Whenever a new player comes in the League, people want to compare him to previous players. Kobe was the last of the guys people seriously compared to Michael Jordan. Traditionally, these comparisons had a racial component -- black players were compared to previous black players, white players to white players. All the MJ comparison players were black -- Vince Carter, Harold Miner, Kobe. Any white forward who could shoot was compared to Larry Bird -- including most laughably, Adam Morrison. Young white point guards are compared to Steve Nash.
In the upcoming NBA Finals between OKC and San Antonio (officially known as the Western Conference Finals), we have two players who break the tradition. OKC's outstanding young off-guard is James Harden
-- and his game is a spitting image of my man Manu Ginobili's. Both players are left-handed, attack the rim with abandon, comfortably step back to shoot the three, and are such good passers that they often play point guard when the All-Star point guard on the team is out of the game. Amazingly, despite their talents, neither Harden nor Ginobili start -- which is why both have won Sixth Man of the Year. The only real difference in their games is that Ginobili has not been brutally elbowed in the head by Metta World Peace. If he had been, even Ginobili would not have needed to flop. In a series of great match-ups, including the one between those All-Star point guards, the match-up between Ginobili (my favorite Spur) and Harden (Ginobili 2.0) may be the most fascinating. I am rooting for the original.
Other thoughts:
1. As you all know by now, I love looking at box scores. You can learn a lot from them. I remember one game I played in where I went something like 3 for 11 from three, but I made 2 long ones near the end of the game. After the game, the guy covering me said "man, you were on fire out there". That happens a lot -- it feels like a player had a good game because our memory is selective. The box score is not. The box score from the final Laker game is very instructive. Look at the similarity of these key stats:
Lakers shot 45.3%, OKC 46.7. Lakers 2-11 from 3, OKC 3-13. Lakers 20-26 from the line, OKC 19-25. Lakers 6 steals, OKC 7. Both teams 6 blocks. Lakers 12 turnovers, OKC 11. Lakers 24 fouls, OKC 22.
Looking at those stats, you would assume a down to the wire thriller. Anybody notice the "missing stat"? The missing stat is the one I pointed to in my first fake blog two weeks ago: Offensive rebounds. The Lakers, the best offensive rebounding team in the league during the regular season got THREE for the entire game, on 41 missed shots. I said that anything below 20% is bad -- the Lakers were at 7%. OKC got 14 on 48 misses, about 30%. Decent percentage, not great -- but a hell of a lot better than 3 for 41. 14 to 3 means 11 extra possessions, which for a team shooting 46.7% means about 11 extra points. OKC won by 16 (the difference largely attributable to the terrible Flagrant Foul and ensuing two techs at the end of the first half). For the curious, here is the box score: http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/
2. The Spurs led the league in offensive efficiency, field goal percentage, and 3-point percentage. They did it with a team constructed completely the opposite of OKC. OKC's best three players were very high draft choices -- Durant the second pick in the draft after Portland disastrously picked Greg Oden instead. Westbrook and Harden were top-five picks. In contrast, since the Spurs picked Duncan number one all those years ago, they have not had a SINGLE PICK IN THE TOP 20 OF ANY DRAFT. I have long believed that the key to building a great team was not necessarily the top picks, which are often no-brainers, but the scrap heap guys. These are the guys that everyone had a shot at, and passed on, but the good teams find. Future hall-of-famer Ginobili -- a second round pick. Future hall-of-famer Tony Parker -- 22nd pick in the first round. Key Spur Gary Neal, out of mighty Towson State (Baltimore, in case you are wondering), undrafted, picked up out of European league. Starting 2-guard Danny Green, let go by Cleveland, played more games in the D-League last year than the NBA.
Though back-up forward Matt Bonner is a good shooter -- and therefore must henceforth be referred to as a red-haired Larry Bird clone.
3. How are the Spurs so good? Watch their shot selection. They move the ball extremely well, they move their offensive players extremely well (watch how many times a screen comes from an odd angle or seals a defender in the paint and a guy finds himself open as a result), At the end of that movement, they rarely take a bad shot. The converse of this is that they rarely pass up a good shot. Everyone on the team is empowered to take a shot that is in their range, and because they are free to do so, they shoot it well and with confidence. Taking good shots, and avoiding bad ones. Simple basketball. That is why when Popovich was asked how much of what he learned coaching Division 3 Pomona Pitzer translated to the NBA, he looked at the questioner with annoyance and said: "All of it."
Go Spurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment