Jump to Comments

Johnny Ludden wrote a nice column describing what the Spurs did after last night’s loss:

Gregg Popovich walked through the doorway, chided them for their poor play then announced the punishment.

Dinner was on him.

Popovich had sat his starters most of the night. Now he was going to feed them, too. So the Spurs bused out of the American Airlines Center late Thursday and headed to the Capital Grill. Once they were seated, their coach delivered another message.

You might as well talk to each other now because you certainly didn’t communicate much during the game.

The anecdote is charming and will make a lovely addition to the long list of reasons I love Coach Pop. But I felt the article’s most interesting paragraph was buried further near the bottom:

The book on the Spurs’ point guard: Get him out of his rhythm early. If his first few jump shots don’t fall, he tends to lose some of his aggressiveness. That happened Thursday. Parker’s first shot missed from 18 feet. The next time down the floor, he threw the ball into Duncan. After Parker then failed to finish a drive, he went back to Duncan.

After Parker’s Game Two performance, the word “unstoppable” was bandied about quite a bit. But as last night clearly showed, if Parker’s receives the brunt of the defense’s attention, he can be taken out of his game.

Stopping Tony Parker is a complicated process that fundamentally requires more than defensive tenacity. Several aspects of the Spurs offense have to fail simultaneously. The two most important are Parker’s mid-range shot and our collective 3-point shooting. Both pull the defense out of position to defend the paint. If Parker’s man is concerned about the jumper, he’ll be too close to Parker to stay with him when he makes his move for the rim. When Mason, Finley, etc… are making their outside looks, the help defenders creep further and further towards the perimeter. When neither is falling (and neither was last night), the primary defender feels comfortable playing further off the ball and the help defenders feel more confident committing to the drive.

Ludden is on to something when he says Parker loses some of his aggression when he doesn’t get off to a good start, but I am not sure Parker’s deferrals to Duncan are a good example of that. The Mavs defense was focused entirely on Parker. Someone had to draw their attention in order for the passing and cutting lanes to open up. At the time Duncan was the best option to do so. Regrettably enough Duncan never got going and the Spurs slipped even further into a hole.

But as I said, I do think Ludden is on to something when he says Parker’s aggression decreases after slow starts. I just think that lessened aggression can be seen in Parker’s actual shot attempts, not the instances in which he passes up on them. In his 21 minutes of play, Parker still took 14 shots. He never recoiled from the idea that he is the offense’s prime mover. But he lacked the sense of abandon that is so crucial to his success in the paint.

I might even go so far as to argue that, when Parker stays on his feet, he misses more layups. Even when Erick Dampier isn’t trying to put him there, Parker is known for ending up on his back. When in the groove, any concern for his body’s well being is eclipsed by his focus on the rim. The velocity of his attack makes it almost impossible for him to remain upright. When Parker makes a balanced landing, it doesn’t mean he is in control. It means he has taken his foot slightly off the pedal.

What is both concerning and reassuring about my understanding of our offensive woes is that they originate in our shooting, not the Mavs’ defense. I don’t want to take anything away from Dallas; they played excellent defense last night. It takes a little more than an off shooting night for the Spurs to score the fewest points in a playoff game in the history of the franchise. But no matter the quality of the defense, Parker and our gunners will be able to get open mid-range and outside looks. At that point, it’s a matter of making them. I can’t put it any simpler than that.