5 for 6 in threes in a quarter, it's going to be bad. But these weren't contested shots we were giving up. The Thunder shooters had time to set their feet, check their watch, find the seams, and recite the alphabet backwards before they got their shots off.

--Roger Mason, Jr. at the point. I love Roger, but he's in a big time slump. And I don't think it's coincidence that it coincides with his promotion to back-up point guard. He needs to be shooting spot up threes, based upon defenses collapsing around one of the big three and crisp ball movement. He needs to be doing the big balls dance to spite Kobe. He occasionally needs to be spotting up off of screens and driving into the paint. But I can't watch him dribble at the top of the key for 18 seconds, then either just jack up a long 2 with his foot on the line, or pass it off to someone in a position to do nothing, causing us to throw up a contested prayer as the shot clock goes off. The offense stagnates when he is running the show. And worst, it's killing his confidence for when he's jacking up those wide open threes that we brought him here to jack up.

--I swear to God, if Roger keeps taking those long 2s where he deliberately steps just inside the 3 point line, I might poke my eyes out.

--Our 3-point shooting. The official box score will tell you that we shot 40%, but I'm suspicious. Maybe I'm just traumatized from March.

Things I Liked:

--18, 22, 17. After giving up 32 in the first quarter, we held them to less than 60 the rest of the way. That's Spur's defense.

--Drew Gooden. He's looking more and more like a great pick up. Yes, he can be a ball stopper. Yes, his defense can be suspect. But he's a big body, so his defense can't be any worse that Bonner's or Oberto's. Plus, he had a nasty block on Nick Collison tonight. And he can score. And score. And score. And rebound. He was our third leading scorer tonight, and helped to cover up our characteristic dry spells when Tim and Tony go to the bench. And he finished a nifty +11, tied for second best on the team.

--Our rotation. Though far from set, it seemed to resemble a normal NBA team's rotation, with reasonable substitution patterns and appropriate players playing appropriate minutes. It's by no means perfect, but it's moving in the right direction.

--Michael Finley, closer. After going up by 9, and then having the Thunder cut the lead to 4 or 5, we called timeout. Out of timeouts, Pop loves to run Finley off of a curl for a catch and shoot, which he did here. Finley hit the shot, got the And-1, and then came down and hit a back-breaking 3 on the next possession. For all of the complaining Spurs fans do about Finley, the man can still shoot, and I still trust him taking big shots down the stretch of close games.

--Closing the game. We played close for three quarters, and then won going away in the 4th. After playing so many tight games (and losing so many these last few weeks), it was nice to see that we could still do what everyone thinks we always do, which is execute our way to victory down the stretch, and not beat ourselves.

--Tim Duncan. Though he still looks hobbled, he had a traditional 25 and 15. And looked better than he has in a while.

Looking Ahead:

We have a big game tonight against Portland at home. Portland is coming off a closer-than-it-should-have-been victory against Memphis. With all the Western Conference teams winning Tuesday night, the standings are as tight as ever. A win tonight will give us a lot of breathing room to help hold on to that 3 seed, and possibly regain the 2 seed. Portland is a young, disciplined team in the vein of the Spurs. We beat them at home on the back of one of Tony's incredible performances when Duncan and Ginobili were both out. They returned the favor by beating us silly in Portland a few weeks later (I was at that game...it was ugly). Can we protect our home court?

Keep an eye on the rotation, and if Gooden continues to steal Bonner's minutes, and if Udoka and Bowen continue to see significant court time. Keep an eye on Duncan, and if he even plays. Pop has been keeping him out of the second games of back to backs, but this one seems too important to do that again. Keep an eye on who Finley guards to start the game. Will it be Roy? If so, that could be dangerous in the first quarter. Keep an eye on rebounding. Portland is one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the league, and giving up offensive rebounds kills us.

This will be a tough game, but a great test. With the loss of Ginobili, most pundits seem to think we've slipped all the way to the back of the Western Conference. This game can serve as a call to the rest of the league that reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.