I realize this is scary to read. It was at least equally unfortunate for me as I uncovered the numbers I am about to share with you. We all know that Manu is important to the Spurs. He is our third leading scorer. He is our spark off the bench. He always seems to make a momentum changing play when we most need it. He can score off the drive just as well as he can score from distance. In his article about Shane Battier, Michael Lewis referred to Manu Ginobili as a “Statistical Anomaly” because his game is so consistent that he has no statistcal weaknesses. He’s athletic, a great defender, and one of a kind.
The Spurs are 14-11 in games that Manu has missed and 29-9 when Manu plays. In other words, the Spurs win 76% of the time when Manu is on the court and only 56% of the time when he sits out. Overall, the Spurs’ record is 43-20, 68%. Extended to a full 82 games, the Spurs are 62-20 with Manu and 46-36 without him. Basically, we are on the Dallas Mavericks’ level when Manu is out and one of the best in the NBA when he is healthy.
Statistically, it becomes a little more depressing. Without Manu, we score fewer points, attempt and make fewer field goals, attempt and convert fewer free throws, assist less, force fewer steals, block fewer shots, and commit more fouls. Most telling, the Spurs score 4.6 fewer ppg and attempt 4.2 fewer free throws.
As horrible as that just felt to type, these statistics do not even do Manu justice. His impact is felt far beyond what is captured on the stat sheet. His hustle, competiveness, and leadership cannot be measured. I need not remind you, but last year we lost to the Lakers in five games greatly because Manu was hobbled and could not perform. Without Manu, we lack that extra punch to beat the elite teams in the NBA. Sure, we can still get by Phoenix and hammer a team like the Clippers, (but seriously, who doesn’t?) but we struggle against the elite teams, most recently the Cavaliers.
The Spurs have 19 games remaining in the regular season. Manu needs to get on the court soon so he can find his rhythm before the playoffs begin. Of course, this is assuming that he comes back healthy. If he comes back and plays on one leg again, unfortunately, we know how that story ends.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thoughts on the Ariza, Odom Foul and Scrum
I was waiting for an email and got a little too involved while commenting on ESPN's article about Lamar Odom's possible suspension. The following is what I wrote in the comments. Realize that a lot of this was in response to inane things that Lakers fans were posting, but I stand by my arguments.
If you've ever played organized basketball, it would be obvious to you that Ariza deserved a suspension. His team was down by 30 and he was playing awful, he went for a hard frustration foul. Did he mean to hurt Fernandez? Maybe not. But he did mean to deliver a hard foul. These hard fouls in blow out games should be punished so that it stops happening. If players continue to make these intentional statement fouls, players will get hurt and fights will occur. People argue that he 'clearly went for the ball,' but what is also clear is that Ariza was going to knock the hell out of Fernandez regardless of whether he got the ball or not, and this should be punished.
Hold on, you are arguing that it was not a hard foul? As soon as Fernandez caught the ball with Ariza chasing him, did anyone not see that foul coming? Ariza wound up and swung at the ball. If you hit a player with that amount of force from behind when he is in the air, it's not going to end well. Ariza swung with full force at a defenseless player at his most vulnerable point. Ariza knew that Fernandez was going to hit the ground hard. He also knew exactly what he was doing. People seem to assume that since the game is so fast, players have no control over their bodies. If you've ever played the game, you know this is not true. Ariza should be punished because his team was being run off the court and he took it out on Fernandez. Just because he made an attempt at the ball does not mean he wasn't trying to make an obvious statement foul. It's completely an unsafe play and the NBA should not look the other way.
And this going off of one leg versus two is a ridiculous argument. When you are in the open court on a fast break and being chased, you always go off of one foot. If you go off of two it slows you down and gives the defensive player a chance to get back into the play. As the offensive player, you just assume that the guy chasing you is not going to take a cheap shot, which unfortunately is exactly what took place.
I think Odom will get the 1 day mandatory suspension, but would not be surprised if it was more severe. Not only did he leave the bench, but he got involved with Brandon Roy. This is very different from the Spurs/Suns debacle in that Stoudemire and Diaw never got close to the action. Odom stuck himself right in the middle of it and had to be pulled back by his coaches. I bet this is what the NBA is discussing right now, not whether or not he left the bench, but if his punishment should be more severe since he put himself in the middle of the scrum.
Exactly, I guess most of these commenters have never played. I've been in that situation before. Getting blown out, things not going my way, so I lay a guy out. I would almost always get a piece of the ball, but that does not mean I wasn't trying to knock the hell out of the guy and send a message. It's a good way to instigate a fight or injure a player. He should be punished.
On paper, the Laker's path to the championship did look difficult. But what everyone seems to forget is that the Spurs had Manu playing on one leg. The team the Spurs had on the court against the Lakers was not their full team, and were not the team that earned a great record. Look at the Spurs record this year without Manu, 12 and 12. They are a .500 team without Manu, and exceptional with him.
If you've ever played organized basketball, it would be obvious to you that Ariza deserved a suspension. His team was down by 30 and he was playing awful, he went for a hard frustration foul. Did he mean to hurt Fernandez? Maybe not. But he did mean to deliver a hard foul. These hard fouls in blow out games should be punished so that it stops happening. If players continue to make these intentional statement fouls, players will get hurt and fights will occur. People argue that he 'clearly went for the ball,' but what is also clear is that Ariza was going to knock the hell out of Fernandez regardless of whether he got the ball or not, and this should be punished.
Hold on, you are arguing that it was not a hard foul? As soon as Fernandez caught the ball with Ariza chasing him, did anyone not see that foul coming? Ariza wound up and swung at the ball. If you hit a player with that amount of force from behind when he is in the air, it's not going to end well. Ariza swung with full force at a defenseless player at his most vulnerable point. Ariza knew that Fernandez was going to hit the ground hard. He also knew exactly what he was doing. People seem to assume that since the game is so fast, players have no control over their bodies. If you've ever played the game, you know this is not true. Ariza should be punished because his team was being run off the court and he took it out on Fernandez. Just because he made an attempt at the ball does not mean he wasn't trying to make an obvious statement foul. It's completely an unsafe play and the NBA should not look the other way.
And this going off of one leg versus two is a ridiculous argument. When you are in the open court on a fast break and being chased, you always go off of one foot. If you go off of two it slows you down and gives the defensive player a chance to get back into the play. As the offensive player, you just assume that the guy chasing you is not going to take a cheap shot, which unfortunately is exactly what took place.
I think Odom will get the 1 day mandatory suspension, but would not be surprised if it was more severe. Not only did he leave the bench, but he got involved with Brandon Roy. This is very different from the Spurs/Suns debacle in that Stoudemire and Diaw never got close to the action. Odom stuck himself right in the middle of it and had to be pulled back by his coaches. I bet this is what the NBA is discussing right now, not whether or not he left the bench, but if his punishment should be more severe since he put himself in the middle of the scrum.
Exactly, I guess most of these commenters have never played. I've been in that situation before. Getting blown out, things not going my way, so I lay a guy out. I would almost always get a piece of the ball, but that does not mean I wasn't trying to knock the hell out of the guy and send a message. It's a good way to instigate a fight or injure a player. He should be punished.
On paper, the Laker's path to the championship did look difficult. But what everyone seems to forget is that the Spurs had Manu playing on one leg. The team the Spurs had on the court against the Lakers was not their full team, and were not the team that earned a great record. Look at the Spurs record this year without Manu, 12 and 12. They are a .500 team without Manu, and exceptional with him.
Flopping Proposal
Recently there has been some talk about flopping and what to do about it. Most would agree that it degrades the game, but it is difficult to come up with a fair solution to the problem. The argument against enacting a rule that penalizes flopping is that differentiating between a flop and an offensive foul is very difficult. The call would be too subjective and the last thing the NBA needs is another subjective call for the referees to mess up.
The officiating is really awful this year. I do not know what the deal is but the refs are incredibly inconsistent, which is really bad when you consider that the only thing you want from referees is consistency. If the referees are going to call a game tight, then players can adjust accordingly. If the referees are going to allow a lot of physical play, the players can also adjust. The problem exists when the referees call it both ways during a game. Players do not know what they can and cannot do, and then they get frustrated. The players begin to argue every call and this really brings the game down as much as the flop. The two things that I cannot stand are flops and players whining to the referees.
But I digress, I have a solution to the flopping problem. I have not heard my idea articulated, but it someone came up with this first I apologize. While it is extremely difficult to distinguish between most flops and legitimate charges, it is extremely easy to identify the egregious flop. We all know it when we see it. Shaq acting like he was shot by a sniper in the rafters comes to mind, since it’s been on ESPN nonstop. But there are many instances where you sit back and say, “Wow, that was an obvious flop.”
These flops are often called as either blocks or they are non-calls. I propose that these egregious flops should be penalized with a technical foul. And not a defensive technical, a personal technical foul. As in, if a player commits two egregious flops in a game, they will be ejected. Tell me this would not stop the flopping culture in the NBA. Can you imagine the shame of the first player to get ejected because he flopped? Wouldn’t that send a shockwave felt throughout the NBA? Imagine, “Tonight on Sports Center. Shane Battier does all the little things, but sometimes does partakes in the big things, like being the first player ever to be ejected for committing two Egregious Flops in a single game. Tune in tonight to watch Battier and his walk of shame into the locker room.”
Will a player ever be able to live that down? I guarantee this would be a great stride towards eliminating flopping from the game. And this would not be as subjective as let’s say traveling. Egregious flops are more than obvious and should be easy for referees to identify. So, if you want to eliminate the flop from the great game of basketball, let’s start handing technicals out.
The officiating is really awful this year. I do not know what the deal is but the refs are incredibly inconsistent, which is really bad when you consider that the only thing you want from referees is consistency. If the referees are going to call a game tight, then players can adjust accordingly. If the referees are going to allow a lot of physical play, the players can also adjust. The problem exists when the referees call it both ways during a game. Players do not know what they can and cannot do, and then they get frustrated. The players begin to argue every call and this really brings the game down as much as the flop. The two things that I cannot stand are flops and players whining to the referees.
But I digress, I have a solution to the flopping problem. I have not heard my idea articulated, but it someone came up with this first I apologize. While it is extremely difficult to distinguish between most flops and legitimate charges, it is extremely easy to identify the egregious flop. We all know it when we see it. Shaq acting like he was shot by a sniper in the rafters comes to mind, since it’s been on ESPN nonstop. But there are many instances where you sit back and say, “Wow, that was an obvious flop.”
These flops are often called as either blocks or they are non-calls. I propose that these egregious flops should be penalized with a technical foul. And not a defensive technical, a personal technical foul. As in, if a player commits two egregious flops in a game, they will be ejected. Tell me this would not stop the flopping culture in the NBA. Can you imagine the shame of the first player to get ejected because he flopped? Wouldn’t that send a shockwave felt throughout the NBA? Imagine, “Tonight on Sports Center. Shane Battier does all the little things, but sometimes does partakes in the big things, like being the first player ever to be ejected for committing two Egregious Flops in a single game. Tune in tonight to watch Battier and his walk of shame into the locker room.”
Will a player ever be able to live that down? I guarantee this would be a great stride towards eliminating flopping from the game. And this would not be as subjective as let’s say traveling. Egregious flops are more than obvious and should be easy for referees to identify. So, if you want to eliminate the flop from the great game of basketball, let’s start handing technicals out.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Drew Gooden Acquisition
Gooden is clearly a player that can have an impact on the Spurs’ playoff run, if he can get healthy. And let me first warn you, this is a big ‘if.’ Groin injuries are treacherous because it is very difficult to know when the injury has healed. You can rest it, it can feel great, but the true test is playing basketball at game speed. While playing, one moves and contorts their body in ways that are difficult to replicate off the court. The problem with groin injuries is that if you come back too soon, you will re-injure it and be out another 2 to 3 weeks. This is why Gooden has not played since January 19th. The Spurs’ problem is that they need to get Gooden on the court so he has time to mesh with the team before the playoffs arrive. So this time crunch might result in a re-injury. I’m sure the Spurs will rest him till the last possible moment, but will it be enough time for him to heal? And if he is healthy, will the Spurs have enough games left to get him acclimated to their offense and defense?
That being said, Drew Gooden will allow the Spurs to give the opposition different looks than they are capable of with the present roster. Drew Gooden is a consistent shooter from 20 feet out and has a knack for rebounding. His defense is questionable, and it is said that he forgets plays and defensive rotations. He will probably cost the Spurs a good amount of 20 second timeouts where Pop screams at him about his lack of focus. But historically, players that have been questionable defenders always play better defense for the Spurs. Look no further than Matt Bonner and Roger Mason Jr. Matt Bonner was a notoriously bad defender and now is somewhat respectable. Roger Mason Jr. had been very weak on the defensive end, and now is competent. Drew Gooden can basically bring to the Spurs what Robert Horry brought back in the day. His range is slightly less, but his outside shot will command the respect of the defense and the opposition will not be able to double Tim off of him, as they do when we play Fabricio Oberto.
So, we hope he can get healthy, we hope he can stay healthy, we hope he quickly understands our offense, and we hope he can learn our defensive schemes. It’s a lot of hoping, but if it works out he could be a difference maker when we play the Lakers in the conference finals. Regardless, let us not overlook the most critical injury suffered by the Spurs. We hope Manu can come back healthy, else this is all moot.
That being said, Drew Gooden will allow the Spurs to give the opposition different looks than they are capable of with the present roster. Drew Gooden is a consistent shooter from 20 feet out and has a knack for rebounding. His defense is questionable, and it is said that he forgets plays and defensive rotations. He will probably cost the Spurs a good amount of 20 second timeouts where Pop screams at him about his lack of focus. But historically, players that have been questionable defenders always play better defense for the Spurs. Look no further than Matt Bonner and Roger Mason Jr. Matt Bonner was a notoriously bad defender and now is somewhat respectable. Roger Mason Jr. had been very weak on the defensive end, and now is competent. Drew Gooden can basically bring to the Spurs what Robert Horry brought back in the day. His range is slightly less, but his outside shot will command the respect of the defense and the opposition will not be able to double Tim off of him, as they do when we play Fabricio Oberto.
So, we hope he can get healthy, we hope he can stay healthy, we hope he quickly understands our offense, and we hope he can learn our defensive schemes. It’s a lot of hoping, but if it works out he could be a difference maker when we play the Lakers in the conference finals. Regardless, let us not overlook the most critical injury suffered by the Spurs. We hope Manu can come back healthy, else this is all moot.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Stress Reaction and Right Quad Tendonisis
I really feel that the Spurs are inventing injuries so that they can give Manu and Tim some much needed rest. The Spurs know that there is only one team in the West that can give them trouble, the Lakers. They also know that if they are missing one of their big three due to injury, they will not have a chance at winning the title. The Spurs are currently 8 games behind the Lakers, so home court advantage is an impossibility at this point. So what is the motivation to win games right now? The honest answer is that there really is no motivation, and the Gregg Popovich knows this. So the Spurs are diagnosing Tim and Manu with these extremely vague injuries so that they can rest up and be 100% come playoff time. Whether the Spurs finish second in the West or fifth, it really does not matter. Eventually they will have to beat LA without home court advantage, and having Manu and Tim at 100% when this match up occurs is, and should be, their number one priority.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
My Email to a Houston Rockets Fan
So, your point guard situation now consists of Luther Head, Aaron Brooks and Kyle Lowry. And Tracy decided to tell ESPN about his season ending injury before his coach. And Yao is Yao and Ron Artest is a thug. Ladies and Gentlemen, Your 2009 Houston Rockets!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Vince Carter to the Spurs?
Rumor has it that the Spurs have been in contact with the New Jersey Nets concerning a trade that would send Vince to San Antonio for George Hill, Roger Mason, Fab Oberto, and Bruce Bowen. The thought is that the Nets would waive Fab and Bowen, and that they would resign with the Spurs after the mandatory 30 days. So in actuality, the Spurs would trade George Hill and Roger Mason for Vince Carter.
I think this is a horrible idea. As is, most would give the Spurs about a 20% chance of winning the championship. Quickly, the final four will most likely include the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics and Cavs. The Spurs, Lakers series will be very close, if both squads are fully healthy. If the Spurs can win that coin flip, I think they match up very well with the Cavs, and the Celtics would cause some problems. But again, I think it would be a coin flip scenario against the Celtics. So basically, the Spurs are right there with their current roster. Losing Roger Mason and George Hill would devastate the Spurs, long and short term, even if they get Vince in return. Enough cannot be said about Roger Mason’s confidence down the stretch. I have written about this previously, he is the ‘Big Shot’ guy that they Spurs sorely lacked last season. And George Hill is a huge upgrade over Jacque Vaughn. Hill does not just waste minutes to give Tony a rest, he hits critical shots and sustains the Spurs’ leads. If the Spurs trade Hill leaving Jacque to backup Tony, the Spurs will lose during those minutes.
All that being said, I cannot stand Vince Carter. He is one of the more notorious players in the league. Remember when he gave up on the Toronto Raptors? He admitted to quitting on his team. He admitted that he faked injuries and purposefully did not play hard when he was in the game. This guy should be banned from the NBA. So, why would the Spurs want to roll the dice on this nut job?
Well, the Spurs are in a position in which they could buy the championship this year, at the expense of the future. If the Spurs add one more piece, it is very conceivable that they will reach a level of play that cannot be matched by the Cavs, Celtics or Lakers. And that has to be extremely tempting. However, to lose Roger Mason and George Hill just as the Spurs are beginning to tap their potential would be criminal. Trading away Mason and Hill would be very comparable to what the Miami Heat did when they put together their team of washed up all stars that won in ’06, but have been miserable ever since. Basically, the deal with the devil consists of selling the Spurs' future for an immediate championship. Short term it’s great, long term I do not even want to think about it.
It seems that Houston is also speaking with the Nets. Please, let Houston trade for him. Apparently the Nets rejected an offer that included Tracy McGrady, good for them, but have come back with a proposal in which the Nets would acquire Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Luther Head and Carl Landry. Their counter seems a little steep, but as a Spurs fan, I really hope they take Vince off the trading block.
I think this is a horrible idea. As is, most would give the Spurs about a 20% chance of winning the championship. Quickly, the final four will most likely include the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics and Cavs. The Spurs, Lakers series will be very close, if both squads are fully healthy. If the Spurs can win that coin flip, I think they match up very well with the Cavs, and the Celtics would cause some problems. But again, I think it would be a coin flip scenario against the Celtics. So basically, the Spurs are right there with their current roster. Losing Roger Mason and George Hill would devastate the Spurs, long and short term, even if they get Vince in return. Enough cannot be said about Roger Mason’s confidence down the stretch. I have written about this previously, he is the ‘Big Shot’ guy that they Spurs sorely lacked last season. And George Hill is a huge upgrade over Jacque Vaughn. Hill does not just waste minutes to give Tony a rest, he hits critical shots and sustains the Spurs’ leads. If the Spurs trade Hill leaving Jacque to backup Tony, the Spurs will lose during those minutes.
All that being said, I cannot stand Vince Carter. He is one of the more notorious players in the league. Remember when he gave up on the Toronto Raptors? He admitted to quitting on his team. He admitted that he faked injuries and purposefully did not play hard when he was in the game. This guy should be banned from the NBA. So, why would the Spurs want to roll the dice on this nut job?
Well, the Spurs are in a position in which they could buy the championship this year, at the expense of the future. If the Spurs add one more piece, it is very conceivable that they will reach a level of play that cannot be matched by the Cavs, Celtics or Lakers. And that has to be extremely tempting. However, to lose Roger Mason and George Hill just as the Spurs are beginning to tap their potential would be criminal. Trading away Mason and Hill would be very comparable to what the Miami Heat did when they put together their team of washed up all stars that won in ’06, but have been miserable ever since. Basically, the deal with the devil consists of selling the Spurs' future for an immediate championship. Short term it’s great, long term I do not even want to think about it.
It seems that Houston is also speaking with the Nets. Please, let Houston trade for him. Apparently the Nets rejected an offer that included Tracy McGrady, good for them, but have come back with a proposal in which the Nets would acquire Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Luther Head and Carl Landry. Their counter seems a little steep, but as a Spurs fan, I really hope they take Vince off the trading block.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
