2003-2004 NBA Season (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

I had another long post to debate this stuff, but why bother.

I never failed to disclose that Sheed was new in the 4th DET/IND game, but I did point out what no one else was that Indy was without their starting PG, and we saw what that can lead to last night.

I never twist stats and in fact basically everything I've said in this thread I have heard parroted by a myriad of sports journalists. I realize that you think that you know more than both myself and all of them so it doesn't matter to you, but I think such an attitude of self-reverence is crazy.

After LA won game 3 in LA, I didn't hear LA fans saying "so what, it was a must win for LA and a game that SA could care less about, it means nothing in the series and LA still won't win".

However, I have heard that after the Minny win. I realize you can't see the disparity there, but other people can.


There will be no point in putting an LA or DET win in my face because I've NEVER SAID THEY CAN'T WIN. I haven't even said that if they win it's only because the other team didn't try.

But many of the LA fans have said that.

Yet I'm the unreasonable one.

 

[Brandon_T]

Are you talking to me Seth???? I don't think in any of my posts I have ever put a Detroit win in anyones face. If I did, please point it out to me...

 

[Seth Paxton]

On Al and the Pacers.

One thing to also consider Lew is that before game 1 Al went and got a new tatoo. He had to wear bandages during game 1 since it was still fresh.

Hey, how about waiting 2 weeks on that shit. Contrast this with Ron Artest basically turning off his cell phone AT HOME (except for his close family just in case there are problems or they need to talk) during the post-season. He even said "my friends know that this is the critical time in my professional life, my job, and that I need to eliminate any distractions".

Al can buy cars and get tatoos by no later than June 20th I'd guess, but maybe sooner if he brings his game 2 offense.

He also had a freaking huge layoff before the Heat series which might have been a great time for both a new car and a new tatoo. Definitely a lot better than right before the toughest games of his career.

I like Al's game and he seems like a nice kid, but he still plays (and with off-court choices like this acts) very young, much younger than some of the other guys on the team in his age group.


The one thing about Kenny Anderson at this point is that he is very rusty. He came in during one of the Miami games and was terrible, slow and out of it, which allowed Miami to get back in it almost.

Also Rick likes AJ to use his size as a defender. That's great, but way overrated in my book. Jamal is NOT a good defender. He makes some plays and isn't as bad as people think, but he can't stop a strong PG from blowing by him.

However, his +/- is always near the top for the team, even if the other starters are all over the place. Meanwhile AJs +/- is almost always awful, at least in the last month or so.

Just ask yourself, if Jamal is such a bad defender then how is it his +/- is almost always in the black, and never deep in the red, despite getting beat so much.

The answer can be seen a few plays last night. Two different times Jamal made passes that myself and everyone around me thought was going into the stands. Both times they were actually incredible passes right on the money to a guy on the baseline about 3 feet from the hoop. I think in both cases the guys blew the layup (not one of the many blocks which makes it that much more aggrevating).

Meanwhile AJ takes the ball out of bounds about 10 feet from me and misses Ron getting wide open about 4 feet from him. That gets closed out before he reacts so he ends up throwing it basically directly at a DET player with no Pacer within 5 feet of the ball. It was awful and IIRC led to a transition bucket.

Jamal is a great passer. Not good, but great. He has an adequate shot for a guy who is not the offensive focus (unlike PGs like Cassell or Francis). AJ is a 2 being asked to play the 1, and is HALF the PG that either Kevin Ollie or Erik Strickland were.

Backup PG is really the Pacers biggest weakness now by a large margin, although the way Harrington and Fred Jones have reacted to injuries is also a trouble spot.


Brandon, I agree that the STYLE of the games would lead you to expect no blowouts, but I can see it coming emotionall with the team and in HOW they have been playing. DET gave the Pacers about 4 bad quarters in the first 2 games. I don't expect that in the first home game for them. Without those quarters I think Indy, playing as they have been even back with Miami (and a little even against BOS) could be in trouble.

I thought that they would improve in game 2, but instead they got worse and after the first quarter DET got better.

DET does lack enough scoring options which makes it a bit easier for Indy to get stops, but DET was able to put the wood to NJ with strong DEF and getting more transition looks, and I think it can happen again.

I do think that a game 3 loss will get the teams full attention and perhaps guys will find away to get their games back on track due to this.

And of course things like foul trouble can really effect the outcome. Wallaces had it in game 1, Tinsley and Artest had it in game 2.


And joy of joys I got to sit next to a guy last night that actually said "there are fouls on every play, its just when the refs decide to call them". Yeah, there is no difference in contact from play to play. :rolleyes

I thought the game was called pretty well last night. I think the incorrect double dribble was partly earned because he did start to do it and from behind you would not see that his hand didn't touch the ball. My angle was from behind as well and it really looked like the correct call.

That's when another ref needs to overrule it, but they aren't always watching the same part of the floor.

I thought the ball Ben put into the stands (just 5 rows in front of me in fact) looked like it might be going back down, but it wasn't a great angle to judge. I only watched parts of the game when I got home and didn't review that section.

But I definitely left feeling like Indy had been outplayed and didn't even deserve to be within the Reggie shot of tying. And I didn't feel anything like "the refs screwed us". It was called pretty much like a typical NBA game, and in fact making no call on the Prince block was an extremely tough call for any ref and was correct.

I'm certain that most guys who bitch about the refs couldn't have differentiated that play from a real goaltend or foul from just a few inches of alteration on where the ball or Prince's hand were.

It also goes to show that "hometown cooking" is BS. That was a superstar at home to tie the game stuck with a non-call on what appeared to be an impossible come from behind block without body contact/arm contact. If there was such bias that play would have been one of the easiest ever to give to Reggie.

Also, on post play. While there is always contact there are rules about hooking, elbows above the shoulder, certain types of leverage, and open faced hands in the back. All of these details are explained to teams before pre-season so that coaches can train players to deal with it, and then the refs practice making the "new" calls (when rules are adjusted) during the pre-season.

So no, there aren't "always fouls on every play that the refs just decide when to pick". There are mistakes, sometimes bad ones, and I often wish that refs could be held more publically accountable like the players and coaches. But that's about it IMO.

 

[Jan H]

Zeke should have gotten hurt more often. He was absolutely ON FIRE on that injured leg, as he consistently drained shot after shot in Cooper's mug. Anyway, the Pistons were probably the better team in '88, just as the Lakers of '89 were better (and playing the finest basketball the NBA has ever seen, IMO) but got swept when Magic and Scott went down for the series. So, turnabout is fair play.

Looking forward to the Lakers/Lobos tonight. Should be mighty physical.

Pacers/Pistons is so evenly matched if I were a betting man, I'd flip a coin.

 

[Carlo_M]

Okay, as long as it's legal, I have no problem with Hack-a-Shaq. After all, if he learns to shoot em, it goes away.

But I do have one question, and as a Lakers fan I like to think I've watched nearly all of their games...

Has Hack-a-Shaq actually ever worked?

And by that, I mean the other team actually wins the game. Sure sometimes I've seen it shave points off of a lead. But never anywhere near enough to even give the other a real chance to win the game.

If it had cost the Lakers games in the past I'd understand employing it, but I can't honestly remember a team coming back and winning a game w/ the Hack-a-Shaq tactic.

Anyone remember a time where that did happen?

 

[Jan H]

No, I haven't. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Like the Wolves tonight. They were revealed for what they are: a jump-shooting team with absolutely no inside game. Garnett had the softest 22 points in the history of playoff basketball. I don't care if Shaq goes 0-22, if the Wolves can't score more than a few token buckets inside, this series will be over in 5. Props to the Glove for answering the naysayers.

 

[Carlo_M]

Sure I know teams get desperate as time winds down. But why subscribe to a tactic that has *never* worked?

Actually, I've seen teams purposefully foul another team (whoever gets the ball) and seen that work, but never the Hack-a-Shaq and I have a guess as to why:

It takes your team (and the game) out of rhythm. It's almost a "give-up" move - like saying "we can't beat you square up so we have to hack Shaq." That message gets across to the team employing H.A.S. They aren't dumb. It's like when teams get 4 fouls on the other team's stars and then try to go out of their offense to pick up fouls 5 and 6 for that guy. More often than not it backfires because it takes a team out of what they do.

Until it actually works I'll never understand why teams go to a tactic that Don Nelson (who sits on the rules committee) invented but has never worked.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

What I WON'T DO, which is what annoys the shit out of me, is say any of the following silly claims...

1) Indy lost because they thought they could just turn it on and it caught up with them

2) Minny lost because they didn't have any emotions in the game

3) Detroit lost because Ben wanted to prove to Rip that the Pistons are "his team"

If LA wins it will be because they WON.

But why not, if those things were true...there would be nothing wrong with a person saying them. The difference is that if Indiana loses, or if L.A. loses or whatever, and a person tries to make a claim that said team only lost because they didn't take it seriously, and that's not actually true they will be called out for it.

Seth, I find it interesting when you say on one hand that a lot of your stats are also used by national sports writers and stuff, in I dunno an attempt to have more credibility added to your opinion,
but you forget that many national sports writers and not just the ones working for the L.A. Times pointed out that the Lakers didn't give a damn about game 2. As a Laker fan its not my job to point out when the Spurs do or don't sleep walk, because f I try to say that San Antonio slept walked through a game, then I can here people acusing me of just being an arogant Laker fan and not really being able to tell if/when a team like the Spurs walks through a game.

Thing is though, if a guy like Chris Farmer would've been in this thread and said that they didn't care about game 3 I probably would not have disagreed with him.
It seems like it is ok for everyone else to call their team out for not giving a damn at a particular point in time, accept when the Laker fans do it we get accused of not giving the other team as much credit even though the specific Laker fans carrying on this discussion with you, Carlo and myself have done nothing of that sort.

On to tonight's game. I honestly wasn't impressed with either team's energy level tonight, especially at times in the first half. I think they both picked it up in the third and forth quarters, andmade that game interesting. If not for for their 3 3 pointers in a row in the final session this game might not have even been as close as it was though. As for the Hack-A-Shaq thing, no it never works. Reason being ok, so Shaq is 8 for 22 from the line tonight, so that's 8 points. 8 points is a 3 to 4 possession difference in the game, and since people only seem to employ this strategy to get back in a game, then that just adds to the troubles. The other reason its a bad strategy is that it can put you in the penalty rather quick, and so then if you foul someone like Kobe that means he's going to the line which happened a few times late in the game.

The Lakers won, which is what I expected, though personally neither team played at their best tonight IMO. Cassel being out injured did not help the Wolves tonight, by that I mean it didn't provide any kind of emotional boost, although he played well when he did play.

I tell you that just when I'm ready to ship Devin George to the Clippers or something he has a game where he makes some clutch baskets.

Lakers win game 4.
Wolves win game 5.
Lakers win game 6.

As for Indiana and Detroit, I expect Detroit will win tomorrow, but I don't see a 16 point blow-out or anything of the sorts. I actually enjoyed the second half of the game yesterday (all I watched) more than most of the game tonight.

 

[Carlo_M]

And just so you don't think it's the biased West Coast saying this, there was a whole argument on ESPN or ESPN2 last night and the byline was:

Is it good defense or bad offense?

Referring, of course, to the Detroit/Indy matchup.

So it ain't just us Lakers or West Coast fans who talk about such things, it's a national discussion by major sportswriters and analysts (who bigger than ESPN?).

 

[Gabe D]

Backup PG is really the Pacers biggest weakness now by a large margin

I agree completely. I really hope Jamison Brewer stays with the team, as I'm very excited to see what he might be able to do if he actually got some minutes.

 

[Gabe D]

I also think that it should be obvious to everyone that the Pacers must win Game 4. Whether or not they win the series, the title, or any other game at all ever, they absolutely must win Game 4 in Detroit.

Why?

Because if they don't it will ruin my birthday.

(I believe the Pacers are 1-0 all time on my birthday. )

 

[george kaplan]

Well I'm not sure I follow that exactly, but I think I'm safe in assuming you're talking about me. So, I will just elaborate briefly.

Yes, I've said that if the Lakers lose it'll be due to lack of effort, not inferior talent. But, I'll rephrase it slightly. If I watch the Lakers put in the effort, and they lose a series, I'll admit I was wrong and the other team was better. But if they lose and they play half-assed, then I won't be convinced that they aren't the superior team talent-wise, though clearly they'd be inferior motivation-wise.

Game 2 was a case in point. The Lakers lost, but they did not bring their A game. That was a sorry ass lackadaiscal effort. And I've heard many national media voices say the same thing. Most recently, last night by Charles Barkley.

The following opinion obviously irritates a lot of people, but it's my opinion, and until I see evidence otherwise (namely lots of Laker hustle in 4 Laker losses), I'll continue to believe it:

The Lakers are the best team. IF they play their hardest, they will win a seven game series against any other team in the NBA. Unfortunately, the probability of their playing their hardest is much lower than I wish it were. They may very well lose. If so, it is much, much more likely that they did so by beating themselves and not putting in the effort, although it is possible, they will do so because they tried their best and were beaten by a superior team, though I have yet to see any evidence of this.

In the end Seth, "why" one team beats another is something we'll probably never agree upon, but it's also basically irrelevant. It's all about scoreboard, and if the Lakers lose (to the Pacers or anybody else), I'll give my prop to the winners (though I'll still be entitled to my opinion as to "why").

 

[Seth Paxton]

First, again last night, as with every pre-game, in-game, and post-game analysis, I saw another reporter/commentator pull out STATS to describe some aspect of the game. Collins put up Minny's FG% allowed, their road record, their own FT%, and something else to show why they are a team that can win in another team's gym.

Now I realize that you will probably now say "well Collins is a hack" but the dude did PLAY and COACH and even if he wasn't a championship coach that's about 900 times more than both myself AND any of you. So to dismiss stats, in this case even the same stats I was using, seems to be pretty naive and silly given the fact that basically every single professional team does rely on them heavily.

Go ahead and say they can be used to prove anything, but I will tell you that this is only true when they are intentionally twisted, when counter-stats are suppressed, and when full disclosure of the situation that generated those stats has not been made.

But when someone says "Barry Bonds is most dangerous HR hitter of our time because he hits bombs at a rate of XXX per at bat" that's not twisting it. They might go on to say that he hit XXX HRs in a more HR friendly era, and that this makes it harder to say if he really was as good as Mays and Ruth or not, but that is again the use of MORE STATS (the stats of total HRs per season) being used.

None of it is just some old-timer saying "Ruth got bored most of the time and any time he felt like it he could hit 100 in a season. Your stats are just you twisting the facts to support Bonds against Ruth."

That's my last defense of stats. Watch EVERY F'ING analyst in the business, from Doc Rivers to David Aldridge to Jack Ramsey and you will see stats as a focal point to show an aspect of REALITY that has been observed and measured.




Second, in discussing the East finals so far Bob Kravitz of the Star talked to Donnie Walsh about the games so far, basically asking him if this really is just great defense.

Per the Star Walsh said

"What I don't want is for the NBA to go to the other extreme, like the All-Star game, where it's basically a dunking line," Walsh said. "But I think we should look at this as a league. If you look at some of the films from when Larry (Bird) played, those were physical, but nowhere near as physical as it is today. If a guy went on the post, they tried to knock him out a little bit. Now you watch Jermaine and Rasheed (Wallace), and it's like a wrestling match. (seth note - he went on to clarify that he means on both sides, not just DET doing it, not even just these 2 teams)

Thanks Bad Boys (that's where it really started), this is the legacy you left for the East.

But seriously, both teams have had stretches of bad shooting. I think most of game 1 for Indy, not so much Detroit except Sheed (continued to game 2), but both teams in the 1st of game 2 could not hit the open looks no matter how close or good they were.

There is no reason why these teams can't play into at least the upper 80's against each other, even with the same defense we've seen so far.



Third, LA's bench shooting the lights out on 3's was a huge factor. And the move of the night was Phil Jackson putting Kobe on Wally to cool him down. Instead of going away from Wally to counter, Minny forced the issue to bad effect.

As soon as I saw that 9-1 run to bump the lead from 2 up to 10, I knew it was over. Maybe Minny needs to sit Sam after all because game 3 looked an awful lot like game 1, except instead of Shaq shooting FTs better than his norm we had George shooting 3s better than his norm. Minny again seemed to fall back into some quick shots when LA pushed the lead back up. Along that line, much of the time it seems like Spree is Minny's real floor leader. I've always thought the guy was smarter and more mature than he was given credit for, all because of one serious loss of temper. Too bad he did that to himself, his image might have been 100% different if he hadn't.

LA has really been good with some of the intangibles like that, things you wouldn't expect but which show up on championship runs (think Bucky Dent's HR in 78 for example). They already had Fisher's 3, now George put on a clinic, things are falling into place for LA it looks like.



Fourth, as painful as it was to see, Prince's block definitely goes down as one of the greatest post-season moments ever I think, at least if Detroit advances (unforunately when your team gets bumped those plays tend to get a bit more forgotten).

So far we had a Reggie 3 to win it and a fast break block to win it (effectively in each case of course). Two incredible endings that I will be able to enjoy a lot more if Indy wins the series than if they lose.

 

[Sebastian]

Fourth, as painful as it was to see, Prince's block definitely goes down as one of the greatest post-season moments ever I think, at least if Detroit advances (unforunately when your team gets bumped those plays tend to get a bit more forgotten).

I saw the replay, it looked like the ball hit the backboard exactly the same time he blocked the ball. Isn't that goal tending?

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Fourth, as painful as it was to see, Prince's block definitely goes down as one of the greatest post-season moments ever I think, at least if Detroit advances

Well, Seth, at least you'll know how Pistons fans feel every time we see replays of Larry Bird stealing Isiah's inbound pass and passing the ball to Dennis Johnson for that layup.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah Scott, that's basically exactly what I thought on that play. I thought at first maybe it was goaltending because the ball's postition on the rim was blocked by the backboard border where I was sitting. Once that wasn't called (correctly) I felt screwed. I also thought what Sebastian thought, that it was already on the rim or backboard, but it looks like it wasn't quite there yet.

Actually, my first reaction was to see who got the ball or if it would go out of bounds (I was praying for that). I had already given up on Indy before that, not in that "they suck" way but in the "hey, you never know but basically they have already lost and it would take a miracle".

Getting the miracle snatched away was brutal.



OK, Artest flips off NO ONE in particular, I think the court actually, certainly it wasn't against the hometown fans nor the Pistons, and gets a 10K fine.

Malone, the guy that smashed Isiah's jaw with an intentional blow, clearly and admittedly sends a violent message to the Wolves and gets a 7500 fine.

Now seriously, WTF world are we living in when an intentional foul meant to hurt a guy is less discouraged than expressing your frustration at failure by raising your middle finger.

Had Ron done it to someone it might have been worse, but even then is that action really worse than smashing a guy in the neck? According to the NBA, no.

But ask yourself this, you are mad at a guy so you flip him off, he comes over and gives you the Malone shiver and drops you. The cops come and YOU spend more time in jail than him. Fair? It sure as hell wouldn't happen. He'd be in jail for assault AND you'd be able to sue him. At worst someone might say that it was inappropriate to flip him off.

Good thing the NBA doesn't run real life for us. I just heard Wilbon on PTI say he couldn't see it. I know I didn't see it and I was also there. The crowd didn't react to it, no one did at the time. I actually wonder when someone did notice it.



BTW, since Brandon and I had a little fight over Indy not shooting well, I'd just like to add that I saw David Aldridge say the SAME THING as me. Indy has not been in synch on offense the last THREE games, before DET, and has shot the ball poorly. DET did improve their defense after the first quarter in game 2, but Indy has offensive issues that a championship team can not have.

Besides a great defense, though not DET great, Indy's primary reasons for being a top team are multiple scoring options, a deep bench and some solid rebounding. Right now Indy is running without 2 key parts (scoring and bench). As the phrase often goes even by great defenders, in the NBA great defense can not stop great offense, it only hinders it and forces it to something less productive. Indy, playing well, could get some good shots and hit them. Not playing well makes them chum for the defensive shark that DET is.

After game 1 this gave me confidence because they won despite those issues and I figured they would get that stuff worked out. Now I wonder if they have hit a self-induced spiral right as they run into a defense that won't give them a break.

The only good news for Indy is that Detroit just doesn't have a real offense. They have Rip, they have Billups at times, and when healthy Sheed gives them a little bit more outside shooting. But they have very little 3 ability (consistantly) and not a ton of movement outside of the terrific Rip.

I think Indy has a false sense of security because of that, they recognize that they can shut down DET and perhaps don't feel the importance of getting their own quality scores.


Speaking on those lines, consider the Prince block from another view. Everyone loves that it appropriately ended with a block. But how about the fact that just seconds before that it was INDY who was about to tie, maybe win, thanks to a powerful inside block by JO (of Ben IIRC). That gave the ball back to Indy eventually as well as keeping DET from getting that critical basket.

So either way it went, it was going to be decided by a terrific defensive play.


Also, it is the offensive issues that I think will cost Indy tonight. Teams generally don't get their shot back on the road, especially bench guys like Al and Fred Jones. Look for more bad jump shooting from Indy and unless DET also goes flat in front of the home crowd (doubtful) I still think it's another rough game for me.

I think they can regroup by game 4 no matter what.

For once I'm really hoping I'm wrong.

 

[Brandon_T]

Man Seth, I am loving this stuff. All I want from anybody other than a Detroit fan is acknowledgment of the fact that Detroit PROBABLY, not definatly would have put the game away when that BULL S#$& double dribble call was made.

I know it doesn't matter now, but it just sticks in my craw how ESPN didn't even cover it or say anything about it. They were up by 6 at the time, if I recall. Don't know why it bothers me so much, guess I should just let it go, lol.

Wish I was at the game tonight, but can't afford to go. Hoping for better offense from both teams tonight, but better from the Pistons of couse...

Thanks Bad Boys (that's where it really started), this is the legacy you left for the East.

Hey, we may be suffering now, but I will take the three championships, 88,89,90. And before anyone says anything, I am counting 88 because of the nice phantom foul on Laimbeer at the end of game six. Yesterday on a local show, David Stern admitted for the first time that there was no foul and it was a "unfortunate" error.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

All I want from anybody other than a Detroit fan is acknowledgment of the fact that Detroit PROBABLY, not definatly would have put the game away when that BULL S#$& double dribble call was made.

Considering how much the Pistons were struggling to score in the last couple of minutes of both Game 1 & 2, it's a pretty big assumption that they would have scored on that possession. There's no doubt that the call was terrible, but there was probably only a 25% chance that the Pistons would have scored on that possession anyway. More time would have run off the clock, though.

Well, I hope Seth is right and Detroit wins in a blowout tonight. I could definitely use a less nerve-wracking game. Somehow, though, I think the game will still be decided in the last couple of minutes. These teams are just too evenly matched for any other scenario, IMO.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Hey, we may be suffering now, but I will take the three championships, 88,89,90

Same here. I wouldn't trade the memories of those two straight Pistons titles, three straight NBA Finals and five year run in the conference finals for any changes in playing style today in the NBA. I'll stay away from the Laimbeer phantom foul comments, since there is no championship banner hanging in the rafters for that season.

 

[Carlo_M]

I am counting 88 because of the nice phantom foul on Laimbeer at the end of game six. Yesterday on a local show, David Stern admitted for the first time that there was no foul and it was a "unfortunate" error

So do you *not* count all of Jordan's championships, since he was a recipient of very many "Jordan Rules" fouls (i.e. if you were anywhere near him you fouled him)?