Friday, March 20th, 2009...9:06 pm
The Notebook: Celtics-Spurs, 3/20/09
Ugh.
OK, before we get down to the nitty gritty, let’s discuss the game’s closing minutes. With 2:31 left, the game tied 74-74, Michael Finley went to free throw line. Over an 80% free throw shooter on the season, he failed to connect on either attempt. With 49 seconds left, the Celtics now up by 2, Tony Parker would find his way to the charity stripe. He failed to connect on either attempt. After a missed Pierce 14-footer, Parker would again draw contact and earn two shots from the line. Again, neither would find the bottom of the net. After a failed defensive rotation, an open Glen Davis jumper and an improbable Michael Finley 3-pointer (his second make on 7 attempts), the Spurs stumbled to an 80-77 loss in San Antonio against the Boston Celtics.
There isn’t much to say about the closing minutes other than to state the facts. I’m sure the mob will be hungry for Parker’s blood but, before we commence with the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth, let’s recognize that if it weren’t for his 12 of 23 shooting, 7 rebounds, and 8 assists, the Spurs wouldn’t have been in this game at all. With the Spurs going a collective 4 of 17 from beyond the arc, it was his job to keep us competitive. And for 46 minutes he did an excellent job.
(Breathes Deeply)
Zero of six in the final 2 and a half minutes? Are you kidding me? If we hit our free throws, we would have won this game. I have no doubt in my mind. I felt confident. I felt relaxed. And you betrayed my confidence. All of you. Yes, Tony, my ire is pointed most directly at you. But Finley, you have not escaped my piercing stare. OK. I’ll say it. Manu Ginobili would have made those free throws. Alright, commenters. Do your worst.
Moving on.
Considering the absence of Manu Ginobili, the Spurs played an excellent game against a contender for this season’s title. Without our most dynamic scorer, no one should be shocked the Spurs were unable to take down one of the NBA’s elite. But aside from the closing minutes, this game went well and left me feeling confident about a potential Finals match-up against Boston. Both of these squads are hampered by injury (Garnett saw the floor for the first time in weeks but was only able to muster 15 minutes of court time, none of which came in the closing stretch of the fourth quarter) so treating this game as conclusive would be misguided. But we did some things well, and others very well, and despite the loss, it’s worth recognizing what went right.
The Spurs outrebounded the Celtics 47 to 44 (both teams had 6 offensive rebounds). At first, given Garnett’s limited minutes, the statistic seems somewhat irrelevant. But we held Kendrick Perkins to 3 rebounds in 34 minutes of play. So the seeds of more sustainable frontcourt dominance have been sown.
The Celtics went 50% from beyond the arc. But again, this statistic is misleading. The Celtics average almost 18 3-point attempts a game. This evening they went 3 of 6. A 3-point shot never allowed is practically as good as a 3-point shot missed. In particular, George Hill and Bruce Bowen did an excellent job denying shot opportunities on the perimeter.
Speaking of Bruce Bowen, during his 20 minutes of floor time, he did an excellent job harassing the 2008 NBA Finals MVP into a 3-16 night from the field. My favorite moment of the game was easily Bowen’s block of Pierce’s layup with 8:14 left in the fourth (closely followed by Bowen’s block of Pierce’s 18-footer with 9:51 left in the fourth). Unlike, say, Kobe Bryant, Pierce does not have the quickness or athleticism to escape Bowen. Actually, I would argue Bowen’s style is tailor made to negate Pierce’s game. For instance, Pierce’s release point is low and forward. Given the activeness of Bowen’s hands I’m not surprised Pierce was unable to get of a shot while remaining true to his natural shooting form (honestly, I’m surprised more defenders don’t take advantage of Pierce’s very non-traditional release point). If we meet in the Finals, a classic defense of Pierce by Bowen will be nothing short of essential.
A chink in the armor worth noting is our approach to defending the mid-range jumper. Between Garnett, Davis, and Allen, they have several players who are quite comfortable taking a 15 to 20-footer. We did a solid job closing out on perimeter shooters and protecting the rim but against a team like the Celtics it’s worth reconsidering the aggressiveness (or lack thereof) with which we defend mid-range jumpers. Normally I support the idea of allowing mid-range shots in the hopes of securing the defensive rebound a greater majority of the time and I’m not saying we should abandon that tactic. I’m just saying it deserves reconsideration.
I’ve spent all season arguing in favor of consistent penetration over perimeter shooting. The Spurs did a decent job getting to the rim this evening so I’m not going to parrot my usual talking points. I’ll let our 4-17 night from beyond the 3-point line speak for itself.
In a somewhat obligatory act of bipartisanship, I want to take a moment and praise the grace and symmetry of Ray Allen’s jumpshot. His shooting form is the closest thing to the actualization of a platonic ideal the NBA has. I’m hardly the first to say this but it deserves recognition nonetheless. And, let’s be honest, Allen is a class act. On a team full with an increasingly hot headed coach, a bully for a floor general and a bunch of ethically dubious big men, Allen emits an air of nobility that is genuinely calming. (Given the pot shots at Rivers, Garnett, Perkins and Davis, that ended up being less bipartisan than intended).
While on the subject, it’s worth mentioning the excellent job George Hill did defensively against Ray Allen. Allen is a difficult man to guard. He remains in nearly constant motion and has a shot that borders on the unblockable. His motion is so meticulously rehearsed that putting a hand in his face has minimal effect. Add to that the excellent coverage George Hill provided and Allen’s 7 of 16 night becomes all the more impressive. A lot of players would have been unable to find the bottom of the net given the way Hill was playing. Honestly, I am so excited about Hill’s potential. The Spurs have stumbled across a player who may be one of the more prolific defenders of the next generation.
Our next game is Sunday against the Rockets. After tonight’s loss Houston sits half a game back. Tim will be back later this weekend to expand upon the importance of Sunday’s game. And, when discussing Parker’s late game performance, let’s keep the foul language to a minimum.
13 Comments
March 20th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
[...] News by Graydon Gordian for Notebook Review 48 Minutes of Hell » Blog Archive » The bNotebook/b: Celtics-Spurs, 3 [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
[...] 48 Minutes of Hell » Blog Archive » The Notebook: Celtics-Spurs, 3 … [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I’ve already screamed out my choice words for Tony Parker, while watching the game with friends.
All I have to say, is as much as we’ve praised Tony for his play while Manu’s been out, he really crapped the bed tonight. Mike Finley shouldn’t escape our wrath, but Tony was our Finals MVP, and the team is as much his, as Duncan’s. I can understand missing two of four, but not all four.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Parker and Finley just aren’t clutch guys. They do a tremendous amount to help us win the game, so their importance can never be understated, but when the game’s winding down I want the ball in Manu’s hands either slicing to the hoop, or getting to the stripe and calmly hitting his shots.
In the meantime, I only see Roger Mason as the option for late game heroics, Duncan if he is at full health and his shot was falling.
I didn’t watch the game, but it looks like Rondo did a little more damage than was mentioned. Maybe Pop should have focused his defensive attention on him more?
Ray Allen is a Grade A class act. He might be the only reason I have any respect for the Celtics whatsoever.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:02 am
I remember Manu nailing FT after FT, calmly, making it looking easy, even as he doesn’t deserve that easy points at the end of close games. OK, it wasn’t THAT easy, it’s not for everyone. We need him back!
March 21st, 2009 at 5:22 am
Ok, the Spurs lost. Ok, Parker missed 4 FTs in a row, and the Spurs missed 6 in a row in the closing minutes.
But… that’s about all the “bad” I will remember about this game. Of course a loss is a loss, but that’s not the point.
Now for the good:
- Parker: he missed the 4 FTs at the end and an open 3-pointer that I wish he would have made to force offense to take him seriously on the 3. But let’s face it he carried the team most of the game. It’s clear the game doesn’t flow quite as well, the passes aren’t quite as sharp and decisive when Hill or Mason are running the show. If he hadn’t been there there would be no game to talk about anyway. And when I hear that Rondo is a much better defensive player than Parker, well that sure wasn’t on display yesterday night.
- Gooden!!! I really liked what I saw yesterday night, a lot of energy on the boards and generally more focus on the defensive side. There were still a few awkwards as when he was fighting with Thomas for a defensive rebound and Thomas was pointing forward as if saying “you shouldn’t be arguing with me about who should have taken this rebound, you should already be at the other end of the floor”. But if he can play like that in the postseason then I have a very good feeling about things to come.
- I had the impression quite a few times that the Spurs were in practice, i.e. it didn’t sound like “we want to beat them at all costs” but Pop (or Parker) saying “let’s rehearse the baseline variation of play #12 against the Celtics excellent defense, because I didn’t feel like everybody was doing exactly what they should have last time”. A bit like taking advantage of an elite sparring partner. The Spurs also squandered quite a few large leads by playing only players from the bench for extended minutes (instead of mixing them with starters) so it really felt like the game was played in 2 completely different gears on the Spurs side. There are so many new players on the team this year, it looked like “let’s play the reserves a lot so they get more used to each other, and then send in the A unit to keep us in the game”.
- Stats are deceiving. Parker and Duncan aren’t 50% shooters. They are simply 100% shooters when using their weapon of choice (lay-up or bank shot), these shots were just going in every single time yesterday night. Their scoring average goes down because of the shots they are forced to take and aren’t “natural” to them. But if we play on their strengths they are really amazing players. I don’t think there was a situation yesterday night where you would have Parker at the free throw line with 3 players between him and the basket and there wouldn’t be 2 points more on the scoreboard a couple of seconds later.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:06 am
What was even more disappointing then all of the missed free throws was the number of San Antonians who showed up in green. They were everywhere. And these were the worst kind of bandwagon fans: complete tools.
They showed up and sat on their hands the entire game, never cheering or appearing into it. It wasn’t until the game was already over that they began to talk trash and applaud. So, seeing as how they were all wearing brand new Celtics jerseys and talking trash in support of their team, I thought I’d test how many really knew their team.
It took about 11 people in Celts gear before I could find anyone who could tell me who Gerald Green/Al Jefferson/Delonte West/Bill Walker were. And when I found someone who could answer (the only guy who was completely offended and proudly claimed his Boston heritage), he was enough of a jerk to push me over the line. Part of our conversation:
White goofy guy: (Smiling) Well you better get use to it..17 titles…And the Spurs are going to be stuck on Four for a long time. Tim Duncan is old and washed up, it’s over.
Me: (Ignoring the fact that the Celtics have an
older core than ours) Even if that’s true, it’s better than the Chauncey Billups/Ron Mercer era.
White goofy guy: (Still Smiling)
Me: And it sure as hell last a lot longer than the Len Bias era….
White goofy guy: (Stopped Smiling) Wow, you’re a jerk.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am
You can pay me $50,000 a year and I promise I could go 1-7 from the field and 0-2 from the FT line. Anyway, those 6 free throws really killed us. To quote Step Brothers, “You don’t even look good doing it.” I expected him to miss, but I didn’t expect him to look so bad while shooting them.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:39 am
Also, I lost quite a bit of respect for Rondo throwing the ball at Tony legs 1 second after the ref handed it to him. I understand if it’s 4 and a half seconds and you can’t find anyone. That was pretty low. I never had any respect for Perkins so doesn’t what I say there. Big kid that thinks he’s better than he is.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:25 am
I’m still crushed about last night’s loss, and mostly because we were so close. I also thought we had it at some point, not based on the score, but on the level of defense we were displaying.
Hill’s addition looks better and better every day, and I can’t wait for him to develop a reliable jumper. He’ll be big for us.
We need Manu back.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Three additional points: First, Nico is right, neither Tony nor Fin are clutch, particularly when it involves situations in which you have to think before you shoot, like free throws. There’s a huge difference between having a good free throw shooting percentage during the course of a game and at crunch time. Remember Nick Anderson in 1995 against the Rockets. He had an 80%+ free throw percent and absolutely choked when it counted most. Besides, Tony’ s free throw form sucks. He actually pulls back his hand after letting the shot go, rather than following through. Second, does anyone know if, as a general rule, three point shooting accuracy goes down as the season wears along? I fear that our recent plunge in shots beyond the arc are related to fatigue and not just a temporary slump. After 60 or so games, maybe it’s natural that Roger and Matt would begin missing shot after shot. Maybe their legs are gone. Which begs the question as to whether Pop’s strategy of relying on the three so much makes long term sense. I hope it’s just a slump, but metrics may tell us otherwise. And last: damn we need Manu back!
March 21st, 2009 at 2:38 pm
BTW I encourage everybody to go to Celtics Hub and read what they have to say. Interesting analysis of the game, which mirrors the Spurs fans view I guess: the Celtics had few turnovers, the Spurs had a bad 3pt night, no Manu and missed 6 FTs in a row in clutch - and Boston won by only 3…
The real question: who should be happy or not about this?
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 am
We knew Timmy would eventually reach the stage in his career in which his mobility would be considerably affected. We knew we would reach the point in which the teams success would hinge far more on the play of the other two stars on the team.
We are there.
But let us panic not. The all world tandem of Parker and Manu are more than up for the challenge that awaits them this postseason.
Parker has essentially become a threat each and every night ( a change from the erratic play early in his carreer). This boost in offensive ability has fortunately not affected his passing totals. In fact, tony is averaging a carreer high 6.8 dishes per game. Also , i dont know if youve noticed, but people are FAR less likely to leave him open from beyond the arc than in seasons past.( Something has been made of his defensive effort, but all out defensive output is not something san antonio gives until the postseason.)
Manu-is-coming.
And if being rested and fresh for the postseason is what pop desired, methinks this has been accomplished. This coming Wednesday,the 25th of March will mark exactly six weeks since the last time Manu saw any gametime.
I believe this is more than enough rest to right the maladies of the Argentinians ankles.
The bench is better.
The best is yet to come.
Leave a Reply