As a Shaq-trade skeptic, I was feeling vindicated by the initial set of post-trade Suns games. But then Phoenix went on a nice run, and the trade's advocates were feeling vindicated. I held to the true faith, and I think I've been vindicated as Phoenix has now managed to go down 3-0 against San Antonio even though the reconfigured squad was allegedly designed specifically to match up against the Spurs, and even though this looks like a weaker Spurs team than what they've given us in recent years.
« Vengeance is Hers | Main | Iran, Iraq, and Us »
Sweet Vindications
26 Apr 2008 11:49 am
Comments (40)
I'm unsure as to whether the Shaq trade really influenced the outcome of this series. If (a disgruntled) Marion is still on the team, Parker doesn't score as much. Nash still has to guard somebody, so you'd see a mismatch for either Manu or Finley. Plus, assume that Stoudamire is in more foul trouble with less help down low, and Duncan probably scores 30+ every game.
This series has been won and lost in a great coaching matchup, where Pop has been one step ahead of D'Antoni the whole way. Combine that with D'Antoni's refusal to use the bench (especially D.J. Strawberry, who should be getting 5-10 minutes a game just to pressure Parker and change the pace of the game), and you've got a recipe for a Spurs win. Popovich is the great coach of this era, and that doesn't change based on one, albeit huge, roster move on the part of the opposition.
Pop has been one step ahead of D'Antoni the whole way.
If Phoenix loses on Sunday, it would not surprise me at all if D'Antoni is fired.
I would disagree to some extent with Large David — one of the fundamental problems for the Suns this entire series has been Shaq's complete inability to switch on a pick. Granted, there aren't a lot of big guys who can, so I'm not saying it's his "fault" per se, but it does come as a result of him being on the floor.
I would absolutely agree that the primary difference has been coaching. Pop found the weakest (and I do mean weakest) area of the Suns team and has exploited it mercilessly — and the Suns haven't changed their game plan at all to compensate. Just implementing the small suggestions LD makes would be a step forward from what D'Antoni has done.
If Phoenix loses on Sunday, it would not surprise me at all if D'Antoni is fired.
I wouldn't be surprised either, and I'd be happy to have him coach my Raptors. It just might be time for a parting of the ways in Phoenix.
Phoenix needs a new owner, not a new coach. Because of his aversion to the luxury tax, they've given away an unconscionable number of first-round draft picks the last 2 years, some of which could be useful players right now.
+Kurt Thomas could have been a Sun instead of a Spur this series; gee, do you think that might have made a difference?
+James Jones might have been available in the likely event Grant Hill was banged up.
Think about that: the Suns are utterly dependent on Grant Hill being available. You're not likely to win a championship that way.
Not sure how you could say that this is a "weaker Spurs team" after watching Ginobli during this series, and Parker and the entire SA offense last night. Very few wasted possessions and an incredible shooting touch from all quarters, but especially Parker. And this is without even taking into account an extraordinary defensive performance in the real turning point of the series, the third quarter of Game 2.
The Spurs might not win the title this year, but it's difficult to say that the core of the team is weaker thus far during the playoffs.
(especially D.J. Strawberry, who should be getting 5-10 minutes a game just to pressure Parker and change the pace of the game)
I dunno if Strawberry is quick enough to guard Parker. What they really need is a quick small PG - a guy like Rajon Rondo. Too bad they couldn't get a guy like him.
Oh, right...
JBB: I would disagree to some extent with Large David — one of the fundamental problems for the Suns this entire series has been Shaq's complete inability to switch on a pick.
Well, Shaq does sort of switch, if letting the little guy come to you can be considered switching. But he does everything in slow motion and he can barely bring himself to wave his arms at a shot before it goes up. Did he always play like this? Granted, the Suns' shots were all going down last night, but they could have shot half as well and still beat Phoenix.
That said, letting a team intentionally foul a player (Shaq) when he doesn't even have the ball just to stop the offense and send him to the line really spoils the game. That's a loophole the NBA should close.
I agree that this Spurs team is just as good as the last several. Parker has taken a dynamic step forward, and so on.
In the mean time, with a loss tomorrow, Shaq's teams will have been swept seven times in his career. He looks for excuses as soon as things go against him. And in any discussion of the greatest players of this era, that has to be held against him.
I feel bad for D'Antoni. The Suns were irrelevant from the end of the Barkley era through 2003, and he took a team that would have been thrilled to make the eight seed in consecutive years into legitimate contenders for the last four to five years. There's a team out there that they just can't beat that is always in their way.
Looking at Phoenix's financial situation (link in my name), I don't see an easy way to rebuild. Not much money comes off the books this offseason. Grant Hill may leave, but that's only $2MM.
I foresee the Suns grinding it another season with their current core. If that doesn't work, look for big changes during 2009-10; more than $38MM in expiring contracts to play with.
Shaq's teams will have been swept seven times in his career.
I have never seen playoff sweeps held against a player's legacy. We should think less of Shaq because Nick Anderson couldn't hit his free throws? Ridiculous.
FWIW, barring a miracle comeback, this will be only the third time in 15 tries that a team with Shaq has failed to advance past the first round. And in any discussion of the greatest players of this era, that has to be mentioned in his favor.
That said, letting a team intentionally foul a player (Shaq) when he doesn't even have the ball just to stop the offense and send him to the line really spoils the game. That's a loophole the NBA should close.
The NBA could, by calling intentional fouls. But they don't.
Well, Grant Hill is injured.
So eat it, Yglesias!
Well, Grant Hill is injured.
So eat it, Yglesias!
Well, Grant Hill is injured.
So eat it, Yglesias!
I still maintain that Shawn Marion is one of the four or five most valuable players in the NBA, and Phoenix's problem is as simple as that. That plus Kurt Thomas.
The reason you don't hear sweeps used against a player is that there isn't another great player with that kind of history of getting swept year after year. Especially in seven game series.
Spurs with Duncan have failed to get out of the first round one time - the year Duncan was hurt in didn't play.
I read somewhere that 70% of NBA fans polled on this trade said it was a bad one. Conventional wisdom rules!
LeBron James' record in playoff sweeps: 0-1.
An inauspicious start to his career.
There's the small matter that the Spurs remain diving, whining, fouling bastards. The irony in this matchup is that the coach with the Italian name and the Italian experience always loses to the team that plays like they're in Serie A.
Minutes of research later...
Shaq's record in playoff sweeps is 8-6.
A breakdown of the losses:
First round: 94, 07
Conference semis: 99*
Conference finals: 96*
NBA finals: 95*, 98
*-Loss to eventual NBA champion.
Correction: Move that 98 loss from the NBA finals to the conference finals.
re Grant Hill is hurt.
Typical Suns fan.... making excuses for an inferior team... Just like last season!
Wah wah!
"...even though the reconfigured squad was allegedly designed specifically to match up against the Spurs..."
Shaq couldn't defend the pick and roll when he was in his prime. Can't imagine why they'd think he'd match up with the Spurs at age 36...
$45 million plus luxury tax for Zero playoff wins -- D'Antoni will be the lucky one to be relieved of this burden...
Matt, you can't possibly defend the Hack-a-Shaq and still claim that the NBA is good basketball, can you? Outside of low blows in boxing, there is nothing more despicable in sports than Hack-a-Shaq. I can't believe they haven't made some intentional foul call for that in the 15 years shaq's been around.
So what you are agreeing to is that almost half the time in his career, Shaq's team has been so overmatched that they couldn't get a single win. Even the Nuggets manage to get one game per series loss.
Getting swept by the champs is still getting swept. And if Shaq were 50% of the player he thinks he is, then it wouldn't have happened year after year.
I'm a huge Spurs fan, so I'm more than pleased with the way the series is going. Still, I really like guys like Nash and Hill and, as an erstwhile Lakers fan, Shaq. Seriously, there's a lot made on many of the fan boards about "whining Suns fans," but I wonder how much of this complaining "culture" within the organization affects the team's capacity to remain mentally tough in situations like this.
Over the last several seasons, I've heard D'Antoni complain about calls constantly. At least once last night Stoudemire was too busy trying to get a call to get back on defense. I think D'Antoni is a very good coach - and it would absurd to fire him - and I have to assume that his complaining is at least 80 percent gamesmanship. But if you play the complain game, it can really backfire on you.
So what you are agreeing to is that almost half the time in his career...
You cannot possibly be this dumb.
Let's read again what I posted: Shaq's record in playoff sweeps is 8-6.
That is not half the time in his career. It means, on the average, once per playoff season Shaq's team is part of a sweep, for better or worse.
From the 1994 postseason through last season's playoffs, there have been 46 series sweeps. They used to be fairly common (in 1994-99, an average of four per postseason) but the frequency has dropped off by almost a third since then.
My stab at an explanation: In the 90s, the NBA went through two rounds of expansion, diluting the talent pool and creating a greater variance in playoff teams' quality. The larger the disparity in talent, the higher the odds of a sweep, no?
As time went on, the variance (standard deviation, if you will) in talent has dropped. Therefore, fewer sweeps.
Expansion of first-round series from five games to seven certainly reduced sweeps as well.
I don't understand what's wrong with Hack-A-Shaq. It may be aesthetically displeasing, but there's a simple way for any player to deal with it: make your free throws. The real question is why Shaq hasn't improved his free throw shooting in his 15 years in the league.
Seriously, I am only a part-time rec player who wasn't even good enough to make my high school team, but I can easily make 75% from the line. Is there any reason why professionals should not be able to make at least 60%? (60% is enough to average 1.2 points a possession, which is well above the NBA average).
I don't like H-a-S on aesthetic grounds. That said, yes, Shaq should make his free throws. Also, this is the equivalent to baseball's tactic of the intentional walk. In baseball's case, a punishment (free base) is stood on its head to gain an advantage (avoid having to pitch to a feared batter).
...there is nothing more despicable in sports than Hack-a-Shaq.
The hack-a-shaq is a thing of beauty. I say this as a Miami Heat fan and as a Spurs fan, so I've watched it unfold from both sides. Shaq's "I am the greatest" BS is totally exposed as the fraud that it is by the hack-a-shaq. If he could hit FT's nobody would be talking about it. Intentionally fouling bad free throw shooters has been part of basketball since the dawn of time.
If you don't like it then go watch (or better yet play!) ultimate frisbee, the greatest sport of all time. Intentional fouls are vehemently and universally disdained in Ultimate, but as far as basketball goes, hack away if the other team can't make you pay for it!
Besides which, how is fouling someone to prevent an easy layup or to "send a message" about protecting the paint fundamentally any different ethically or aesthetically from fouling Shaq in order to prevent his more effective teammates from scoring? These other intentional fouls happen all the time and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it.
Is the goal to give an aging, lumbering, low skill behemoth like Shaq an even greater advantage than he already has when it comes to basketball?
One thing that many teams often forget is how versatile and adaptable the Spurs are. An article a few years ago made a very astute observation that the Spurs, unlike the Bulls and the Lakers in their heyday, did not impose their style of play on their opponents. Rather, they adapt. Or emulate their opponents' styles and beat them. This was on display in Game - 23-4 fast break points in favor of the Spurs? Is this because the Suns were lugging along 300+ lb of rotting whale blubber called Shaq? Does $20M a year not buy you the service of a tug boat?
After tomorrow, seven of his fifteen trips to the playoffs will have ended in sweeps. That sounds like close to half to me. Six out of fourteen sounds like close to half to me.
Wilt Chamberlain should not be blamed for losing to the Celtics over and over again. But his team was only swept out once in his career - and that was 2-0.
As soon as a series gets tough for Shaq, he starts throwing teammates and officials and coaches under the bus. He never admits responsibility. We all got to see it again after the first game in this series when all of his comments to the papers were that he was going to play the way he plays and if he got six charges, then he got six charges.
He does not have the mental toughness to be considered among the all-time greats. All of the greatest players lost series in their careers, but they all found a way to make almost all of them competitive. Shaq's repeated inability to do so keeps him out of the pantheon.
After tomorrow, seven of his fifteen trips to the playoffs will have ended in sweeps. That sounds like close to half to me. Six out of fourteen sounds like close to half to me.
14 or 15 series =! a career.
Just admit you're stupid and we'll call it a night, m'kay?
Oh, and Shaq has been on the winning side of sweeps more than Kobe, Larry Bird and the Admiral.
So, if you type as much one letter to downplay that, you've negated your whole argument.
Curtis, I'm no Shaq lover; in fact, I've been fairly agnostic to him his entire career.
But by offering such a lame argument as your sweeps=bad theory - a stand you haven't once tried to defend with, you know, facts - well, you deserve to be smacked down.
"I don't understand what's wrong with Hack-A-Shaq. It may be aesthetically displeasing, but..."
That's the point, it's aesthetically horrible and it damages the fans' enjoyment of the game, unless they're fans of the team doing the Hack-a-Shaq. Professional basketball is a spectator sport -- it exists for the fans. The rules shouldn't be set to arrive at some Platonic ideal of fairness, they should be set to give us competetive, exciting, interesting games to watch.
Comments closed May 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
spurs didn't play well in the reg season, but i'm not sure how you say this is a weaker spurs team. yes, everyone's a year old. but parker's young and getting better, duncan's not much worse for wear, manu's about the same. and the bench, while old, may be better this year -- ime and kurt have been good pickups, which somewhat offsets barry and finley being a year older. so, on paper, the spurs should be about the same as last year, even if they didn't perform that way during regular season (they had lots of injuries to key players, not just the big 3 but barry).
will be interesting to see how spurs do in next round (i don't see phx coming back from 3-0).
Posted by dj superflat | April 26, 2008 11:58 AM