Counterintuiting Suns-Spurs

As everyone knows, Phoenix versus San Antonio isn't just a playoff contest, it's a grand clash of visions. The Spurs, led by "The Big Fundamental" epitomize the ethic of Playing the Right Way that's beloved by cranky old men but not so much by fans. The run-and-gun Suns, by contrast, are an aesthetic pleasure but, perhaps, Not Built for the Playoffs.

Far be it from me to actually disagree with this characterization, whose basis is clear enough to anyone who follows the NBA, but one wrinkle does strike me as missing from this narrative. Steve Nash, the Phoenix leader, is a quintessential Play The Right Way point guard -- pass-first guy whose scoring game is dominated by the traditional Play The Right Way skill of accurate jump (and free throw) shooting. San Antonio, by contrast, has Tony Parker as its floor general. A small, quick shoot-first point guard who relies on penetration to score. He's a classic Play The Wrong Way player. So how can he be running the offense for the quintessential Play The Right Way team?

Comments

Point guards are dribble drive and dish. Their shot doesn't have much to do with the model.

Nash looks out of control, often in the air and then finding a target, often dribbling through the base line to the other side without any obvious sense of purpose, which is why people (wrongly) think of him as a Play the Wrong Way guy.

Posted by david | May 7, 2007 4:21 PM

The Spurs remind me of Italian soccer. They play great defense, they flop all over the place, and most of all, they're masterful at pacing the game to their tempo. In other words, it's hard not to despise them, but with a grudging respect.

Posted by Scott Heiser | May 7, 2007 4:25 PM

beats the crap out of me why it works. Parker is not only score-first, but also pass-poor. He is not good at passing and often looks disappointed when he has to pass.

it works because every other player on the team insists on team ball, pop calls most of the plays to take the ball out of parkers hands, and duncan is the true floor leader. on another team with other selfish players or less stellar coaching, parker would be just another starburry or francis or some other loser. i'd truly rather have chris paul or that other kid that plays for utah whose name i can't remember

Posted by MP | May 7, 2007 4:26 PM

I think many hoops traditionalists love the Suns and Nash because they are the antithesis of that crowd's number one critique about modern basketball - namely, the focus on the individual instead of the team.

So critiques of PHO's chances to win a title are more based on their lack of defensive prowess rather than a kneejerk dislike.

Posted by MJ | May 7, 2007 4:27 PM

Maybe because those Freedarko caricatures are just lazy stereotyping that has no real reference to the real world?

Posted by Freddie | May 7, 2007 4:30 PM

I thought "play the right way" was a cliche that was put out to pasture after it was used approximately 10000 times in connection with Larry Brown's Pistons winning the title.

Did the Pistons subsequently cease to embody the "play the right way" ethic, just because they've come up a little short the last two years? They're basically the same team, after all.

Posted by Steve | May 7, 2007 4:31 PM

They're basically the same team, after all.

No, they're not.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 7, 2007 4:36 PM

Point guards are dribble drive and dish. Their shot doesn't have much to do with the model.

You need some kind of jump shot or every team in the league will just play back about five feet and cut you off when you make your move.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 7, 2007 4:36 PM

there is nothing "wrong way" about fast break basketball; red auerbach would rise from his grave to protest.

we do have a clash of styles, but they are both perfectly legitimate ways to win (that's why this is, to me, the most interesting of the 4 matchups we've got). some of the great matchups of the past - late '60s knicks vs. late '60s celts; early '70s knicks vs. early '70s celts; mid-'80s lakers vs. mid-'80s celts - were based on this very dichotomy (and all 6 teams i've just listed won titles).

now, as to whether tony parker is the perfect point guard for the spurs style, that's a different (and perfectly legitimate) matter to dispute, and i would agree that parker probably isn't as pure as popovich would like....

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 4:37 PM

"I think many hoops traditionalists love the Suns and Nash because they are the antithesis of that crowd's number one critique about modern basketball - namely, the focus on the individual instead of the team."

I thought the biggest critique about modern basketball was the ugly, physical play - grabbing, hand-checking etc.

Posted by Njorl | May 7, 2007 4:43 PM

1. Nash is definitely not a standard Right Way point guard. Unless we mean "not speed/jump athletic" by "Right Way."

2. Parker is just killing the Suns. If the Spurs win, it'll be because of Parker as much anyone.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 7, 2007 4:47 PM

Matt's analysis is exactly correct. I think two possible explanations for the conventional wisdom are (1) as david notes above, Nash looks like an out-of-control dork even as he completes some amazing passes, and (2) Tim Duncan's off-the-court personality is probably a greater factor in the Spur's play-the-right-way reputation than what he does on the court.

Posted by Ken | May 7, 2007 5:22 PM

Popovich has grown immensely as a coach over the last decade. Ultimately, I think it was because of the failure of the unathletic teams the Spurs tried to dethrone the Lakers with during their three-peat. He eventually understood that just throwing the ball to Duncan for him to score or find a three ball wasn't enough, but you have to be able to penetrate and dish.

Parker and Ginobili would never have gotten off the bench in Pop's early years because he wanted there to be complete discipline on both sides of the floor. Now he can tolerate some free-wheeling on offense, but still not on defense. Both of the guards have developed into steady defenders - Manu still has some riverboat gambler in him as well, but it is not like when he first came over - and Pop has matured enough to meet them halfway.

This is a fascinating series, and going to be as enjoyable a two weeks as the Spurs-Mavs were last year.

Posted by Curtis | May 7, 2007 5:24 PM

No, if the Spurs win it will be because of Tim Duncan's presence, shot, and rebounds. And the Celtics in the 60's,70's and 80's could handcheck and push with the best of them (see DJ, Cowens, KC Jones, and this was before the bad boy Pistons (though Jungle Jim Luscatoff preceded Mahern by a few decades); and how many times yesterday did the ball go into Stodameyer two feet away from the basket and he blew an easy, though contested, tip in. A few more of those and the Suns might have prevailed. Finally, the Suns needed a good boxing cut man on the bench to stench the flow of blood yesterday on Nash's nose and keep him in the game.

Posted by Jim Margolis | May 7, 2007 5:37 PM

Wow, Matt really misses the boat on this one. Name me a single cranky old basketball fan who thinks the Suns "play the wrong way." Oh that's right, such a person doesn't exist. Every old basketball fan I know wishes the NBA would return to the day when PG's could run the fast break and scores were consistently in the 100's. Every one of them. Cranky old basketball fans love the Suns.

"Playing the Wrong Way" is isolation style ball that relies on three-pointers and low-percentage shooting from flashy, one-dimentional shooting guards like Allen Iverson and Vince Carter. To a lesser extent, it's the Spurs who play the wrong way insofar as their flopping, lock-down-defense and pondering offense is somewhat reminscient of the Riley Knicks/Heat of the mid-90's.

My theory on why the Suns are Not Built for the Playoffs is very simple: it's the refs. The referees listened a few years back when David Stern told them to enforce his prohibition on clutching and grabbing and de-emphasize charging (i.e. limit floppping) during the regular season. As a result, average scoring in the regular season skyrocketing. NBA refs continue to call the playoffs using the old format, however, which calls for more clutching and grabbing, fewer fast breaks, and a rougher, defensive-oriented brand of ball. This is a big advantage for a team like the Spurs and a big disadvantage for the Suns.

Posted by owenz | May 7, 2007 5:37 PM

Here's what's wrong (or non-"Old Style") about Nash: he can't/doesn't play defence...or rather, he plays the matador style defence.

As a Canuck, it pains me to say it.

Posted by 3pointshooter | May 7, 2007 5:40 PM

owenz, you remind me of a point i've made several times in the past. a few years ago, i finally got to see game 7 of the 1970 finals (the willis reed game), which i had missed to go to an anti-cambodia invasion rally (those were the days! without blogs to rally round, we actually had to choose between a key basketball game and political activism, but i digress).

anyhow, the thing that most amazed me was the way the refs called the game back then: no contact. i mean, everything was whistled. if they called 'em today that way, all 12 players on both teams would foul out (until they adjusted).

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 5:48 PM

No, if the Spurs win it will be because of Tim Duncan's presence, shot, and rebounds.

Don't you think that they could mitigate the effect of Duncan if they could stick Marion on him, and leave Stat to come over and help? (Or, possibly, the reverse--Stat's lost a step, and perhaps Marion is quicker.) If they could keep Parker from penetrating, the big men could stay closer to home, too.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 7, 2007 5:51 PM

Matt's analysis is exactly correct. I think two possible explanations for the conventional wisdom are (1) as david notes above, Nash looks like an out-of-control dork even as he completes some amazing passes, and (2) Tim Duncan's off-the-court personality is probably a greater factor in the Spur's play-the-right-way reputation than what he does on the court.

Wow.

Again, you have to be kidding me. Find me a single cranky old NBA fan who really believes that Steve Nash "plays the wrong way" or somehow looks out of control. The guy plays like Bob Cousy. Cranky old fans love him. Frankly, only an idiot would think he was out of control. Nash's incredible body control, vision, and court awareness are why old school basketball fans love watching him play. They recognize Nash's skills as something that was once more common, but is now rare and invaluable (think: Isiah Thomas averaging 14 apg in 1985 Magic averaging about 12.5 in 86/87, and Stockton averaging 14 apg from 88-92).

(Do I sound crazy? Have I entered bizarro world here?)

Clearly, you will find a lot of fans who think Nash's style does not win the playoffs because, well, Steve Nash hasn't won in the playoffs. Just as you will find plenty of fans who think the Spurs "play the right way" in order to win the playoffs. But it's downright bizarre to claim that cranky old fans think Nash plays the wrong way from an aesthetic point of view. The claim isn't just false - it's the perfect inverse of reality. Moreover, I think you'll find very few cranky old fans praising the Spurs style of play. They might respect Duncan for his class, but the Spurs don't get compliments for aesthetic beauty from anyone.

Cranky old fans basketball fans hate the following things in the following order: (1) preening, obnoxious behavior from "thug" players, (2) ugly games with low shooting percentages that look nothing like the Celtics-Lakers games of the 80's, and (3) preening, obnoxious behavior from "thug" players. They have no problem at all with brilliant fast break PG's whose teams are a pleasure to watch score 100+ every night.

[Ok, I'm done. You can now return to bizarro universe, where cranky old basketball fans hate Steve Nash because his teams score too much and he looks out of control. Thanks for listening.]

Posted by owenz | May 7, 2007 5:55 PM

I'm not sure I understand this post.

People think that the Suns are not built for the playoffs because they don't think the Suns don't have an adequate half-court offense - and in the playoffs you need a half court offense. Even the 80s Lakers had a great half court offense (does the name Kareem ring a bell?) - even though they were known for their run-and-gun style. So I don't know why Matthew says that Nash contradicts the conventional wisdom - Nash's pass-first style doesn't necessarily mean that the Suns offense is sufficient to go all the way to the Finals; he needs half-court players to pass to!

And, conversely, Parker's style of play says nothing about the Spurs ability to play half court offense. Of course the Spurs play great half court offense - both through Timmy and through Parker.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 6:05 PM

Here's what's wrong (or non-"Old Style") about Nash: he can't/doesn't play defence...or rather, he plays the matador style defence.

But as Howard notes above, playing no defense WAS the "old style." Most cranky old fans think the NBA took a turn for the worst when the Detroit Pistons "Bad Boys" teams of the late-80's demonstrated that you could win titles with only one superstar when you hacked, clutched, grabbed, defended and rebounded. This style was then emulated by Riley Knicks/Heat as well as the Jordan Bulls teams, all of which relied on suffocating defense to win. As the league's talent was watered down through expansion, it became clear that tough team defense could get you farther than one or two decent scorers most teams now had on their roster. Basketball purists HATED this.

Watch a game from the 80's. There was some defense being played (see: Johnson, Dennis), but not a whole lot. And there was very little contact. Heck, the Knicks were the lowest scoring team in the league in 86-87 and they scored 104 ppg (the Lakers averaged 118 ppg). That's right folks, the lowest scoring team in 1987 would have finished second in the NBA in scoring last year to Phoenix's 108 ppg.

Cranky old fans like offense. Trust me on this one.

Posted by owenz | May 7, 2007 6:10 PM

As a cranky 29-year-old fan (old in the scheme of NBA marketing), I can vouch for owenz here.

Posted by too many steves | May 7, 2007 6:14 PM

the non-pace adjusted stats...it burns

Posted by dtah | May 7, 2007 6:22 PM

I have to agree that MY gets this wrong when he says that Nash plays "the wrong way".

There is a story here, though. That story is that Phoenix is not built for "playoff success". This is the post-Pistons "playoff success" story, though. The refs still refuse to call as many contact fouls in the post season and this rewards larger, physical defenders. The problem with Nash is that he is a small, smart, quick guy. Those qualities can make for a great offensive player, but they are generally not the qualities you need on defense. On defense you need more length and with they way the playoffs are currently being reffed, you need athletic bulk and strength, both for better defense and for penetrating to the hoop in the presence of contact on offense. Nash and the Suns generally do not deliver there. Stoudemire could potentially address this, but he fell a little short in game 1.

Posted by mpowell | May 7, 2007 6:35 PM

Parker doesn't have a great jump shot, but there's is no rule in basketball more fundamental than the reality that a point guard who can skate into the lane untouched and make a lay-up in traffic without being blocked will score a high percentage of his shots. Who in the NBA is better at driving and making a lay-up? LeBron, probably. Kobe, when he's not triple-teamed. Nash, maybe. Who else?

It's a simple game, if you can drive at ninety-five miles an hour and zip through the tall trees and make a lay-up look as easy as a grin. But simple ain't easy, and penetration is the best way to break down a defense. That's why Parker has been starting on an NBA team since he was twenty. It's talent, not right or wrong.

Posted by Kit Stolz | May 7, 2007 6:39 PM

owenz, just to note a fine point: they did used to play defense in the nba (mr. bill russell, come on down!) back when the refs called contact: they just (other than the "enforcer" type players) didn't play physical defense. they played move-your-feet defense, and when players took a possession "off," they took it off on defense.

speaking as not only cranky but potentially the oldest fan who posts here regularly, i'd say that cranky old fans like team play, ball movement (and its partner, moving without the ball), and fast breaking either when the opportunity presents itself or as a philosophy; cranky old fans hate isolation as a philosophy, over-reliance on cranking up 3s, inability to make an entry pass, and a number of other things along those lines.

PS. i, personally, have nothing against physical play, mind you, but that's certainly not true of everyone, cranky and old or not....

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 6:43 PM

The Spurs remind me of Italian soccer. They play great defense, they flop all over the place, and most of all, they're masterful at pacing the game to their tempo. In other words, it's hard not to despise them, but with a grudging respect.

Whereas the Suns are the Dutch team, with Nash as its Cruyff. The Oranje have never won a World Cup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMZmJ464Nss

I'm a foreigner who has no real sense of what's considered the Right Way or Wrong Way to play. I do know that I like watching the Suns play, and particularly love Nash's midfielder's sensibility in passing. So there's an apparent alliance of newbies who come in from the world of soccer and cranky old fans.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2007 6:48 PM

Howard,
Its my opinion that physical play leads to some of the aspects that you claim not to like. Unless you have a dominant physical player like Shaq in his prime, if the other team is allowed to play physical defense on you, they can make driving the lane and fluid passing very difficult. At that point, forced isolations and spreading the defense by going to the 3-ball can be your best options...

Posted by mpowell | May 7, 2007 7:01 PM

Who in the NBA is better at driving and making a lay-up? LeBron, probably. Kobe, when he's not triple-teamed. Nash, maybe. Who else?

Probably not the popular thing to say, but Stephon Marbury is as good at this anyone is...

Posted by b.schac | May 7, 2007 7:01 PM

mpowell, that's an excellent point, so let me say in my mind while what you say is what many teams do, i think the better response is to move without the ball (see miller, reggie vs. the knicks), run (so as not to let the physical guys set up), and keep taking it to the hole and not getting discouraged and let the other guys get themselves in foul trouble.

the reason i don't mind physical play is that i think hard picks and fighting through them and battling for position under the boards are legitimate parts of the game: i wouldn't want you to think, though, that i like brutal play, if you'll accept the distinction.

btw, since the italian soccer comparison has arisen, it's worth noting (as ac milan's gennaro gattuso did the other day) that even the italians (at least the best of them, like ac milan) don't play italian-style soccer anymore: AC Milan is an attacking team, for instance....

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 7:24 PM

pseudonymous, funny you should mention that: after all, who beat the dutch in the '74 world cup final? the west germans led by beckenbauer and mueller, who were effectively the spurs in that matchup.

(that's not a prediction.)

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 7:28 PM

Funny, I think of the Oranje from that era as somewhat similar to the GS Warriors - a bunch of guys who are called on to play all the positions well, rather than there being a specialized center, PF, etc., who are fixed to that position (just as all the players were expected to attack, defend, etc. in Total Football). Nellie is playing Total Basketball.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 7:50 PM

Nash plays "the right way," regardless of how old the relevant grumpy old man is. The Suns, however, may or may not (depending on the grumpy old man).

All of this is, in my opinion, radically overblown. People talk about Suns/Spurs like it's the 2007 Warriors vs. the 1994 Knicks or 1998 Heat. The Suns in the 05/06 season were something truly unusual, in the FreeDarko POSITIONAL REVOLUTION sense, what with the Diaw/Marion and eventually Diaw/Marion/Tim Thomas frontcourts mucking things up, but the 04/05 and 06/07 Suns might as well be a standard issue 80s fastbreaking team, except for the genius of playing Marion at 4. Which is to say, there's a pendulum, and the Suns are just a logical extension of the swing started by the early 00s Kings and Mavs, a shift that the Spurs themselves have taken part in. The Suns are really entertaining and really good, but they're only revolutionary for people with short memories - I call it the Shaq effect.

The actual revolutionary team seems to be the Warriors, who really are just throwing a bunch of amorphously multitalented wings onto the court - which is to say they're making good on Pat Riley's (!) c. 1983 vision of the Future of Basketball, when he imagined a benchful of Magic Johnsons and Michael Coopers transcending predefined positions and roles - a team of LeBrons, basically. The Warrios aren't there, but they really are doing something different than the Suns.

Posted by Quarterican | May 7, 2007 7:51 PM

The actual revolutionary team seems to be the Warriors, who really are just throwing a bunch of amorphously multitalented wings onto the court - which is to say they're making good on Pat Riley's (!) c. 1983 vision of the Future of Basketball, when he imagined a benchful of Magic Johnsons and Michael Coopers transcending predefined positions and roles - a team of LeBrons, basically.

Quarterican echoes my point about the similarities with the Oranje!

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 7:55 PM

Al, i always thought of Total Football as an attempt to apply the principles of the Brazilian play during the Pele era to a European soccer context. While the Dutch had great ball movement and were certainly more modern looking than the european teams of the '60s, they still had fullbacks, halfbacks, and forwards: they were just freer (man u today plays something like Total Football). in that sense, it was actually beckenbauer's invention of the sweeper role that was more individually radical.

but you and quarterican are onto something important about the warriors: i agree, quarterican, that Nellie is basically trying out Riley's notion of a team full of Magics and Coopers, but you need more than a couple of months to get that system down.

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 7:56 PM

PS. Al, i'm impressed that a young feller like you knows about cruyff and neeskens, given that you would have been in the single digits of age!

Posted by howard | May 7, 2007 8:00 PM

Who played the 4 and 5 druing the Run-TMC era?
Today's Warriors are just a longer, more athletic version of those teams from almost 20 years ago.

Posted by #17 | May 7, 2007 8:10 PM

#17: first, the answer is, "lots of really terrible players." I'm browsing the Warriors early-90s rosters on basketballreference.com, and it's ugly. They did have Tyrone Hill for a couple years, who was a decent 4, but other than that, it's Rod Higgins, Tom Tolbert, Alton Lister, Manute Bol, Uwe Blab. After they broke up Run-TMC (Richmond for Billy Owens, got it hurts to think about), they got slightly better. Owens played the 4, and they had Chris Gatling and Victor Alexander. Then they drafted Webber in 93, and that was the beginning of the end.

Anyway, the current Warriors are much different than Run-TMC. They're not just longer and more athletic -- they're bigger, stronger, and much better defensively, at every position.

Posted by too many steves | May 7, 2007 9:21 PM

Thank you to Al, howard and Quarterican: I've learned plenty from the end of this thread that helps me appreciate better what GS are doing on court.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2007 11:39 PM

The first soccer game I can remember is the '78 Final - I was 8 at the time. So you would have more knowledge about the Dutch teams of the 70s than I would, Howard. I have seen replays of some games, though. (However, I grew up a huge Cosmos fan, and remember Neeskins well from his time there, as well as Cruyff from when he played in the NASL too.)

Posted by Al | May 8, 2007 12:31 AM

ha! although i have a vague recollection of the '66 final itself, the '74 world cup was the first that i watched all the way through (my family lived in london at the time, and so i could watch every match on bbc2) and there's no question that that dutch team was incredibly exciting, don't get me wrong. if you ever get a chance, watch the final on DVD: i won't tell you how the match itself went, but i will say that mueller scored the winning goal, and i've always remembered beckenbauer after the game: "cruyff? who is cruyff?" (he was trying to be funny, but really, he managed to take the great cruyff right out of the match).

i had forgotten, though, that you had seen neeskins with the cosmos (which you've mentioned before).

PS. the other amazing thing is that many of the big stars of the EPL at the time - keegan, dalgleish, francis, sundry others - were all managers by the mid'90s when cable tv made it possible to start following the epl again.

Posted by howard | May 8, 2007 12:45 AM