The Suns Setting

Call me naive, but I do not believe much of what is written about the Phoenix Suns.

First, I do not believe the Suns lost to the Spurs because of the Shaq trade. That was a calculated gamble, but I do not think it changed the Suns offense as dramatically as some believe. I think the Suns' offense has been influx since Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson left. When the Suns put Nash, JJ, Richardson, Marion and Stoudemire on the floor, everyone was a threat to score and four players were a threat to make the three-point shot. Defenses could not help off of anyone.

When Richardson and JJ left, the Suns tried to become more conventional without losing their originality completely. Raja Bell developed into the shooter to replace Richardson, but the Suns never found that additional piece on the wing to replace JJ.

When they played Marion, Diaw and Stoudemire together, they lacked the spacing. Diaw is not a shooter and Marion is a good shooter for a power forward, but not as great for a wing. Suddenly, the spacing was not as good and they had to run more conventional sets, like the Horns play, and pass the ball one or two more times to get an open shot.

When they added Grant Hill, he was supposed to be the answer at the three. But, he's not a great three-pt shooter and he is not as dynamic as he once was. He did not space the floor any more than Diaw or Kurt Thomas last season.

So, the Suns dealt Marion for Shaq. Sure, shaq congests the lane in some ways. But, no help defender will leave his body. So, he really doesn't. The Suns run a pick and roll on the right side with Shaq on the left block and the help defender will not leave Shaq. In fact, he is more apt to leave Kurt Thomas open for a 12-ft jump shot last season or Boris Diaw for a 15-ft jump shot this year than leave Shaq at the block.

The change, then, is not so much the acquisition of Shaq but the failure to sign, draft or develop a true shooter at the small forward position and/or another dynamic scorer like JJ. Barbosa filled the role at times, but he's been inconsistent.

For all the talk of the Suns being exciting and changing the game, they don't play that different than the Spurs. They do not throw the home run pass as much as Nash did with Marion or Barbosa, but in the half court, they do the same things.

The Spurs run pick and rolls and spread the court. They put shooters in the corner and let Duncan, Parker and Ginobili work the middle. The difference betwen the Spurs and the Suns, now, is that Duncan remains a superior player, especially defensively, to Stoudemire and Ginobili is the dynamic scorer and shooter the Suns do not have. The Suns have Bell, but the Spurs have Bowen, Barry and Udoka. That means Hill and Barbosa fill Ginobili's role, but even together, they fail to add the intangibles that Ginobili brings.

Second, I cannot believe people think the Spurs are boring and the Suns saved the league. The Suns just are not as exciting as we believe them to be. They were amazing when they had JJ and Richardson. But, do people really like watching Diaw and Hill these days? Ginobili is arguably the most eciting player in th league, and certainly the most creative, and Parker is close, especialy in the play-offs and even though nobody ever mentions his name, it would be hard to convince me he is not the 2nd best point guard in the league right now. And, Duncan is only the best power forward (who plays center, but whatever) to ever play in the NBA. Why do people not enjoy this tam?

Third, according to reports, D'Antoni will be fired. The TNT crew, especially Barkley, seem to believe the Suns do not play defense because D'Antoni does not want them to play defense. I do not believe it is the Suns lck of desire. I think the Suns have poor defensive personnel. Nash is a good help defender, but not a great on-ball defender. Stoudemire is a terrible help defender. Terrible. Diaw is an average to poor defender. Barbosa is not a bad defender, though not great, but he gives up a lot of size when he plays his better position, shooting guard.

The trade for Shaq was to acquire a presence inside on defense and he did it in spurts. However, he still does not defend the pick-and-roll. If the Suns want to be a defensive team, it's not about firing D'Antoni, it's about acquiring a young, athletic center to protect the rim, like a Dasagna Diop or even Ronnie Turiaf. Of course, moving to a more defensive line-up hurts the spacing.

According to True Hoop, Jack McCallum wrote:

There has also been whispers of D'Antoni's taking over in Toronto, where Sam Mitchell's coaching future is an ongoing discussion and where Bryan Colangelo, D'Antoni's former boss in Phoenix and still a close friend, is calling the shots. But Toronto doesn't seem as comfortable a fit for D'Antoni as Chicago or even New York. Don't look for that to happen."

What? The Knicks fit D'Antoni more than the Raptors? Let's see, in Jose Calderon, Toronto has a poor man's Steve Nash entering his prime. At the 3, the Raps have Jason Kapono, the best three-point shooter in the NBA. At the 2, they have Parker who can shoot and defend. At the 4, they have Chris Bosh, the do-everything pick-and-pop or pick-and-roll player. And, at the 5, they have Andrea Bargnani who can shoot the three or attack the basket. I don't see another line-up, including the Suns, more well-suited for D'Antoni (except maybe Atlanta).

The Bulls would be interesting, but Deng presents the same problem as a 3 as Hill in that he is not a great three-point shooter. Plus, Deng is the cornerstone of the franchise, so it's hard to rely on Hinrich every possession and go possessions without getting Deng touches. They have some athletic bigs to run the pick-and-roll, but they lack a big who shoots the ball well enough to spread the floor and Gordon is not a consistent scorer and resembles Barbosa. Nocioni is an idea fit, but only as a four, like Marion, not at the three, which again makes for a small team.

Given the choice, I'd gamble on Toronto, if the job becomes available, especially with D'Antoni's relationship with Colangelo.

Final point, that few make: the Spurs are and have been the best team in the NBA. Sure, other franchises want to work to close the gap. But, does losing to the best team in the NBA in the play-offs mean that a franchise should fire the coach?

Adelman & McGrady

I like Rick Adelman and think he is one of the more underrated coaches in the NBA, especially in terms of his offensive coaching and strategy. His true downfall is relying too heavily on his best player and not managing the season properly, a skill at which Greg Popovich and Phil Jackson excel.

Tracy McGrady apparently tried to pass the blame to his coach.

First, McGrady critiqued Landry. "I hit the ball off the glass, and Carl just mistimed it," McGrady said. If he had to say something, it might be about how he didn't block out Okur, or how he should have grabbed the rebound. Instead, he pointed to Adelman. "That was the point where Dikembe (Mutombo) and those guys should have been in the game, because we would have called a timeout had we gotten the rebound."

The most tellin part of the statement is the final line of this article:

Ironically, Adelman had used much of his news conference to defend McGrady.

That is another reason I like Adelman. He never blames players or calls them out in the press like other coaches. I see this attitude even down to the junior high level where coaches yell at players to make sure the crowd understans that the mistake was the player's fault, not the coaches. College and NBA coaches get to use the media, since nobody can hear them in the arena.

McGrady misses the block out and gives up a rebound and he blames the coach for not putting in another player to take his spot. Way to lead, Tmac! Way to look for an out. This attitude may explain why Tmac has yet to win a play-off series.

Hack-a-Shaq

It's the first quarter and the Spurs are fouling Shaq. Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson have no problem with it and call it good coaching. JVG said he does not understand why people want to legislate against bad skill.

BTW, JVG and Mark Jackson are by far the best pair in all of sports right now. Insightful and hilarious. I hope neither gets a coaching job next season because they are the standard by which all analysts should be measured.

Back to the Hack-a-Shaq. I agree with JVG: if it is legal to foul a player intentionally throughout the game, why is not legal in the last 2:00? I don't understand it. Of course, I don't understand why NBA teams get to advance the ball to half court by virtue of calling a timeout. I hate thse fake rules.

My problem with the Hack-a-Shaq is this: in the NCAA Tournament, Kentucky fouled one of Marquette's players. The nest time, the Marquette player took off running. A Kentucky player was chasing the designated Marquette player all over the court and fouled him 90-feet from the ball. This is legal.

However, if the player had been shooting a lay-up, and the Kentucky player did not make an honest play on the ball, the officials would have called an "Intentional Foul" and given Marquette the ball after the FTs. So, fouling a shooter but not getting the ball is intentional, but chasing a player all over the court and grabbing him 90-feet from the basketball is not an intentional foul. This, I have a hard time understanding.

I have no problem with the Hack-a-Shaq if it is a basketball play. But, tackling someone 90-feet from the basketball is an intentional foul. There is no play on the ball. I don't know how anything could be more intentional. I just thought the end of the Marquette game was a mockery of basketball as two 6'9 guys chased each other around the court trying to foul and avoid being fouled. It was ridiculous. Same for the Hack-a-Shaq: if it's not part of the play, it's an intentional foul, whether it is smart or not. That's not legislating against bad skill, that's calling it what it is.

Real Recruiting

Too many times, coaches put too much stock in a player's national ranking, which is often one man's opinion of a player. Why should a Head Coach trust someone else's opinion more than his own or his staff's? In a cnnsi article about UCLA's incoming class, Ben Howland breaks down his recruiting very simply:

"I don't pay attention to [recruiting rankings]," said Howland. "Darren [Collison] and Russell [Westbrook] weren't highly regarded guys on the national AAU scene, but they have all the NBA guys frothing over them now. I'm just looking for really good athletes who have quickness and length, and an understanding of how to play."

This is one of the big reasons I like Howland as a coach. Of course, Howland is not perfect, as he did not recruit Ryan Anderson as heavily as Cal, and he's now an NBA Draft prospect too. However, in his tenure at UCLA, Howland has proven to be one of the best talent evaluators in the country.

Bynum's Break Out

I saw this on True Hoop:

His mentor, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, tells NBA.com's John Hareas that Bynum could always play, but this year he gained confidence:

It really had to do with the fact that all of a sudden he had confidence in what he could do. He had the ability to do the things he was doing probably as much as a year earlier, but he didn't have confidence.

He didn't want to embarrass himself. That kind of set him back. He was kind of reticent to go out there and play the way he can play.

But all of a sudden he saw that things were working for him, he got a little bit more aggressive and kept getting better and better results.

If you hear David Thorpe tell it, this could be a common story.

He believes there are many players in the NBA who -- more than simply adding skills, or working harder -- really need loving support from their mentors, to gain the kind of confidence that unlocks their abilities.

Back in September, I wrote:

Andrew Bynum drew the wrath of Kobe during the summer, but for a kid who just turned 20, he is talented, big and long. Few people seem to value Bynum as highly as I do, but I do not see why people are so enthusiastic about Oden, at 19, versus Bynum at 20. If Bynum played for a coach and with players who believed in his ability, I would argue he is every bit as good as Oden, and probably a better offensive player right now. For a 3rd or 4th weapon, a legitimate seven-footer with good hands and athleticism is a nice problem to have. Sadly, Bynum does not even start.

The Lakers do not have enough to win the Western Conference this year, unless they build Bynum's confidence early in the season to establish him as the true third weapon and a dominant player on the inside, but they have enough to break into the power five and win at least one play-off series.

As for Thorpe's comment, it happens at every level. Very few coaches draw out an individual's peak performance because so many coaches are control freaks. Also, people learn to fear mistakes because we associate mistakes with and this develop a Fixed Mindset. Many people who succeed are those with a Growth Mindset who view mistakes as part of the learning process rather than an indictment of their talent.

Warriors Miss the Play-offs

In September, I wrote:

And, with Jason Richardson in Charlotte and Don Nelson holding out for more money, one has to wonder if Golden State was a one-hit wonder which captivated America for a fleeting moment or if they can sustain their postseason momentum into the 2007-08 season.

This drew a great deal of dissent:

They may have lost Jason Richardson, but in the process they have addressed their deficiency from last season...FRONT LINE presence. With the additions of Wright, Croshere, Perovic and Lasme, I would say that their line up has improved.

I wrote:

I don't see Wright having a huge impact this year. I always thought he was overrated. He has talent, but he has yet to reach it. I love Lasme, but he's a 6'7 shot blocker: maybe he can be this year's Paul Milsap. Maybe not. I don't see how Perovic fits in the GSW system, but we'll see.

I do not think, right now, the team is better than they were at the end of the season last year. They might be by the end of the season this year, but if they start slow again, will they have enough to make a miraculous finish like last year? Plus, wins in the West will be tougher,

Well, pretty accurate. The West was tough, a slow start ultimately cost GSW and Wright, Lasme and Perovic offered very little.
But, the replies continued:

The 19 year old you are referring to is not that much younger than your Center Andris (21 Years old)whose scouting reports before he was drafted was quite similar to Wright's. Good hands, Tenacious shot blocker, A Lefty with High Percentage shooting, Wright may even be more athletic than Biedrins. He has a slight edge with his freethrow shooting and mid range jump shots. You can not count the kid out, he is as promising as any lottery pick before and after him in this years draft. Perovic is an unknown, but what would you give up to have a 7'2 center that has a clean Mid range shooting and a good basketball IQ? (in the likes of: Vlade Divac). He can also rebound by the way-a Warrior deficiency over the years. I just dont see why you would call this roster less of a team from last year when all they are missing now is a natural back up point guard...when last year, they were missing just that and the front line help that they now posses.

So, I continued:

Wright is not as good as the player's drafted ahead of him or behind him. Not a chance he is, right now, in the same category as Oden, Durant or Horford. He has one move. Plus, Biedrinis is a very average post player anyway, so saying he will be like Biendris during his rookie year does not offer a lot for the up coming season.

I expect NO to be in the play-offs. Memphis is greatly improved from last season. They effectively added Gasol, Conley, Milicic and Navarro. They should be a play-off team too. They signed Gasol's best friend; I think he is happier to be in Memphis now.

The Lakers are good. I don't care what anyone says. Kobe is the best player in the league and Odom is a good #2 threat. They have size inside with Bynum, Turiaf and Brown. They're in.

Oops, I missed big time on Memphis.

JRich was the rock, not the star. He was the steadying influence on the team for several years and gave a consistent effort every night.

The question for Perovic is if he can keep pace with the rest of the team, not to mention the transition to NBA basketball. He might be a nice player, but I don't see him as a big improvement over last season.

So, you subtract JRich and Pietrus is uncertain and you add 3 rookies, each with limitations. Plus, a disgruntled coach with nothing to prove. I just don't see them as being improved.

But, my adversary was still unconvinced:

I don't see why you would still say that this team is less skilled. It's almost like saying, having J-Rich in the Roster is better than having Three POWER FORWARDS who are skilled enough to reach the NBA and who are at the peak of their potentials. J-Rich is no Kobe, he is definitely no KG nor Steve Nash. So who's to say that having him is better than addressing the team's weakness last season? Having these three promising Rookies are better than having the same roster again last year. This Roster is better equipped to go up against this year's Bolstered Eastern and Western Conference.

So, I shot back:

None of the 3 power forwards are at the "peak of their potential" as you suggest. Not even close. If Lasme has a great season and exceeds all expectations, he might approach the season Paul Milsap had last season as a back-up for the Jazz. Perovic could be great, or he could end up like Illic of the Nets who they are trying to cut. When has Nelson really enjoyed playing a prototypical center anyway? And, Wright is nowhere near his potential. If he exceeds most people's expectations, he could have a similar affect as Aldridge or Thomas did last season, which is to say that he will have some spectacular highlights, but will not win games on a day to day basis.

But, in reality, you're right. I do not think that 3 rookie power forwards equal the production of JRich and potentially Pietrus. JRich is good for 22PPG every night. Between the 3 PFs, I would take the under on their season averages being +/- 22PPG.

And, forgotten in the hype of the play-offs is that they barely qualified for the play-offs last year. One game.

I do not see any reason to suggest that the Golden State Warriors will be any better this season than last. We'll see. But, you're expectations for three rookies are way too high. Wright is a teenager with one post move and no game outside of five feet; there are SG's who weigh more than he does. What PF can he guard in the Western Conference? Duncan? Nowitski? Nene? Aldridge? West? I hope he's been lifting a lot this summer. How does Perovic fit with their style of play? Will they run their offense through Perovic, like your Vlade Divac comparison, with BDiddy on the floor? Is there any guarantee that he is a better player than Adonal Foyle?

You're putting way too much emphasis on one play-off series as opposed to an entire season of play. I trust 82 games more than a 7 game series. And, the Warriors barely made the play-offs last year, traded away an important piece of their team and are relying heavily on rookies. I think New Orleans is a better team. And, I think Sacramento is a better team if everyone plays together (Artest and Bibby). And, I think Memphis is a play-off caliber team if Gasol stays healthy.

Oops on Sacramento and Memphis.

And, it continued. What happened to Memphis? I really thought they'd be better. At least I had New Orleans as a play-off team and Sacramento fell apart with Bibby's injury and internal strife. We'll see what next year brings for the Kings.

Beat Mayor Fargo

Nope, I am not helping with KJ's campaign for Mayor.

Last year, my friend did the Sacramento MS walk in honor of her friends and finished second in money raised to Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo. This year, their goal is to be #1.

If your interested in learning more or want to donate money to the cause in support of a great teacher (not just my sister, but her friend Lisa), follow this link to read her blog about the race.

More on Love

I've never been one to believe in the opinions of NBA scouts. They are easily infatuated with raw potential and the NBA had to institute an age limit to save their franchises from the decisions of the scouts and management.

The comments about Kevin Love leave me even more pessimistic:

UCLA's Kevin Love wasn't getting any love after being shut down by Memphis big man Joey Dorsey in the second half, when he scored two points and seemed to lack the stamina to maintain the up-tempo pace Memphis was playing. Frankly, Love looked out of gas.

We know conditioning is an issue for Love, and many scouts believe he'd be better off returning to UCLA for his sophomore season. NBA teams can help him get in shape. The question is, will he have the desire once he has an NBA contract?

Can anyone name another player who was double-teamed before he even touched the ball? Memphis literally had two guys defending him with the ball on the perimeter. How is a player supposed to dominate with two guys devoted to him? Scouts are going to watch one game where he was constantly double-teamed with and wothout the ball and ignore an entire season of work where he was conference POY and 1st Team All-American and willed his team to the Final Four?

I love this too:

The other UCLA player who really helped himself was Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. He showed some of the promise we saw two years ago in the Final Four. He has probably moved himself back into the discussion for the second round.

I like LRMM. However, his man never guarded him. Memphis chose to leave him open all game and it worked. Yet, he improved his stock?

I just don't understand.

Is Love a superstar in the NBA? No. But, how many post players in this draft would you take ahead of Love? Beasley and Brook Lopez. Anthony Randolph? Donte Greene? Roy Hibbert? Earl Clark?

Love is an underrated defender because he really uses his body positoning well. He needs more quickness on the perimeter, but as he cuts some baby fat, that should help. He has 3-point shooting range and is a great pick-and-pop threat. He is an above average passer in the half court and a game changer in the full court. And, he is a wide body who knows how to use his broad shoulders. Worst case scenario, he's a better Darius Songalia. Best case scenario, he's another Carlos Boozer. And, scouts might prefer Earl Clark?

What does it say about college basketball when leading your team to the Final Four ultimately hurts your draft stock?

NCAA Tournament Thoughts

I am tired of reading that UCLA's offense is terrible. People posting on the Internet appear not to understand the game of basketball. However, arguing with people who think they are right based on their opinion is futile, so I went to Ken Pomeroy's site for help. I learned that I should have checked out his site before the tournament.

Now, some things have adjusted during the tournament and I did not look pre-tournament, but I cannot imagine that a couple games for most schools would change their rankings too much. According to his rankings, the top four teams this year were: Kansas, Memphis, UCLA and Carolina, in that order. Interestingly, Wisconsin and Louisville were next.

As for UCLA, it played the 217th fastest pace out of 341. Interestingly, Texas played a slightly slower pace. As for offensive efficiency, UCLA ranked 7th. The top six, in order: Carolina, Kansas, Texas, Memphis, Drake and Oregon.

UCLA ranked 4th in defensive efficiency, behind Wisconsin, Kansas and Memphis and just ahead of Louisville, Georgetown and Washington State. North Carolina was 19th in defensive efficiency.

UCLA's effective field goal percentage was 52.5%, which ranked 75th. Utah State was first at 57.4%. UCLA ranked 47th in Turnover Percentage at 18.6, while Texas led the nation at 14.1. UCLA ranked 10th on offensive rebounding percentage at 39.3%, while North Carolina led the country at 42.4.

On the defensive end, UCLA did not give up many free throws or offensive rebounds (9th in both categories), which compensated for being 37th in effective field goal percentage defense and 131 in turnover percentage.

What does it mean? It means UCLA is nearly equal offensively and defensively, but where it really dominates is rebounding and the free throw line. It also means that Kansas and Memphis are statistically the top two teams and are exactly where they should be, playing for the National Championship.

Two other quick points in response to common points I have seen elsewhere:

First, UCLA struggled to get Love the ball because Memphis played a one man zone and baited Luc Richard Mbahe a Moute or James Keefe or Lorenzo Mata-Real to shoot the ball. We used this defensive tactic when I coached u-10 girls' AAU basketball: we defended 4 players man2man and did not guard the 5th player, encouraging her to shoot wide open shots from the free throw line because we knew she would miss and she did. Memphis basically double-teamed Love before he received the pass, which makes it difficult to feed it to him. UCLA needed better spacing to exploit the one-man zone and punish it by getting Keefe, LRMM or Mata-Real lay-ups or dunks.

Second, Memphis does not play an NBA style offense, as many contend. They play a high school offense that Calipari got from former Pepperdine University Head Coach Vance Walberg who developed his system at Clovis West High School. Now, Calipari uses an NBA approach in that he attacks match-ups, like posting Derrick Rose against Darren Collison. However, his basic offensive system is not an NBA system and the only thing remotely close to it is the Bulls of last season who used a dribble weave quite frequently. Calipari definitely has an NBA-style mindset in terms of creating and using match-up problems, but his offense is a basic drive and kick offense without many screens (for more on his offense, see Blitz Basketball, as it is a close approximation). NBA teams call set plays almost every time down the court and run a ton of pick and rolls.

Finally, if the Memphis Grizzlies get the #1 pick, there is no way they pass on Derrick Rose. He's too good and too popular in Memphis. They'll find a trading partner for one or two of their other guards, but Memphis needs Rose (as do a lot of teams).

Monday Edit: I saw this on True Hoop:

His 12-point, nine-rebound performance against Memphis, in which he was bumped away from the basket by 6-9, 265-pound Joey Dorsey and knocked to the ground on a Chris Douglas-Roberts dunk, gave visual confirmation to one scout in attendance at the Alamodome that Love would benefit from a second college season. 'He needs to get stronger and in better shape,' the scout said. 'I would say he's not a lottery pick right now.'"

I just wish the people who write and comment on basketball knew more about the game. Love got knocked to the ground on the dunk because he tried to take a charge, not because he lacked strength. What a stupid comment!

And, scoring 12 points with 9 rebounds when the opponent double-teams you when you don't even have the ball yet is impressive, not a disappointment. Sure, Love needs to improve his strength and conditioning for the NBA. But, so does every college kid. You're going to tell me that Golden State's Brandon Wright or Chicago's Tyrus Thomas, two high lottery picks, were strong enough in college to play in the NBA?

If this scout's assessment is that Love isn't a lottery pick because of his lack of strength, I'd love to know the unfortunate franchise that employs him. I don't think Love is ready to be an all-star or anything crazy like that, but when has a college post player showed a more polished all-around game? The lower Love gets the drafted, the greater the indictment against the NBA Draft. After all, if being a 1st Team All-American, Conference Player of the Year and going to the Final Four isn't enough to prove your draft worth, what is the point of forcing kids to go to college before entering the draft? Of course, Carlos Boozer was a Second Round pick as an undersized power forward...