Suns at Clippers Game Thread

[Griffin]

So why was Taylor Griffin inactive for this game? We have currently 14 players on the roster. With Lopez out and JRich suspended, that leaves 12. Since Griffin was inactive as well, that left us 11 players dressed for the game. Why? Not that it would have made a difference, but it doesn't make sense unless Griffin was actually injured.

 

[Covert Rain]

Earl Clark just oozes potential. Gentry put him in for a long time tonight and he responded. Still had questionable shot selection, but he was very active. In fact, all our bench guys played really well.

Grant Hill kept us in the game in the first half, we were getting rocked by that huge front line of the Clippers and Marcus Camby was hitting everything. Luckily for us they couldn't hit any free throws.

And Steve Nash and LB were clutch. Absolutely clutch. The Staples Center completely deflated when LB made his 3. Channing also played much, much better in the 2nd half.

As for Amare, their entire defensive scheme with him is automatic double team with the other big man. He was stifled the whole game but was pretty aggressive towards the end to get his free throws.

Nash is simply amazing. Worth every penny of his contract in that game.

+1

 

[TJ]

So why was Taylor Griffin inactive for this game? We have currently 14 players on the roster. With Lopez out and JRich suspended, that leaves 12. Since Griffin was inactive as well, that left us 11 players dressed for the game. Why? Not that it would have made a difference, but it doesn't make sense unless Griffin was actually injured.

I believe a suspended player counts as one of the 12 actives.

 

[dodie53]

nash is a god!

good win!

woohoo!

 

[Sunburn]

Weren't there a lot of people over the summer saying Nash's resigning was a total mistake? Is it still? The first thing to go for a basketball player is his athleticism. Unlike Stoudemire, who's game is built more upon athletic moves to the bucket, Steve's game is predicated more upon skill, which is the last thing to go. All hail Nashy.

 

[slinslin]

Earl Clark just oozes potential. Gentry put him in for a long time tonight and he responded. Still had questionable shot selection, but he was very active. In fact, all our bench guys played really well.

Grant Hill kept us in the game in the first half, we were getting rocked by that huge front line of the Clippers and Marcus Camby was hitting everything. Luckily for us they couldn't hit any free throws.

And Steve Nash and LB were clutch. Absolutely clutch. The Staples Center completely deflated when LB made his 3. Channing also played much, much better in the 2nd half.

As for Amare, their entire defensive scheme with him is automatic double team with the other big man. He was stifled the whole game but was pretty aggressive towards the end to get his free throws.

Nash is simply amazing. Worth every penny of his contract in that game.

We must have watched different games becase Nash and Hill were both like +/- -15 for the first half while everyone else was just about neutral or +12.

 

[cly2tw]

Weren't there a lot of people over the summer saying Nash's resigning was a total mistake? Is it still? The first thing to go for a basketball player is his athleticism. Unlike Stoudemire, who's game is built more upon athletic moves to the bucket, Steve's game is predicated more upon skill, which is the last thing to go. All hail Nashy.

Nash is good guy and when healthy always capable of such 4th quarter heroics on offense, that is when our defense and his defense hadn't already lost the game for us by the 4th quarter. And the concern about Nash was how the team around him would perform in postseason, when he is worn out over the season and shut out by playoff defense.

 

[Chaplin]

We must have watched different games becase Nash and Hill were both like +/- -15 for the first half while everyone else was just about neutral or +12.

What is it with everyone's +/- fetish all of a sudden? The starters didn't play well in the first half at all, but Grant Hill scored all his points in that half. Don't throw out hockey stats when I was at the freaking game. The starters stank it up in the first half, if it wasn't for Grant Hill's scoring, we would have been down by 10 or 15 at halftime. How that translates to +/-, I don't know, but it's a fact.

 

[Bufalay]

What is it with everyone's +/- fetish all of a sudden? The starters didn't play well in the first half at all, but Grant Hill scored all his points in that half. Don't throw out hockey stats when I was at the freaking game. The starters stank it up in the first half, if it wasn't for Grant Hill's scoring, we would have been down by 10 or 15 at halftime. How that translates to +/-, I don't know, but it's a fact.

The plus-minus stats are consistent with my observations during the game. The starters played horrible defense until the last 5 minutes and the bench guys played good defense except for the last couple of minutes they were in the game.

 

[82CardsGrad]

3. And perhaps most importantly, I will say first, this could be one of those wierd stats, or it could be a sign of things to come, time will tell, but it is promising-- Dragic/Clark/Dudley had a point differential of +9, +11, and +12 respectively.... If our bench plays with a positive PD this year the suns will win 55 games..

Maybe... I kinda agree with this, however, I also think that for this team to win 55 games, it will be more important that Amare be a true, total dominator throughout the season. I think he's going to have to average 25 ppg or more. Grab 9-10 rebounds a game or more. If he doesn't lead the team in those two stats and at least close to the #'s I just tossed out, I really don't know if it will matter much what Dragic/Clark/Dudley do...
We know Nash will wear down at some point... And Hill can not be the team leader in rebounds on a consistent basis... 55 wins to me sits squarely on the shoulders of one man - Amare.

 

[DeAnna]

whew ... that was a scary win. Against the Clippers, no less. This kinda worries me.

 

[nashman]

Why exactly do you supposedly KNOW that Nash will wear down? Dragic seems to have improved which means Nash could be playing less minutes this season, I don't think anyone on here KNOWS that Nash will wear down after only 1 game into the season. He is still the most skilled player on the roster and doesn't rely on athleticism to be great!

 

[joshstmarie]

not only do we have armchair coaches/GMs but now we have +/- hollinger nerds? cool.

 

[AsUdUdE]

not only do we have armchair coaches/GMs but now we have +/- hollinger nerds? cool.

Hey now... Are you one of those people who are completely against Fantasy sports as well?

To me +/- stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but when players are on the floor, how the game goes is pretty consistant to how effective they are in general.

Last night our Bench played REALLY well, and actually closed the gap that our Starters had dug... That ofcourse won't always be the case, but typically if your bench is in the positive, you are a very good team...

And BTW Holligner is in a very small category (Along with Skip Bayless, Gene Worskowski, and Jemelle Hill) of analysts I can't stand and despise with a passion.... So even though I look at +/- of a particular game, I am FAR from the outragous claims of Hollinger...

 

[lou_skywalker]

So why was Taylor Griffin inactive for this game? We have currently 14 players on the roster. With Lopez out and JRich suspended, that leaves 12. Since Griffin was inactive as well, that left us 11 players dressed for the game. Why? Not that it would have made a difference, but it doesn't make sense unless Griffin was actually injured.

I think u need to have one inactive player for every game. and so far that player was mostly Tucker....

 

[Bufalay]

not only do we have armchair coaches/GMs but now we have +/- hollinger nerds? cool.

Almost as cool as no-analysis name-callers.

 

[joshstmarie]

Almost as cool as no-analysis name-callers.

Coming from the boards biggest troll, thats funny.

 

[joshstmarie]

Hey now... Are you one of those people who are completely against Fantasy sports as well?

To me +/- stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but when players are on the floor, how the game goes is pretty consistant to how effective they are in general.

Last night our Bench played REALLY well, and actually closed the gap that our Starters had dug... That ofcourse won't always be the case, but typically if your bench is in the positive, you are a very good team...

And BTW Holligner is in a very small category (Along with Skip Bayless, Gene Worskowski, and Jemelle Hill) of analysts I can't stand and despise with a passion.... So even though I look at +/- of a particular game, I am FAR from the outragous claims of Hollinger...

I cant even see a +/- without that cheeseball picture of him on espn popping into my head, the hatred stems from there... its his fault!

Im just not a big fan of evaluating people on that system, I hear all this rubbish about the thunder being a better team when kevin durrants resting.. I have a hard time believing they win 10 games w/o KD there.

 

[mojorizen7]

I tend to agree that +/- is not a very telling statistic if taken on a game by game basis and evaluating a performance. If you're a knowlegable NBA fan, you can learn more about an individual performance by watching a game,rather than throwing out that a guy was -22 and claiming he wasn't effective.

Put my slow,non-jumping anymore white butt on a squad of 4 elites out there for 10 minutes and i'm going to have a positive rating . Extreme example but case in point.

 

[AsUdUdE]

Both are valid points, and taking individual +/- stats doesn't say much, ESPECIALLY on a game by game basis...

But if you take a group that are playing together at a given point in games, collectively their ratio can tell you stuff about the game... My original point was how our 3 main bench guys last night were +9, +11, and +12 collectively... If those players (playing together off the bench) have a positive +/- that tells you something.. (IE they played extremely well)..

But one game doesn't prove anything, and those stats could be a complete aberation, but for opening night, it was really surprising to see, and if our bench can extend a lead or close the gap with 3-4 starters are resting, we will win A LOT of games this year....

 

[Cheesewater]

I think u need to have one inactive player for every game. and so far that player was mostly Tucker....

Even when Tucker is "active" he's inactive.

 

[Griffin]

The plus-minus stats are consistent with my observations during the game. The starters played horrible defense until the last 5 minutes and the bench guys played good defense except for the last couple of minutes they were in the game.

Well, you also have to take under consideration who the starters were playing against and who the bench was playing against. It is a lot easier to look good on defense when you don't have to contend with Camby and Kaman as much. I thought for the most part our bench outplayed the Clippers bench, but our starters struggled defending against the Clippers starters until the 4th quarter.

I think u need to have one inactive player for every game. and so far that player was mostly Tucker....

But Lopez was inactive as well. I don't think there's a rule that says you have to have one healthy inactive player for each game. The only requirement is that a team keeps at least 13 players on their roster. Though it is possible as suggested earlier that a suspended player cannot be made inactive, I don't know.

 

[jbeecham]

The Suns currently have 14 players on the roster, so 2 will have to be inactive every night. Right now it's Robin Lopez & Taylor Griffin.

 

[Superbone]

You can have a maximum of 12 active players in a game. For suspension purposes, JRich counts as an active player. So, if not Taylor, somebody else would have had to be inactive (like Tucker). Not that it mattered because we didn't even play 11 guys last night.

 

[Bufalay]

Well, you also have to take under consideration who the starters were playing against and who the bench was playing against. It is a lot easier to look good on defense when you don't have to contend with Camby and Kaman as much. I thought for the most part our bench outplayed the Clippers bench, but our starters struggled defending against the Clippers starters until the 4th quarter.

This is sort of obvious. The point I was trying to make was that the bench did their job (play better than the Clippers bench) better than the starters did theirs (play better than the Clipper starters). It was hard not to come to that conclusion watch the game last night, the plus minus stats supported this. I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that the Suns would be better off benching their starters.