"Untold: Malice at the Palace" Does Not Tell the Whole Story
The Netflix documentary "Untold: Malice at the Palace" purports to tell the "untold" story of perhaps one of the most "re-told" basketball events of the past two decades: the melee that took place on November 19, 2004 in the Palace of Auburn Hills after a "fan" named John Green threw a cup that hit Indiana Pacers forward Ron Artest, who jumped up from his reclining position on the scorer's table and bolted into the stands to confront the person who he thought had assaulted him (Artest's initial target was, in fact, not the person who had thrown the cup). Artest's teammate Stephen Jackson followed him into the stands, "fans" threw objects at players, players hit fans, and the NBA took a figurative black eye as players and fans attempted to inflict literal black eyes (and worse) against each other in a nationally televised game that featured a rematch of the 2004 Eastern Conference Finals.
NBA Commissioner David Stern swiftly suspended Artest for the remainder of the season plus the playoffs. Stern also suspended nine other players, most notably Pacers Jackson (30 games), Jermaine O'Neal (25 games, later reduced to 15), and Anthony Johnson (five games), plus Piston Ben Wallace (six games). Four other players were each suspended for one game. It has become popular in some quarters to say that Stern overreacted and issued punishments that were too harsh--the documentary takes that stance--while not addressing the bad behavior by Green that started the melee, as well as the bad behavior by other fans during the fracas. The only power that the NBA Commissioner has over fans is to have them thrown out and/or banned from arenas; it is up to the criminal justice system to impose penalties on fans for criminal conduct. Stern understood that--no matter how badly fans behave--if players go into the stands and get into altercations with fans this is very bad for the league for a whole host of reasons that any intelligent person should be able to comprehend without too much explanation. The NBA can and should do everything possible to protect players, but players are in no way deputized to enforce laws, nor do they have the right to impose vigilante justice.
John Green was eventually arrested, convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery and sentenced to 30 days in jail plus two years' probation. A "fan" named Bryant Jackson who threw a chair pleaded no contest to felony assault plus misdemeanor assault and battery, receiving a sentence of two years' probation plus being ordered to pay $6000 in restitution. Charlie Haddad, a "fan" who wandered onto the court seeking a confrontation with players--and who had a history of seeking such confrontations--received two years' probation, 100 hours of community service, and 10 straight weekends in a county work program.
The documentary glosses over this part, but Artest, Jackson, O'Neal, Johnson, and their teammate David Harrison each pleaded no contest to charges of misdemeanor assault and battery, and each received sentences of one year of probation and 60 hours of community service plus a $250 fine. The documentary portrays the players as a band of brothers engaging in self-defense against a horde of thousands of crazed fans, but self-defense is defined clearly under the law, and the actions of several of the players went far beyond that legal definition. Artest did not have to go barreling into the stands to "defend" himself. He was without question the victim of assault, but he was not being assaulted when he ran into the stands. He could have saved himself several million dollars in lost salary and endorsements had he stayed on the court.
O'Neal often says in reference to the Malice in the Palace, "What would you have done?" He is right that unless you are placed under the duress of those circumstances you do not know for sure how you would react--but the point that he misses is that, even if many other people might have reacted the same way that does not change the reality that there is a right/legal way to react and a wrong/illegal way to react.
Considering that O'Neal is one of the documentary's executive producers, it is perhaps not surprising that the documentary largely frames the incident and the aftermath in terms of how it affected his life. A significant portion of the documentary is devoted to telling the story of O'Neal's rise from poverty in South Carolina to generational wealth as an NBA player. O'Neal's story is inspiring--and a reminder of the kind of upward mobility available in the United States that exists in few other places around the world--but you don't need that much background material about O'Neal to understand the Malice in the Palace. Perhaps if this documentary had lasted 10 hours then it would make sense to provide deep background on all of the principal participants, but devoting so much time to O'Neal's life story did not leave nearly enough time to shed much new light on the Malice at the Palace.
Much interesting material was left on the cutting room floor, or never even sought in the first place. For example, Indiana Pacers' play by play announcer Mark Boyle had a front row seat
for the drama. After the infamous cup infamously hit Artest in the
chest, Boyle can be seen engaging in a futile effort to prevent Artest
from going into the stands. Boyle suffered five broken vertebrae in his
back. As Boyle wrote on Twitter regarding the documentary, "I
was [as] involved in this as anyone, assuming you would consider five
fractured vertebrae being involved, yet nobody producing this
documentary reached out to me."
The documentary has no interview footage of then-Indiana Coach Rick Carlisle--who later led the
Dallas Mavericks to the 2011 NBA title--and there is no footage
featuring then-Detroit Coach Larry Brown, a Hall of Famer who is the
only coach to win an NCAA Division I title (Kansas 1988) and an NBA
title (Detroit 2004). It would have been interesting to hear their perspective. Even if you say that the documentary is meant to show the players' perspective, keep in mind that Carlisle is a former NBA player and Brown is a former ABA All-Star.
We do hear a lot from Artest, whose honesty and self-awareness are refreshing. He describes how at that stage of his life he was battling both anxiety and depression. As Artest put it, he was worried about the future, and upset about the present. He knew even at that time that he needed help, and he was under the care of mental health professionals who were trying to guide him toward ways to manage his mental illness and control his anger. The reason that Artest was lying on the scorer's table is that he had been counseled to withdraw physically and count to five whenever he felt like he was about to lash out; in the prior moments, he had committed a hard (and unnecessary) foul against Ben Wallace with the Pacers up 97-82 and less than a minute remaining in the fourth quarter. Wallace responded with a two-hand push to Artest, players from both teams squared off in classic "hold me back" stances, and the referees were sorting out how to proceed. Artest may have been well-intentioned when he lay down on the scorer's table, but doing so in an opposing arena was not a great idea, and it placed him in a much more exposed position than he would have been in if he had just sat on his team's bench. The referees and his teammates both failed to the extent that they did not remove him from his "resting spot" before trouble happened. This is in no way meant to exonerate Green, who is an idiot and a criminal, but deescalation should have been the order of the day. The referees should have promptly ejected Artest and Wallace, which would have not only been appropriate based on their actions but would have also enabled the teams to likely finish the game without further incidents.
Did you know or remember that Tim Donaghy, who soon became infamous for other reasons, was one of the three referees that night? Donaghy appears on camera in the documentary.
Stephen Jackson gets a lot of air time in the documentary, and almost every time he opens his mouth he reminds you that logical, analytical thinking is not his strong suit. Jackson is an antisemite and he seems to be confused about what he wants to be when (if?) he grows up: as Kwame Brown memorably put it, Jackson cannot decide if he is a gangster or a Black Lives Matter activist. O'Neal is the only player whose initial suspension was reduced on appeal, but Jackson defiantly states that he refused to show any remorse or say anything in his own defense. I don't know if Jackson's suspension would or should have been reduced, but that kind of shortsighted thinking is what led him into the stands (and a host of other negative situations throughout his life and career), costing him millions of dollars.
The documentary tantalizes the viewer with a promise that after you see "previously unseen" footage frame by frame your perspective on the night's events might change. The documentary does not deliver on that promise.
Here is what I saw and knew that night that I also saw during the documentary and still know today:
1) Nobody on the Pacers wanted any part of physically confronting Ben Wallace. If "Hold me back" were a person, his name would be Stephen Jackson. That, in turn, strongly suggests that Artest, Jackson and the others had the ability to hold themselves back--or be held back--from going into the stands, which changed the dynamic from one idiot criminal throwing a cup to a whole bunch of people reacting to the sight of large NBA players hitting normal-sized civilians.
2) Many of the Detroit fans behaved in a criminal and horrific manner. Every one of the people who threw things at the Pacers should have been banned for life from going to an NBA game.
3) I understand why O'Neal felt threatened in the midst of an out of control situation during which fans were on the court and also throwing things at players, but his description of his infamous sliding punch seems more than a little self-serving. After Haddad confronted Artest on the court, Anthony Johnson hit Haddad and then jumped on Haddad while Haddad was on the ground (that is why Johnson was not only suspended multiple games but also successfully prosecuted). O'Neal's version is that he saw Haddad hitting Johnson and thus he came running/sliding to Johnson's defense, but the footage clearly shows that Johnson went to the ground to hit an already fallen Haddad and not the other way around. Haddad did not belong on the court but it was not Johnson's job to subdue Haddad, who was in any case pretty well subdued by that point. If O'Neal had not slipped, the blow that he attempted to deliver would likely have caused serious if not fatal injuries to Haddad. O'Neal should have been gathering Johnson and the rest of his teammates together to head to the locker room. It is important to remember that not every fan acted like a raving lunatic, and not every Pacer decided to just randomly start punching people. Even in the midst of chaos, it is possible to at least attempt to utilize sound judgment.
4) Reggie Miller is perhaps the most sympathetic figure, at least among the players. The 2004-05 season was his last, best chance to win the NBA title, and that chance disappeared in a flurry of foolishness and criminality. I am not as convinced as some people are that the Pacers would have beaten the Pistons in a playoff series had the Malice at the Palace not happened--I think that the Pacers lacked focus and mental toughness, two shortcomings that were on display not only during the Malice at the Palace but also both before and after that seminal event--but it is clear that at full strength the Pacers posed a viable threat to the Pistons. Miller was no longer at the peak of his powers as a player, and he needed O'Neal, Artest, and Jackson to be the leaders/standard bearers, but those guys failed him (and themselves) colossally.
In short, the documentary did not show footage that I had not seen, nor did it change my overall impression of what happened.
By the end of the documentary, I had mixed feelings about O'Neal. The arc of the documentary is meant to portray O'Neal in heroic fashion. He has admirable qualities, and I respect the way that he rose out of adverse circumstances to be successful. He has expressed remorse for his actions, and he has said that he deserved to be punished. O'Neal admits that he failed as a leader to keep the team together and try to win a title for Miller.
However and as noted above, the documentary inaccurately portrays O'Neal's sliding punch, which was not a noble act of defending his teammate but rather an act of aggression against a fan who was on the ground and being hit by Johnson. Also, O'Neal states that the court system vindicated him at every turn after Stern issued the 25 game suspension, a claim that does not withstand careful scrutiny.
First, O'Neal pleaded no contest to two criminal charges. Vindication is acquittal, not a no contest plea.
Second, O'Neal was ordered to pay $1686.50 in restitution to Haddad. I have little sympathy for Haddad, but from a legal standpoint he was a victim of assault by both Johnson and O'Neal (Artest just shoved Haddad away but did not hit him; Artest got in trouble because of what he did when he went into the stands, not for his reaction to Haddad approaching him on the court).
Third, O'Neal's assertion that he won in federal district court misrepresents what happened. The judge most assuredly did not say that O'Neal's actions were justified; that was not, in fact, what the federal case was even about. After Stern suspended the players, the Players Association requested that an arbitrator independently review the penalties. The arbitrator determined that O'Neal's suspension should be reduced to 15 games--again, not a "vindication" of O'Neal, but just an assessment that the punishment should have been less severe. The NBA contended that this was an "on court" incident over which the NBA Commissioner has total authority that cannot be diminished by an arbitrator, while the Players Association argued that this was not an "on court" incident. Without getting into all of the labor law and arbitration law semantics, in layman's terms the federal district court judge agreed with the Players Association and thus held that the arbitrator could reduce O'Neal's suspension to 15 games.
So, in sum, while O'Neal spends the documentary claiming that the legal system vindicated and exonerated him, the reality is the opposite: he suffered a criminal penalty for his conduct, he paid a civil damage award, and an independent arbitrator determined that he deserved a 15 game suspension.
I am not saying that O'Neal is a bad guy. He comes across as infinitely more intelligent than Jackson (admittedly, that is a low bar to clear), and I believe that O'Neal is genuinely remorseful about the impact that his actions had on his team and his teammates in spite of his apparent denial of the extent to which he was in the wrong.
The point is that his telling of the "untold" story distorts the factual record, which is available for anyone to independently examine: watch the footage yourself and, if you are so inclined, look up the judicial proceedings and read them as well.
A final note concerns the use of the word "thug." The etymology of the word traces back to a group of robbers and assassins in India in the 1800s who strangled their victims before stealing their property. Journalists and commentators throw the word around a lot, often in reference to young Black people. I first realized how the word "thug" is received and understood in the Black community after I interviewed Warren Jabali, who deeply resented being called a "thug" in Terry Pluto's ABA oral history Loose Balls. Jabali readily admitted to me that he was wrong "and had no defense" for hitting and then stomping opposing player Jim Jarvis during an ABA game, but Jabali passionately insisted that he was not a thug but rather someone who resented things that had transpired and chose the wrong way to demonstrate that resentment. Talking to Jabali and learning his perspective helped me to understand that the word "thug" has a specific and deeply felt negative connotation in the Black community. The linguist John McWhorter has explained that "thug" has become a code word for the "N-word" but that many people do not realize this because they resist accepting that the meaning of a word is not fixed forever but rather evolves. What "thug" meant in India in 1830 (or even in this country 100 years later) is not what the word means or connotes now. The Pacer players were not/are not "thugs." It is not helpful or productive to categorize a whole group of people as "thugs." That being said, it is also not helpful when entertainers and celebrities promote any form of "thug culture" or "thug life," either.
What happened during The Malice at the Palace was not about "thuggish" players or a "thug" mentality in the NBA; it was a perfect storm of referees not deescalating a situation after a hard foul, fans engaging in criminal behavior, and several players overreacting under adverse conditions.
Labels: Anthony Johnson, Ben Wallace, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Jermaine O'Neal, Malice at the Palace, Reggie Miller, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 12:46 AM
Cleveland's One-Two Punch Knocks Out Heat
LeBron James and Dwyane Wade were the headline acts but Mo Williams stole the show with a game-high 29 points as Cleveland beat Miami 99-89 to improve to 28-1 in the friendly confines of Quicken Loans Arena. The Cavs are also an NBA-best 12-1 after a loss, as they managed to quickly put Friday night's debacle in Boston behind them. Williams shot 10-15 from the field, including 6-7 from three point range. The Cavs repeatedly involved James and Williams in screen/roll plays, forcing the Heat to pick their poison between Cleveland's two All-Stars. James struggled with his shot, making just five of his 15 field goal attempts, but he still managed to produce the 21st regular season triple double of his career (14 points, 12 assists, 10 rebounds). James tallied the 3000th assist of his career, becoming the second youngest player to reach that total (24 years, 67 days; Isiah Thomas was 23 years, 322 days old when he joined the 3000 assist club). Wade also shot poorly (9-23 from the field) and he fell just two rebounds short of a triple double (25 points, 12 assists, eight rebounds). Delonte West added 19 points and six assists for the Cavs, while Jermaine O'Neal had his highest scoring game since becoming a member of the Heat three weeks ago (19 points on 7-10 shooting).
The Cavs blitzed the Heat 9-0 in the first 3:39 and never trailed the rest of the way. Four different players scored in that opening outburst, while the Heat looked like they were encased in molasses; both teams were playing the second game of a back to back but Miami looked much more the worse for wear, committing eight first quarter turnovers. The Heat eventually settled down and they only had three more turnovers the rest of the game.
The Cavs pushed their lead as high as 20 points in the second quarter and were up 50-36 at halftime. Both teams sleepwalked through the third quarter, perhaps following the tone set by their leaders during that stanza: James shot 0-4 from the field (though he did have four assists) and Wade shot 1-5 from the field. The Cavs stretched the margin to 19 but the Heat closed to within 70-61 entering the fourth quarter. The old announcing cliche--"As bad as (fill in the blank) has played, they are only down (fill in the blank)"--perfectly described the Heat's situation with 12 minutes to go: they had shot .424 from the field and league scoring leader Wade had only scored 15 points on 5-16 shooting but the visitors still were within striking distance.
Wade's three pointer at the 6:51 mark trimmed the lead to 80-74 and Cleveland was only up 84-76 at the 5:06 mark when Wade and Anderson Varejao contested a jump ball on Miami's side of the court. I was seated next to ProBasketballNews.com editor Sam Amico and turned to him and said, "Watch Wade jump into Varejao's body, steal this tip and possibly give Miami a chance to shoot an open three pointer." Sure enough, Wade jumped into Varejao to nullify the Brazilian's height advantage and then Wade tipped the ball to Mario Chalmers, who missed a three pointer. James got the rebound and on the next possession he passed to Williams for a jumper to extend Cleveland's lead to 86-76. That was a big five point swing but the Heat recovered from that setback to make one final run, coming to within 91-85 after a Michael Beasley jumper at the 2:18 mark. Neither team scored for more than a minute and then Wade made one of his patented full speed drives to the hoop. He collided with Varejao but no foul was called and Varejao grabbed the rebound. An incensed Wade received his second technical foul; the automatic ejection that follows a second technical was the first time that he has been kicked out of an NBA game. Miami Coach Erik Spoelstra also got a technical foul. It certainly looked like Varejao fouled Wade, so I can understand Miami's frustration, even though the technical fouls and ejection essentially killed their chances of winning the game; Williams made both technical free throws and the Cavs led by at least six points the rest of the way.
After the game, Coach Spoelstra said, "We did not come with the right energy, toughness and disposition to start the game. That's the bottom line...We did show some fight and some resolve later on in the game not to let it go. That was encouraging but it became a frustration night. We were all frustrated, including myself. We saw some calls that looked differently (than they were called), but, regardless, the bottom line, I'm not sure if we deserved to win that game."
Cleveland Coach Mike Brown acknowledged James' triple double but said that Williams' shooting was the key: "Mo Williams was terrific for us down the stretch, hitting some big shots time and time again when we needed baskets...We ran side pick and roll with LeBron and Mo and he (Mo) made big play after big play. It was great to see a guy like Mo being able to take over the game offensively to give a guy like LeBron a rest."
The Cavs just finished playing five games in seven days, with James logging at least 43 minutes in three of those games. He and the Cavs generally stay true to their motto of being a "no excuse team" but when someone asked James if tired legs may have had something to do with his back to back 5-15 shooting nights, James replied, "It was a big factor. Personally, I felt good when I came in and worked out before the game but as the game went on, I could tell from my jumper that my legs did not feel particularly well. I tried to do the other things like defend and try to get guys open for shots. Even when I'm not feeling particularly well on the offensive end, I still can find ways to contribute to our team and help us win."
When someone suggested to Williams that it might be said that James had an off game due to his low shooting percentage, Williams replied, "Stats aren't all about shot attempts and what you shot from the field. It's the effect you have on the game...He can be one for whatever and he is still going to draw double teams and triple teams."
Williams said that it did not bother him that most of the pregame attention focused on James and Wade despite the fact that Williams is also an All-Star: "I've never been a person who wanted the spotlight. I'm happy where I am right now. I'm in the perfect position, being with LeBron. He gets all the spotlight and I'm the guy behind closed doors who just sneaks up on you and you don't know where I'm at but all of a sudden I'm there." Like the Lakers' Pau Gasol, Williams has the perfect attitude and temperament to play alongside an MVP caliber player: Gasol and Williams are legit All-Stars can take over on their own at times but they understand and appreciate how much easier the game is for them on a nightly basis because of all of the extra attention drawn by Kobe Bryant and LeBron James respectively. Some players in Gasol's or Williams' shoes would let their egos get in the way and feel the need to prove that they are "the man" but perhaps years of being "the man" on teams that did not go anywhere helped them to understand that only a few guys in the NBA are truly franchise players and it is a blessing to have one of them as a teammate.
*****************************
Notes From Courtside:
During his pregame standup, someone asked Coach Spoelstra about the impact that the newly acquired Jermaine O'Neal and Jamario Moon have had on the team and how quickly they have meshed with Wade. Spoelstra said, "Jermaine has really helped. I think this goes understated all the time, the fact that he gives us a presence down there (in the low post) to balance out our attack has meaning. It really does, because he can catch and finish, we can also throw him the ball and run some offense through him that allows other guys to get easy baskets on cuts. We can vary our attack so that (Wade) can rest a little bit and we can play off someone else. The connection with Jamario is a little bit of a surprise. We knew that there were a lot of elements of his game that we liked but the type of connection that he and Dwyane have already with back cuts and lobs and things of that nature--that usually takes a little bit longer to develop."
Coach Spoelstra has done very well in his first season as an NBA head coach. I asked him, "What has surprised you the most about the difference between being a head coach and an assistant coach? What part of that adjustment has surprised you?"
Coach Spoelstra answered, "You think you know what it is when you are just in the other seat but until you are actually making the decisions and sitting in that chair 12 inches away (you don't really know). Your meals, after losses, are a little bit tougher to eat. Your sleep patterns have changed a little bit. I always used to joke about those things with (former Miami Coach) Stan (Van Gundy) and (former Miami Coach) Pat (Riley), because I never had a problem sleeping or eating but now as a head coach it definitely affects you a little bit more."
I then asked Coach Spoelstra, "Is your relationship with the players different now?"
He replied, "That's natural. As an assistant coach, your role a lot of times is to bridge communication between the players and the head coach or to help communicate a message but also to connect on a friendly level. I've created a lot of friendships with players over the years as an assistant coach. You still try to do the same thing as a head coach but that is not always realistic because you don't have as much time and you don't have as much interaction on a day to day level as you do as an assistant coach, when you are working the players out on the court after practice, before practice and in meetings. So, the way you communicate is a little bit different but I still try to reach out to the guys as much as I can."
***
It is sadly ironic that Ben Wallace was on the cover of Cleveland's gameday program, because he has been sidelined for six games with a broken leg. The Cavs are 5-1 since Wallace got hurt, with their only loss coming on Friday at the hands of the defending champion Boston Celtics.
Wallace averages 3.0 ppg and 6.6 rpg in 24.0 minutes per game, so it is easy to belittle his impact, but the Cavs clearly miss the four-time Defensive Player of the Year. After the Miami game, the Cavs
rank eighth in the NBA in points in the paint allowed (36.8 ppg) but their performance in this category has markedly declined since Wallace has been sidelined; they have been outscored in the paint 258-176 in those games, which works out to an average of 43.0-29.3. Even taking out Boston's 58 points in the paint explosion on Friday, the Cavs are still giving up several more points per game in the paint than they were when Wallace was playing. They have been outscored in the paint in five of those six games; the Heat only rank 19th in the NBA in points in the paint but even in a losing cause they bested the Cavs 42-34 in that department.
The Cavs rank fourth in the NBA in rebounding differential (+ 3.0 rpg) but this is another area where they have not done nearly as well without Wallace in the lineup; the Cavs and their opponents have each grabbed 240 rebounds in the past six games. The Cavs have been outrebounded three times, outrebounded their opponents twice and tied their opponents once.
During Coach Brown's pregame standup, I asked him, "How has Ben Wallace's absence affected you in terms of giving up so many points in the paint?"
He answered, "He is a terrific defender--and player--for us. I don't know what our points in the paint were with him and without him (because) I am not a huge stat guy but his presence is something that we miss--but just like when Z (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) was out with his length, we have to have other guys step up and we feel confident that other guys can step up and help hold that down. Whether he's here or not, we've got to get that done."
***
Wallace is a good example of a player whose impact on his team's success is not accurately depicted by his individual statistics. Near the end of Coach Brown's standup, the media throng around him thinned dramatically because James had just emerged for the trainer's room for his pregame availability. This provided me the opportunity to ask Coach Brown several questions in a row relating to his perspective on basketball statistics, including how he utilizes statistics in game plan preparation, what numbers he most closely tracks to evaluate his team and his thoughts on Michael Lewis' recent
New York Times article about basketball statistics (I offered my take about the Lewis article
here). I will present Coach Brown's interesting comments about these subjects in a separate article that will be published soon.
***
After my interview with Coach Brown, I still managed to catch a good portion of James' pregame availability. When I walked over, he was in the middle of answering a question about the MVP race. James said that Kobe Bryant had been the best player in the NBA in other seasons prior to winning the award for the first time last season and that he, Bryant, Wade, Paul Pierce and the other elite players are constantly trying to be the best players that they can be but this does not necessarily lead to winning the MVP trophy.
James also offered a humorous--if not quite mathematically sound--take on the race for the scoring title, saying with a smile, "The statistics that go with scoring are kind of crazy. You can score 50 points and go up two tenths of a point and then you can score 22 points and drop a whole point. Numbers are crazy how they work sometimes but if D. Wade continues to score 40 points I'm not going to keep up with that." Of course, the only way for what James said to be literally true is if the 50 point game happened later in the season and was part of a larger sample of games, while the 22 point game happened earlier in the season when each game has a greater impact on the scoring average. The important thing for Cavs fans is that James is clearly not going to chase the scoring title at the expense of doing what is best for the team--but since part of what is best for the team involves James scoring a lot of points at times, he actually could still end up winning the scoring title anyway.
***
According to the media seating chart, Jay Mariotti was supposed to be seated next to me during the game but I did not see him until after the game, when he showed up for Coach Brown's postgame standup. I joked that he must have found a better seat than the one assigned to him but Mariotti explained that he had spent most of the game working on a column after the news broke that Terrell Owens had signed a one year contract with the Buffalo Bills. It took Coach Brown a bit longer than usual to show up, so I chatted with Mariotti about the twists and turns of his career. I told him that I remembered reading some of his earliest
Chicago Sun-Times' columns when he was covering the great Bulls-Knicks playoff series. Mariotti said--half joking and half seriously--"You're bringing a tear to my eye," noting how the newspaper business has basically completely died in the intervening decade and a half. He mentioned that several of the newspapers he worked for during his career--including the great, short lived
The National, Frank DeFord's attempt to create a national daily sports newspaper--have gone out of business and I pointed out that Dick Schaap made a similar lament about his career in his autobiography
Flashing Before My Eyes. "At least I'm in good company," Mariotti replied. He added that if DeFord started
The National today, it would all be online, which would eliminate the distribution problems that drove the paper out of business. I said that maybe DeFord was ahead of his time with the idea for
The National and Mariotti agreed, suggesting that ESPN.com essentially represents an online version of what DeFord was trying to create. I held my tongue a bit with that comment, because I don't think that the ESPN.com roster holds a candle to the team that DeFord assembled back in the day.
As for that long ago column about the old Bulls-Knicks series, Mariotti said that then-Chicago Coach Phil Jackson first fanned the flames of conspiracy theories by suggesting none too subtly that the NBA sent certain referees to certain games to get the desired result. It is not clear if Jackson really believed that or was just employing one of his countless mind games. Either way, Mariotti and I agreed that it definitely seemed like Hue Hollins had something against the Bulls in general and Scottie Pippen in particular. Every serious basketball fan knows about Hollins' infamous blown call against Pippen that cost the Bulls a road win in game five of their 1994 series with New York--a series in which the home team eventually won all seven games--but I reminded Mariotti that Hollins was involved in several other questionable calls that went against Pippen and the Bulls, including one that possibly cost them a chance to have 73 wins in 1995-96 (and thus be the only NBA team ever to go through a season with single-digit losses).
Labels: Cleveland Cavaliers, Dwyane Wade, Erik Spoelstra, Jermaine O'Neal, LeBron James, Miami Heat, Mike Brown, Mo Williams
posted by David Friedman @ 9:44 AM
That's Amare: Stoudemire Scores 42, Suns Outlast Pacers
Amare Stoudemire scored 42 points and Steve Nash dished out 17 assists as the Phoenix Suns built a 15 point lead, fell behind by five points in the fourth quarter and then rallied to pull out a 121-117 road win against the Pacers. "We had two or three games out there," Suns Coach Mike D'Antoni said with a chuckle after the game. "We played well, they played well and we played well. It ended on a good note." Stoudemire's points and Nash's assists are both season-highs for any Suns player in those categories. Stoudemire shot 15-24 from the field and 12-13 from the free throw line. He also had 13 rebounds and four assists and managed to play the last 6:14 of the game despite having five fouls. Nash scored 17 points on 6-9 shooting, though he surprisingly missed two free throws (5-7). Nash also contributed six rebounds and his +17 plus/minus number was a game-high, just ahead of Stoudemire's +15. Grant Hill had a nice all-around game (16 points on 7-9 shooting, five rebounds, six assists), while Raja Bell (17 points, 6-15 shooting) and Shawn Marion (14 points, 5-15 field goal shooting, 12 rebounds) also scored in double figures. Leandro Barbosa (four points on 1-8 shooting) and Boris Diaw (two points on 1-3 shooting) struggled and Brian Skinner (eight points, six rebounds) was the only productive reserve for the Suns. Jermaine O'Neal (30 points on 14-20 shooting, 11 rebounds) had his best game of the season by far, Jamaal Tinsley used his size in the post to overpower Nash on more than a few occasions (19 points, 12 assists) and Mike Dunleavy added 22 points, seven rebounds and four assists.
Early in the game it looked like the Suns would run the Pacers right out of the gym; Phoenix led 24-14 at the 5:57 mark of the first quarter, which roughly projects to a 192-112 final score. Obviously, nothing that extreme is likely to happen in an NBA game but the Suns did lead by as much as 38-24 before a couple late baskets pulled the Pacers to within 38-29. Stoudemire had 10 points and six rebounds in the first quarter, while Nash had six points and five assists. Tinsley helped keep the Pacers in contention with his nine points and four assists; he often bulled his way to the hoop, muscling Nash and then either scoring over him or passing to an open teammate if a help defender came over.
In the second quarter the Suns once again built a double digit lead and when Stoudemire's two free throws with 2:38 left made the score 66-51 it looked like Phoenix might be ahead by more than 20 by halftime. Instead, the Pacers outscored the Suns 13-3 down the stretch to remain very much in the ballgame. Stoudemire led both teams with 23 points and seven rebounds at intermission, while Nash had eight points and nine assists. O'Neal and Tinsley each scored 14 points for the Pacers. The Pacers enjoyed advantages in both rebounding (26-22) and points in the paint (36-26) and they held the Suns to 0-8 shooting from three point range (the Pacers finished the game with a 50-45 rebounding edge and a 58-46 points in the paint edge, with the 58 points being a season-high for Indiana). The difference was that the Suns shot 19-19 from the free throw line in the first half while the Pacers shot 8-11.
Let's see if this story sounds familiar: the Suns built a double digit lead in the third quarter (84-72) but the Pacers rallied to get within two points (88-86). A mini-run by Phoenix gave the Suns a 96-90 lead heading into the final 12 minutes. Brian Skinner's dunk off of a feed by Nash put Phoenix up 98-90 but the Pacers answered with 10 straight points to take their first lead of the second half. The teams traded baskets for a few minutes before Tinsley and Dunleavy hit back to back three pointers to put Indiana up 112-107. Two Stoudemire free throws and a Hill jumper narrowed the margin to one but then Dunleavy once again hit a three pointer. It is important to note that Dunleavy kept getting wide open looks because the Suns were forced to trap both O'Neal and Tinsley because they did not have anyone who could guard either player one on one; problems guarding a team that has a good power forward and a penetrating point guard could prove fatal if/when the Spurs or Jazz come calling at playoff time: while the Spurs and most other championship teams rely on the ability to get key stops down the stretch, the Suns hang their hats on being able to convert at the offensive end of the court--and on this night, against this team, that would prove to be good enough. A Stoudemire jump hook and two Nash free throws left the Pacers clinging to a 117-115 lead with 1:11 remaining. The next possession went very strangely and after a few passes Dunleavy caught the ball and did a lot of aimless dribbling before launching a fadeaway shot that barely beat the shot clock and did not draw iron. Hill plucked the ball out of the air and passed ahead to Nash, whose cold blooded three pointer put the Suns ahead for good.
The last time the Suns came to Indiana, they beat the Pacers 103-92. After that contest, Coach D'Antoni said, "Nothing great on our part. But we did the job. We are lucky to get this one." His comments after Tuesday's victory were very similar: "We just struggle to play for 48 minutes right now...but to get a win on their home floor is good no matter how we do it." Later he added, "We just weren't real sharp the whole game. Our pace and their pace together kind of set it up that a 15 point lead is not real safe but we'll take it and go on to the next game."
Toward the end of his postgame standup, I asked him, "You mentioned a lack of focus a couple times. Was that mainly at the defensive end in the second half?"
Coach D'Antoni replied, "It's hard to figure it out all the time. It's a long year and we are just up and down with it a little bit. We'll figure it out. I don't know; if I knew the answer I'd tell you."
Stoudemire offered this telling insight into his team's mindset: "We're a confident team. Sometimes we're a little too confident because teams fight back but we know that we can get the win. That hurts us sometimes but we have to do a better job when we're up 15 of closing teams out. We have to find that killer instinct. We have a nice group of guys but sometimes we have to get hard core."
I asked Stoudemire, "What specifically broke down defensively to let them come back?"
He answered, "They shot well and we missed shots; that's all that was. We could have stepped up our intensity level in the last three minutes of the first half but they made tough shots and we missed some shots. That is the way the game is played sometimes but there are no excuses. We have to put teams away."
Nash is keenly aware of his team's tendency to wander mentally and he is not at all happy about it: "We had a lot of letdowns, whether it was missing layups or having mental lapses defensively. It is frustrating because we had a game that we could have possibly put to rest at halftime and all of a sudden (in the fourth quarter) we're losing. It is just a relief because we made the plays down the stretch and got the stops when it counted but this was not a very gratifying win."
I asked Nash, "Could you pinpoint one or two specific things that went wrong defensively?"
He answered, "I think that it was just mental lapses and just not being alert, forgetting the game plan and falling asleep. I think that sometimes we score easily and we take for granted that if we let up for a minute that teams can come back on you. In this league, everyone is talented."
Later, Nash said, "It is a win and it is a road win. We have a lot to be thankful for but we have to keep working and trying to stop some of the mental lapses...We don't live up to the standards of discipline and energy and cohesion that we set for ourselves." Nash seemed so glum and morose that I said to him, "It sounds like you are frustrated. Is this something that you talk about as a team or do you plan to talk to certain players about it?"
He answered, "Yeah, I mean, we know; we come into the locker room and it is silent, like a loss. Everyone knows that we have to do better and that we set higher standards for ourselves. It is more relieving (to win this game) than gratifying." In response to someone else's question, he went so far as to say that it almost would have been better to play hard the whole game and lose then to be so inconsistent and blow so many opportunities.
I asked Nash, "Does this concern you from the standpoint that if something like this happened in the postseason that it could possibly cost you a game that could swing the outcome of a series?"
As soon as I got the words out of my mouth, he immediately responded with great conviction, "Absolutely. Absolutely. That's happened to us in the past and I think that's why we're not excited to win, because we know better. We know that we have to continue to live by higher standards."
*****************************
Notes From Courtside:
In a recent post (and the comments that followed it),
I talked about "talent" and "athleticism" and said, "I think that the way many people define athletic ability is very narrow." Specifically, I think that Steve Nash is an excellent athlete even though he is not a high flyer and does not possess blazing straight line speed. I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with Coach D'Antoni, Coach O'Brien, former player/current broadcaster Dan Majerle, Suns President of Basketball Operations/General Manager Steve Kerr and Nash himself. I gathered so much material from them that I will save most of their comments and insights for a separate post devoted entirely to that subject. However, to whet your appetite, I will share Coach O'Brien's thoughts about Nash and what makes him a special point guard. I asked Coach O'Brien, "A lot of times fans will make an arbitrary distinction about which players are 'athletic' and which players are 'skilled.' Wouldn't you say that Nash's shooting ability and his passing ability are athletic skills, also?"
O'Brien replied, "He's very athletic. Sometimes people confuse quickness, Allen Iverson-type quickness, with athletic ability. They look at Steve Nash (and try) to figure out why is he so good. He's very athletic, he's in phenomenal condition, he never stops and he has a whole arsenal of shots--he can score inside, he can hit deep shots. He never gives up his dribble until he has something positive to do with the ball, either to get an open shot for himself or create something for somebody else. Otherwise, he keeps on going and keeps on probing; that is really, I would say, a very, very unique skill that he that a lot of us coaches around the NBA would like to see more people on our teams have."
I asked O'Brien, "Is that a skill that you can really coach or develop in a point guard or is that something that you either have or you don't?"
He replied, "I think that you can develop it but it takes a while. In his case, it's fairly innate. I don't think that anybody took him into a gym and taught it to him over a weekend."
I then followed up by asking, "If you are trying to develop that skill in a player who does not innately have it, how would you do it? Would you show him film?"
O'Brien answered, "We show film--for instance, to (Pacer reserve guards) Andre (Owens) and Travis (Diener), as an example. We want them to, in practice or one on one on the court, to go and drive the ball to the charge circle. If you don't get anything, dribble it back out. Dribble it back in, dribble it back out, look for your shot, look for the pass, maintain your dribble. That's the ideal point guard. Some point guards get in the paint and leave their feet, which is the worst thing that you can do. Some get in there and predetermine what they are going to do with the basketball--this time I'm going to get my shot, this time I'm going to pass. Nash reacts to the defense and he always maintains his dribble and as a result he's always an MVP candidate."
***
In addition to talking with Coach D'Antoni about Nash during my one on one pregame interview with him, I also asked him to make an early evaluation of the team's offseason moves that resulted in the acquisition of Grant Hill and the loss of Kurt Thomas and to single out an area in which his team may be stronger this year and an area in which his team may be weaker. He replied, "I don't think that there is any area in which we are not as strong. With the emergence of Brian Skinner, he gives us the strength and defensive presence that Kurt gave us last year. With Grant Hill, we added a seven-time All-Star. That's hard to do; that's really hard to do at this stage of the game and he's healthy. He just gives you a player who can just take over a game and there aren't that many players out there in the league who can do that. I think that everybody else should be a little bit better, especially Leandro and Boris getting a little bit older and Amare learning different things. So, I don't see us being weaker in anything. We still have to get better--it doesn't mean that we are better than the best--but I think that we improved our team."
I followed up by asking him, "Outside observers might feel that with Skinner you don't have quite the post presence that you did with Kurt Thomas and Skinner might not have quite the ability to hit the outside shot that Thomas does."
D'Antoni replied, "Kurt only played about 17 minutes for us. He missed months of the season. So, I think we're good; I think we're better."
Two questions that I had before the season about the Hill acquisition were how he would fit in to the drive and kick scheme since he is not a great three point shooter and whether his body could hold up for an entire season at the fast pace that the Suns play. D'Antoni brushed aside both concerns: "First, he's a great driver and kicker. Now, if he's on the receiving end of the drive and kick, one, he makes enough threes to keep everybody honest; he's not a great three point shooter but he's not a bad three point shooter, either. He's about 30% now and he's learning when to pick his spots. Also, it's a little bit of a myth (that we only shoot threes)--he doesn't always have to shoot a three; he can take a dribble and shoot his midrange jumper. He's finding a blend there and he fits in perfectly with what we do; one more playmaker on the floor really helps us out. For him over the long haul, he's completely healthy. I mean, we should be saying that over months and months that Steve Nash can't handle this pace. Well, they're both about the same age. He is one year older than Steve. There is nothing wrong with him physically; he's completely well. Now, at age 35, might he break down? He might. We don't know that but his past problems were due to things not being right structurally. He's right, right now, so we don't see him breaking down or missing games but it could happen. It could happen to Steve or to any of our guys but our doctors and trainers are pretty secure that he's good. Anybody could break down during a long season but they don't think that he is at any more risk than anybody else."
***
Before the game, while discussing some of the things that have transpired in recent years in FIBA competition, Kerr relayed an interesting anecdote that D'Antoni--an assistant coach for Team USA--told him about Kobe Bryant. Prior to each game in last summer's FIBA Americas tournament, Bryant asked the coaching staff, "Who do you want me to take out?" In other words, Bryant wanted to know who was the toughest perimeter threat on each team so that he could study his tendencies on film and then completely neutralize him on the court. I said to Kerr, "That sounds like a sniper zeroing in on a target" and Kerr replied, "Yeah--and he was serious." Kerr went on to say that Bryant's "focus" and "bravado" added an essential missing element to the squad and elevated everyone else's play. Kerr noted that the previous Team USA squad had performed reasonably well other than the infamous loss to Greece but that it lacked a certain "swagger," as he termed it, and that Team USA did not have a "player who everyone feared." Kerr literally shook his head in wonderment as he described Bryant's impact on Team USA.
***
After the rest of the reporters were done talking to Stoudemire after the game, I asked him if he has been in contact yet with Gilbert Arenas, who recently underwent microfracture surgery. Stoudemire told me that he has not spoken with Arenas yet but that he plans to call him when the Suns go to Washington this Friday. He added that Arenas' microfracture surgery was on a non-weight bearing bone so it was not quite as serious but Stoudemire agreed with me that Arenas does have to be cautious about not coming back too soon.
Labels: Amare Stoudemire, Indiana Pacers, Jamaal Tinsley, Jermaine O'Neal, Jim O'Brien, Mike D'Antoni, Phoenix Suns, Steve Nash
posted by David Friedman @ 2:50 AM
Pierce Pounces Early, Allen Attacks Late as Celtics Beat Pacers, 101-86
Paul Pierce scored 17 of his season-high 31 points in the second quarter and Ray Allen had 15 of his 17 points in the third quarter of a 101-86 Boston victory at Indiana. Pierce shot 8-17 from the field and 14-14 from the free throw line as the Celtics improved to 6-0 and remained the only unbeaten NBA team; Pierce also had 11 rebounds and tied his season-high with six assists. Kevin Garnett added 18 points, 11 rebounds, two assists, three steals and two blocked shots. Brian Scalabrine provided a lift off of the bench with nine points in 13 minutes. Allen (+16), Garnett (+15), Pierce (+10) and Scalabrine (+12) were the only four players who posted double digit positive numbers in plus/minus in this game. Danny Granger led the Pacers with 24 points on 8-10 shooting. Granger tied his career-high with five three point field goals made and was just one three pointer short of matching Indiana's franchise record for most three pointers made in a game without a miss. Jamaal Tinsley added 14 points, eight assists and four rebounds. Jermaine O'Neal had a team-high nine rebounds but scored only 10 points on 4-13 shooting. Considering that Indiana has a new coach, Jim O'Brien, who employs a wide open offensive system and that Boston added two All-Stars in the offseason--Allen and Garnett--one would have expected this game to easily be a sellout but there were only 12,143 fans in attendance, well short of the 18,345 capacity at Conseco Fieldhouse.
Indiana quickly jumped out to a 10-4 lead and stayed in front for most of the first quarter until a Scalabrine three pointer with :15 remaining put the Celtics up 26-24. The score stayed close for most of the second quarter but a turning point seemed to happen after Tinsley delivered a hard foul to Pierce at the 3:06 mark with the score tied at 38. Tinsley whacked Pierce on the left arm and also hit him on the head. Pierce visibly took exception to the contact but calmed himself down by doing some pushups instead of confronting Tinsley. Pierce made both free throws and on the next Celtics possession he finished off a hard drive with an emphatic slam dunk. Pierce scored 13 points in the last 3:06 and Boston led 52-43 at halftime. After the game, Pierce said, "I was a little frustrated. I thought it was a flagrant foul...I tried to use it to fire up my teammates. We didn't need any fighting. When I did the push up, I was just blowing off steam." Boston Coach Doc Rivers added, "Clearly they lit a fire under Paul, because he thought the play was not a clean play. Got him upset and as a coach you've got to make a decision. We went to isos for Paul right away after that and my read was if he gets going because of that then we ride him. If he goes too quickly then you just go to something else. When we went to it the first time he scored and then you knew that he was in the right frame."
Boston kept the lead in double figures for most of the third quarter but never extended it past 16. Pierce had just two points on 1-2 shooting but Allen got loose for 15 points on 5-10 shooting. This is a good example of how a player's contributions don't always show up statistically; the Pacers had to pay added attention to Pierce and that left Allen open. One could argue that Pierce's contributions showed up in his second quarter statistics but the point is that he had an impact on what happened in the third quarter just by being on the court; the threat that he poses offensively means that in future games he can also have that kind of an impact even if he does not have a second quarter scoring outburst because if teams trap him from the start of the game to prevent a Pierce scoring run then Allen or someone else will be open. The only way to fully understand this kind of dynamic is to actually watch a team play and to really pay attention to what they are trying to do and how the other team is countering those things. Plus/minus can hint at some of these things, but Pierce's impact--and the impact of any other player who must be double-teamed--is no less real even on occasions when his teammates do not make the open shots that his presence creates. Only a handful of players have that kind of effect on a game, guys like Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, and a few others; sometimes their teammates take advantage of playing four on three and sometimes they don't but a player who commands that kind of coverage is more valuable than players who don't, regardless of what their respective statistics might indicate.
Boston led comfortably for most of the fourth quarter, although Indiana briefly got to within 89-82 at the 4:07 mark after a Tinsley layup. He missed a free throw that could have cut the lead to six and then Garnett hit a big jumper at the 3:44 mark. When people talk about clutch shots they usually mean buzzer beaters but Garnett's basket was huge because the Pacers had just trimmed the margin from 14 to seven in less than two minutes. If he had missed and the Pacers scored then all of a sudden it is a two possession game with plenty of time left. One of the knocks on Garnett during his career is that he has not made a lot of shots like that in the fourth quarter, so it is interesting both that Boston went to him in that situation and that he delivered. I'm still not sold on a 20 foot jumper being a go-to move for any seven footer not named Dirk Nowitzki but I give Garnett credit for making it at a crucial time. A couple possessions later, Garnett scored a layup on a feed from Pierce and the Pacers never seriously threatened again.
"It was a good win. I don't think it was a well played game by either team," Rivers said after the game. "But obviously we'll take the win. Defensively I thought that we were pretty solid all night." He is not completely satisfied with how the Celtics closed out the game: "That is the one thing that we are not doing yet. We had three or four times when the lead was 14 or 16 and we defensively gambled and gave up threes. I know that there were at least three of them and that just brings the game back. I love my team because they are trying to do stuff and they are trying so hard but I'm trying to tell them to sometimes just be solid. We're doing extra: Paul fouls a three point shooter when if he made that shot with Paul draped all over him, that's all you need but then we're trying to do extra instead of just being solid. We're going to learn that."
"We're busting our ass out here. We're working really hard," Garnett told the assembled media outside the Celtics' locker room during his postgame standup. "Every night we're working hard. Like I keep saying, we know our flaws and we're very much aware of them and we're just trying to continue to work. We have to take care of the ball and get better ball movement at times and be more patient at times. We're still a work in progress. We're just a team that's working hard." Garnett noticeably does not enjoy talking to the media, so the added attention and coverage that is part of being on a successful team will no doubt be one of his biggest challenges/frustrations this season. The funny thing is that after Garnett finished a somewhat brusque question and answer session and went back into the locker room, several members of the media agreed that he actually acted a bit better than he had in the past (all I know from firsthand experience is that on the one previous time that I spoke with Garnett he was reserved but polite). I think that Garnett is just a very intense player who does not particularly enjoy talking about his team with outsiders but what is interesting is that his disposition toward the media is not generally held against him but other players are criticized for similar or even lesser "offenses."
Road wins are hard to come by in the NBA even for good teams, so the fact that the Celtics won despite not playing at their peak level is impressive. One somewhat sloppy win in November is not enough to make me jump on the bandwagon that has Boston cruising to the NBA Finals but this is the first time that I've seen this Celtics team in person and I am impressed by how hard they played throughout the game, particularly on defense. It is obvious that on the nights when each member of the Big Three is clicking that Boston will be very hard to beat but this performance showed that Boston is capable of grinding out wins as well. People forget that even the greatest teams of all-time had to do that sometimes; the classic example of this that I like to cite is Chicago's win over Indiana
in game seven of the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals, when the Bulls shot .382 from the field but scratched, clawed and battled their way to 22 offensive rebounds, proving that they were going to win the game no matter what: if they kept missing shots then they would fight to get the ball back and then shoot it again. Shooting guard Michael Jordan (9-25 from the field, 28 points) had five offensive rebounds and small forward Scottie Pippen (6-18 from the field, 17 points) had six, so it was not just about Dennis Rodman, who had three offensive rebounds. Call it tenacity, heart or will to win, the great teams have it and that is how they win even when they are not at their best. The Celtics provided a glimpse of this against Indiana and it will be interesting to see if they can replicate such efforts at playoff time against the very best teams.
*****************************
Notes From Courtside:
Prior to the game, I asked Coach O'Brien, "What have you noticed about the Celtics early in the year that has surprised you? They've put so many new players together and they're doing so well so quickly." He replied, "I think that Doc and Danny (Ainge) have done a great job of getting veteran bench people--getting Eddie House, who really keeps them in the flow from the three point line, and then stealing (James) Posey, who helps them do the same thing. When they go to the bench they have people who can continue to space the court and keep the lane open for (Rajon) Rondo and also for Kevin Garnett. So I think that getting a better than average bench put together and then utilizing it very effectively has been the thing that has probably surprised a lot of people."
Asked to list some keys to beating the Celtics, O'Brien said, "We're going to have to defend their three point shots. You never beat a really, really good team unless you are extremely aggressive both offensively and defensively." He added that the Pacers have shown the ability to push the tempo offensively in spurts but have yet to do so for four quarters. I followed up by asking, "Why is it difficult to stay aggressive offensively for four quarters? Is it a mental thing?" O'Brien answered, "You know what? We're working on that. I think the tendency on teams is to revert back to habits. The habit of most people in the NBA is that the fourth quarters are grind it out time. That's not my viewpoint. My viewpoint is that the thing that gets you your lead has to sustain the lead: (fast) tempo, moving the basketball, moving people, going inside out on drives or postups. Part of it is my ability to substitute intelligently to make sure that we always have fresh people on the court in the fourth quarter."
O'Brien disputed Denver Coach George Karl's recent statement that Danny Granger is the Pacers' number one option: "I don't even think that's relatively accurate. I don't view Danny as the number one option at all. I think that our offense has to run through Jermaine. That doesn't mean that Jermaine is going to be the guy who scores the most points; it means that Jermaine, for a guy his size, is going to be a big assists guy this year. He'll probably, in the long run, be our high scorer. The offense runs through Jermaine. The offense runs through Jamaal. I would say that Danny Granger is no more of a scoring option than Mike Dunleavy is or than Jermaine is. It doesn't look to me as if there is one guy who we go to--we need to play team basketball constantly. It never even has been a discussion for one moment in our coaching meetings that Danny Granger or this guy or that guy is our number one scoring option. You play basketball. I think that Danny Granger is going to be one of the great recipients of this style because it is perfectly suited for him. I'm not trying to say that he is not a key part of this; he is an extremely key part of this. When you talk about number one options you talk about who Paul Pierce was last year--the ball is going to go to him and he is going to touch the ball 20 times down the stretch. This is more of a team concept of offense...George Karl knows a lot about basketball and I know that it was a compliment to Danny and I'm not trying to take that compliment away but him being the number one option is inaccurate."
***
In the locker room before the game, Pierce offered his thoughts on playing alongside Kevin Garnett after each of them endured several losing seasons with Boston and Minnesota respectively: "You know how some people get stuck in marriages where they really don't want to be but they are so used to each other that they just hold on and find ways to work it out? That was kind of the situation that Kevin and I were in...I was kind of at the end of my rope. Going into the summer, I thought one of two things was going to happen: we'd either do what we did right now or I would be traded. I'm happy. The funny thing about is that when we played Minnesota last year one time on the free throw line I said to Kevin, 'Am I going to have to come to Minnesota or are you coming to Boston?' That's a true story."
I asked Pierce, "Why do you think that the Celtics have been able to jell so quickly defensively?" He answered, "It just has to do with our commitment, working at it every day and buying in to what the coaches want us to do. We practice it each and every day. Of course, the presence of Kevin--an All-Defensive player for the last decade--helps a lot."
***
During his pregame standup, Coach Rivers said, "There will be a time this season when something will happen and that will be the test for us. San Antonio and the other top teams have gone through tests. We've gone through nothing. That's why a lot of people have picked other teams (to do better than Boston) and rightly so."
I asked Rivers, "You have been very good defensively very early. What are the reasons that you have been able to make that adjustment so quickly despite adding a lot of new players and has it surprised you how quickly you have become a good defensive team?" He answered, "No, really, I mean we've focused on it. Give all the credit to the players. They've committed to it. Garnett makes a big difference. That's clear. James Posey coming off the bench makes a difference, having another veteran. We just have a different group of guys. We just have mature guys, older guys, who understand the urgency of defense. I think that makes you a better defensive team."
I followed up by asking, "Do you have a certain statistical target in terms of defensive field goal percentage or something else that you set as a goal for your team to say that this is how we know we are playing good defense?"
He replied, "At the end of the game, we look at the 'W' and the 'L.' Then you look at the stats and say that this was too high or too low."
Labels: Boston Celtics, Danny Granger, Indiana Pacers, Jamaal Tinsley, Jermaine O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen
posted by David Friedman @ 1:52 AM
