Eveyone is drinking the Nellie Juice. I admit, I want to see Golden State win, mainly because I'm tired of seeing Mark Cuban's mug on TV so much and I think Nellie was disrespected in Dallas, especially when "golden boy" Avery Johnson made the Finals last season.
However, Golden State presents two problems:
1. Sacramento Buyer's Remorse. Someone in the Sacramento Bee, usually Ailene Voison, cannot make it through an NBA column without mentioning that Nelson wanted to coach the Kings this year. And, these writers appear to believe that if you move Nelson to the Kings' bench, all problems would be solved and the Kings would be battling the #1 seed in a tight, contested series (oops, isn't that what got Adelman fired?).
However, nobody mentions the real difference between this year's Warriors and this year's Kings. It is easy to look at the two coaches, since they are both new. However, what is overlooked locally is Chris Mullin's willingness to pull the trigger on a blockbuster deal, while the Maloofs killed a Sacramento blockbuster.
Basically, that makes Golden State this year's Sacramento, as the Kings made the deal for Artest and fought down the stretch to make the play-offs and nearly upset the Spurs. Will Golden State make a similar mistake and not re-sign Matt Barnes, arguably the Warriors second best play-off performer so far, like the Kings did last summer when they allowed Bonzi Wells to get away?
When the Warriors season was on the brink, Mullin did something about it. He acquired players who fit Nellie's personality. When the Kings' struggled, Petrie reportedly tried to do the same, ridding the team of Bibby's non-defense and personality conflict with Artest, but the Maloofs refused to make a trade with the Lakers. One can only hope that if the Lakers are willing to part with Bynum and Farmar for Bibby, the Maloofs will okay the trade and allow Petrie to re-build the franchise like he did when he acquired Divac, Stojakovic and Webber in a matter of months. Add a PF in the draft and a young starting five of Farmar, Garcia, Martin, (Horford, Noah, Green, Thorton) and Bynum would be an exciting team to get behind.
But, instead of criticizing the Maloofs (its like they own the paper), Bee writers daydream about the Nellie Kings. Only, Mussleman played the same type of line-up toward the end of the season (Garcia, Salmons, Martin, Artest, Williamson) and Kings' fans booed and yelled at the team to slow down and run plays. The difference between a Nellie Kings team and a Nellie Warriors team is a healthy, hungry Baron Davis. In an up-tempo, free-for-all, there is no more explosive PG in the NBA today. I cannot imagine Mike Bibby having the same effect; Bibby is a perfect PG, if you look past the defensive deficiencies, for the Kings' high post offense or even a Triangle offense or to play alongside a star like he would in Houston, Los Angeles, Indiana (kind of) or San Antonio. But, he is not Baron Davis-like in a Warriors-like environment. So, without BDiddy, there is no guarantee Nellie's magic would have worked in Sacramento any better than Mussleman's preparation, unless, of course, the Maloofs were prepared to acquire the players he wanted to play his style (which, of course, is the antithesis of what they wanted, since they publicly stated they fired Adelman to hire a more defensive-minded coach).
2. The Warriors play bad basketball. Sure, it's fun to watch in spurts when they are playing well, because theyplay like my friends and I play at the park, hugging the three-point line and jacking at all costs rather than risk injury getting hacked on the way to the hoop. But, they are not the Suns. Each plays at a quick tempo, but the Suns are efficient. They take good shots. They space the floor well. They move the ball. They rarely commit turnovers. The Suns are very much a traditional, pick-and-roll team with a once a decade playmaker in the perfect situation and a slightly faster tempo. The difference between the Jazz of Stockton and Malone and the Suns of Nash and Stoudemire is Sloan's tough guy persona vs. D'Antoni's easy going manner. Sloan would not stand for giving up a lay-up, while D'Antoni would rather stay out of the bonus and keep the tempo high. But, in terms of execution, they are very similar, though the rule changes (no zone defense violations) changed the dynamics and made the Suns' outside shooters more valuable.
The Warriors, otoh, play bad basketball. They take bad shots and make bad turnovers. When they are playing well, it's fun to watch and everyone starts to drink the Kool-Aid. But, when they are not hitting shots, they are a sloppy, bad basketball team. Now, I like Nellie because he is willing to be a contrarian and every league needs that. And, he makes due with what he has, which is a small, fairly athletic, above average shooting team with no offensive post players. So, I enjoy the success he is having with his team. However, I do not think the Warriors and Suns should be lumped together as examples of anything because they are far different teams.
The Warriors 3-2 lead only obscures this fact. However, they had to go 10-1 down the stretch to squeak into the play-offs. The other problem if the Warriors win the series tonight is that we are overly obsessed with the play-offs and ignore regular season success, which should be more meaningful. The Warriors, for more than 2/3 of the season, were not very good. Of course they had injuries and a big trade and a new coach, but they were not a good basketball team. And, the Mavericks, for 95% of the season, were the best team. But, five games obscures that. And makes Nellie a genius again. Weird.
So, I am hoping the Warriors win. But, if more people keep drinking the Nellie juice, I amy hope for a Rockets/Jazz sweep in the next round, just to being basketball back to its proper perspective.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I think you're right about Golden State playing an inefficient style of basketball. The potential match-ups with either Houston or the Jazz are so weird that I wouldn't know what to predict for that series, other than that I think that Golden State would lose either way. However, if they do manage to get to the western conference finals, I don't see Golden State beating Phoenix at their own game, or being able to disrupt San Antonio the way that they've been able to disrupt the Mavericks.
Dallas is a good team, but I don't think that they are as good as 67-win teams in the past have been - they're not as dominant as the 99-00 Lakers or the mid-90's Chicago Bulls or any of several great Lakers and Celtics teams from the 80's. They're really good, but they have more unconvincing, close wins against average teams than I would expect out of a 67-win team. Part of it is that they've been healthy while other teams with Dirk-level superstars were bit by the injury bug.
Just in the west, the Rockets, Lakers, Grizzlies, and the Hornets have suffered injuries to their big guys, and even though bad teams like Memphis and New Orleans wouldn't have threatened the Mavs even if they were healthy, and even though teams like Miami and Charlotte aren't in the east, their injuries are still significant. Why? First, they all have serious big men who would have made Dirk's life harder over the course of an 82-game season. Second, if those other teams had their best big guys playing all season, they would have helped expose Dallas' weaknesses, ways to attack Dirk, etc. I realize that after so many years in the league, most teams already have a "book" on him, but, as Golden State is now proving, if you keep experimenting with ways to stop somebody, eventually you'll come up with something new that works.
Did you say that regular season success is more important than the playoffs? That's whack, daddy-o.
Both Houston and Utah would give the Warriors a good thrashing inside. Not only that, but both Sloan and van Gundy would probably laugh maniacally at the prospect ("Bwa ha ha ha!").
Isn't a big part of the NBA creating mismatches? It's implied that you will make a killing thereafter...But Dallas can't make a killing with their bigs.
It makes no sense to look at the Warriors record over the entire season, rather than their record with the past 6 weeks with the current lineup. Those two teams are completely different! I went to a game where Ellis was the ONLY starter from the current team. Are you surprised the Wizards didn't win a game in the playoffs? After all, they had a decent regular season and started out so strong. I wonder what happened?
The Warriors aren't nearly as talented as the Suns, but their philosophies are very similar. Take an open shot when you see it, not when the time left on the shot clock tells you to.
I can't believe I'm even responding to your post. Can't wait to watch more bad basketball tonight.
To support the point above, with Golden State's full complement of core players healthy, it went 16-4 down the stretch (winning at an .800 clip over a quarter of a full season), against the toughest schedule in the NBA, record-wise.
YOUR A FREAKING IDOIT. How does the regular season mean mere than the playoffs? The grizzlies beat the Dubs twice in the reg. season. Does that mean they would be doing even better than us in the playoffs? Off course not. Even if you want to look at the reg. season, look at the last quarter of it when we had our real lnieup on the floor.
You said the Warriors are only good when they are on and playing at their best. We havent been on the whole series but we're still up 3-2. The wwarriors are doing more than just running and gunning right now. they are hustling, playing lockdown defense, and making the little plays. If you ever watched a warriors game in the past you could see that the warriors are a completely diffeent team right now and capable of beating anyone.
"The other problem if the Warriors win the series tonight is that we are overly obsessed with the play-offs and ignore regular season success, which should be more meaningful."
One example: In Europe's national soccer leagues there's no such thing as play-offs. Usually, each club plays each other club twice a season, once away and once at home, and that's it. Win/loss/tie (or goals scored) record makes the winner. Just to tell you that play-offs aren't "natural".
I couldn't imagine the NBA without play-offs, though. They're like a special spice to this league. However, I do think that good regular season records should be awarded more (pardon the awkward phrasing).
I know we all loved Hoosiers and the 'Pass the ball 4 times' mentality, and we all love us some big-man post play, but can't we expand our minds to accept that there are other, perfectly acceptable ways to play basketball well? An open shot is an open shot, and the Warriors get lots of them. Yes, the Warriors look awful when they play badly, mainly because they are missing open shots and layups (and doing so at a faster clip - but would you rather miss 8 shots in 3 minutes or in 6?). They are not the only team to have bad games or bad stretches during games. In fact, the Suns played pretty poorly when they were last at Oracle Arena, and when they did, I didn't say to myself, "Well, they're playing terribly, but it sure looks like good basketball."
I said the regular season should be more meaningful. But, regular season champs are completely ignored. What tells you more about a team: success over 82 games or success in a seven game series?
The regular season doesn't even matter anymore. Just make the play-offs. So, why bother watching any of the 82 game regular season? Maybe that's why Charles Barkley got mad he was missing his Grey's Anatomy to go to a game! The game didn't matter.
If the Warriors make it to the 2nd Round and play either Houston/Utah, you guys will be even more surprised.
When the Warriors got their new lineup, they beat Jazz and the Rockets (at Houston I might add).
I believe the Warriors beat both teams as well earlier in the regular season.
Look, I like the Warriors and Don Nelson. As I said, he got disrespected in Dallas. I was at UCLA with Barnes and Davis and Davis is one of the most funny individuals I have ever been around (Cameron Dollar was a clown too). JRich is probably my fav Mich State player.
I love the fact that Nelson does not do what everyone else does. If you look below, I wrote an article praising this aspect of the series.
That does not change the fact that they play a fairly ugly style of play, especially when the threes don't fall. Want evidence? They completely blew Game 5 when they had a 112-103 lead with less than 3:00 to play. And, to whoever said they haven't played well, they were unconscious for most of that game.
I'm not a Hoosiers purist. However, I value efficient teams who take care of the ball.
I actually think the best part of the Warriors succes has been their match-up zone and their aggressiveness. Fundamentally, its awful defense. But, their length and athleticism and hustle make it work.
I think people like them because they play like an undermanned college team in the NCAA Tournament, jacking threes, pressuring, trapping, etc. Its exciting, especially if you're a fan of the team riding the wave.
But, from a distance, it isn't great basketball. I'll watch a Suns game even if it's a blowout because of the way they play, they move the ball, pass, find open men, etc. But, even in exciting games, its sometimes hard to watch the Dallas vs Golden State series (though the second half of Game 5 was pretty much all good). Game 2 was awful.
My argument is that people are confusing excitement and emotions with well-played basketball, much like Cinderellas in the distance. I am merely saying there is a difference between a team or series that is exciting and one that is well-played.
That being said, Avery Johnson is currently about even with George Karl for poor coaching performances in the play-offs. After 82 games, you should know your teams strengths and weaknesses and style of play, but Denver looked confused against the Spurs and Johnson keeps second guessing himself, it seems, rather than acting like the coach of the best team.
STFU you idiot. GS wins in 6---you're a complete tool.
BMac:
Respect you opinion. However I don't think you are giving GS enough credit. Especially for the defense this team has displayed in the last 21 games of the regular season & the playoffs. Look at the matchup zone they played tonight. I can't think of any other team that can play this style of defense, because their personnel suit this to a T. Its not going to work against teams with great post play, but I can't think of any other team other than the Spurs who are good enough. Game 2 was horrible agreed. But how about Games 1 & 4. I'd say Davis & the entire team played what the Mavs gave them and were not chucking it from anywhere. In this aspect, they are better than the Suns and I think this is one of the reasons that they are having success with even average shooters on their team. I think the game flows better for them since they are usually coming off frenetic activity in the defensive end.
I attribute their loss in Game 5 more to boneheadedness on Nellie's part. They have not played this style in all games of this series.
They played half-court Games 1 & 4 and still won(the most impressive victories in this series).
Seriously, if you want to debate with me, at least read what I have said. When nobody gave the Warriors a chance before the series started, I said it was a bad match-up and the Warriors would give the Mavs problems.
I've said I enjoy watching the Warriors play and was rooting for them. I like the fact that Nelson is a contrarion.
Also, their defense is fundamentally horrible, but they play it very well, which is why it works. And, they play extremely hard.
All that being said, they still play like a bunch of guys in a pick-up game at the park shooting with no conscience and making terrible passes. That was the point. To me, it's bad basketball. Fun to watch at times, sure. I think my friends and I are fun to watch when we are making shots.
And, the other main point of the original post was the local sacramento writers drinking the Nellie juice and having buyers remorse thinking about what Nellie would have done with the Kings. And, if you read it, I criticize the Kings and praise the warriors, especially Baron Davis, because the Kings could not play like this because Bibby is no Baron.
How about the series exposing Dallas as playing bad basketball? Mr Basketbawful documents that the Mavs are a bad passing team.
http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2007/05/dallas-mavericks-have-ball-movement.html
That's funny. I was just sitting down to write my weekly coaches newsletter and one of my topics was going to be the poor passing of the Mavericks. Everyone blames Dirk, and he could have done a better job, but the guards did a terrible job of feeding him the ball. They were reluctant to make tough passes to him. I think Jackson bothered the passers as much as he bothered Nowitski. Nowitski needs to be able to hold is position against smaller players, but guards have to have the confidence to make tough passes, too.
Dallas played a terrible series. I'm not surprised by the outcome; I am shocked that Dallas played so poorly and seemed to second guess itself to death. They definitely played like an upstart, not a conference champion, and the Warriors deserve credit for making Dallas look bad.
I'm torn in the Houston/Utah series now. I like Utah better, but I'm curious to see Jeff Van Gundy's creativity and how he would combat the Warriors D and keep Yao Ming in the game. Despite what the media says, I don't think the Jazz or Rockets are scared of the Warriors' O (TMac/Battier against Richardson/Jackson or Kirielnko/Fisher vs. JRich/Jackson): but, the defense they are playing may be a concern.
Otoh, I want to see how Carlos Boozer handles the Warriors constant switching and trapping. If Utah wins, Deron williams certainly has an opportunity to establish himself as a real deal NBA PG if he can pilot Utah past the Warriors (and the Rockets).
Post a Comment