http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime
1. Is Spurs' Speed-Ball A le Formula?
By J.A. Adande
ESPN.com
The Spurs should no longer be bound by our old perceptions of them.
The only reason the Spurs don't get more billing as le contenders is because of our own biases, our tendency to think of them as the same aging team that hasn't won a le since 2007, back when we envisioned a bright future for LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.
These 2012 Spurs are younger, faster and deeper. Which means they'll be up against the conventional playoff wisdom that speed and depth aren't the ways to win in the playoffs.
It's still hard to adjust to the Spurs as a different team. But their young, fast guys play almost as many minutes as the slow dudes. And how do we classify Tony Parker? Because he's been in the league 11 years we think of him as older, but he's still only 29.
We should be thinking of him as a serious MVP candidate. Parker is the heart of the Spurs the way Rajon Rondo is the most vital organ of the Celtics. It's not that Parker is scoring more (his 18.4 points per game don't even crack his top four seasons), but he's doing a better job than ever of running a team the way a point guard is supposed to.
We can definitely put Parker in the fast category. Ask Steve Blake, whom Parker statued on his way to a layup. (I know statued isn't a word, but there's no other way to describe the way Parker made Blake look like Lady Liberty with a full-speed change of direction.)
Collectively the Spurs put 112 points on the Lakers. Thirty-six of their points came in the second quarter, when the pace picked up and the reserves got extended playing time. Both are decided advantages for the Spurs against the Lakers.
And that statement reminded me of how it used to be for teams going against Mike D'Antoni's Suns, when they'd get caught up in the pace and the Suns delighted in that, knowing if both teams put up a lot of shots the Suns would make more of theirs. This season the Spurs are fourth in the league in field goal percentage and second in 3-point shooting, so if anyone wants to challenge them to target practice they welcome it.
"We are playing with a much faster pace," said Tim Duncan, who finished with 19 points and eight rebounds. "That's the way of the NBA. That's how it's going. You need to get the ball up the floor. Teams are too big and guys are too good defensively. You need to get the ball up the floor and make things happen early."
After all of those years of tormenting the Suns, how messed up would it be if the Spurs played the Suns in the first round and beat them by jacking their old style?
The longer-term questions begin with whether speed-ball can turn into a championship. It never did for those Suns.
And can the depth advantage come into play as much in the postseason, when their reserves will play more minutes against the other team's starters? And in the playoffs the Spurs can count on spending about 38 minutes playing against Kobe Bryant, who missed his sixth consecutive game because of a shin injury.
The Spurs secretly want Bryant to play in San Antonio Friday night so they can get an idea of what it would be like to play against this Lakers team with him on the court. They're still getting a feel for this possible playoff opponent after playing them for the first time this season last week.
That one didn't go so well for them. Andrew Bynum dominated with 30 rebounds and 16 points, and Pau Gasol had 21 points.
Spurs coach Gregg Popovich tinkered with the lineup this time, using Tiago Splitter instead of DeJuan Blair to counter the Lakers' height. Splitter couldn't stop Bynum in the first quarter, when he scored 13 points, but after the pace picked up in the second quarter the Lakers were never able to establish Bynum again.
If the Spurs hadn't won this, or at least made it closer than the pounding the Lakers gave them in San Antonio last week, the Spurs might as well have sent their main players home for the summer, because there'd be no reason to believe they could beat the Lakers in the playoffs with Bryant back.
At the moment, it's nothing for them to worry about. They have the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference and the Lakers are third, which means they could let the Thunder take the Lakers out in the second round. The Spurs match up better with the Thunder. Strange how a regular season that Popovich treated as a mere precursor to the playoffs by strategically sitting out his players could actually set up the Spurs for an optimal postseason run based on seeding.
As long as the Spurs show their style can work in the playoffs. If we're not going to consider them as the same old Spurs, it means we can't consider them proven.
"If the Spurs hadn't won this, or at least made it closer than the pounding the Lakers gave them in San Antonio last week, the Spurs might as well have sent their main players home for the summer, because there'd be no reason to believe they could beat the Lakers in the playoffs with Bryant back."
He's an idiot and a homer.
His articles are a good medicine for insomnia. They'll put you to sleep in two seconds.
Still an idiot and LAL sucker but he's the first to publicly announce them as not old.
It used to be that people would talk about the Spurs like they were ZOMBIES.
http://www.aolnews.com/2009/07/29/po...-championship/
Spurs aren't Zombies any more.
If they are, they are the FAST Zombies not slow ones.
If you guys feel like merging this thread with the other one...feel free.
If the Spurs hadn't won this, or at least made it closer than the pounding the Lakers gave them in San Antonio last week, the Spurs might as well have sent their main players home for the summer, because there'd be no reason to believe they could beat the Lakers in the playoffs with Bryant back."
That is one of the most atrocious sentences I have ever read, as far as structure is concerned.
I don't see how this article pokes fun at the Spurs by calling them zombies. It seems as if it's main thesis is to tip its hat to Pop.
No SR 20. The Adande article is fine. The link I have in my last post was from 2009 and talked about how the Old Spurs were like dangerous zombies.
That's what I'm referring to. It seems more of a homage to Pop than anything else.
Homage yes. But, leave it to the 4 letter to call a team Zombies. If this was the Celtics, they'd probably call them the Knights of The Parquet Table or some BS like that.
True, I guess I have begun to grow semi-immune to the ignorance on the Spurs.
Another article about the "new" Spurs:
The Recipe in San Antonio: Pace and Space (and Parker)
Gregg Popovich had a proven system that had worked for a decade, but when faced with his stars’ decline in athleticism, he oddly turned to pace and space for entirely different reasons. For Popovich and the Spurs, pace and space weren’t mechanisms to best use their physical advantages; they were the most sensible way to mitigate the very natural decline of a basketball ins ution inching further and further away from his prime.
Tim Duncan is still a star, but he is not the Tim Duncan of old. He works from the block as a reliable force, but not a dominant one. He rebounds consistently, but needs ample help. He still bears every bit of defensive knowledge he has ac ulated, but has lost the ability to shade every stage of a pick-and-roll without surrendering a sliver of advantage to the offense. He is productive and capable, but Popovich was among the first to realize that what Duncan needed most was pace and space.
But what Duncan needed, in a more literal sense, was Tony Parker.
http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.c...ce-and-parker/
Good article!
Whern writers start talking this much about Spurs, I tend to worry, cause something it's not good. Hope it's just me.
btw: "Ask Steve Blake, whom Parker statued on his way to a layup"
I think maybe some of these writers are trying to stretch their word counts, make witty wordplay, and in the case of Adande, are trusted by their editors (or he's self-editing).Whern writers start talking this much about Spurs, I tend to worry, cause something it's not good. Hope it's just me.
btw: "Ask Steve Blake, whom Parker statued on his way to a layup"
He does make some nice points about the Spurs though. Mel's article was also good too. Thanks.
Adande also said today on ATH that "you have to give the Spurs an asterisk in 99".
Adande HATES the Spurs. He's a total La honk. Stephen A. too. They'd both pick the Lakers as their preferred team to make the Finals, then the Thunder, then the Clips, probably. Bucher is a huge Kobe guy too, but at least he likes Manu a little.
Adande is an LA guy. Why are you guys surprised?
The only reason the Spurs don't get more billing as le contenders is because of our own biases.......
He says its because of aging.....there are more biases working here than that. Try low ratings, no "sizzle", small market.
ALL OF THEM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
