Take Two We're Small

[Cheesebeef]

Rule #1, dont bring real life up on the internet.

agreed.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Wow, people are giving up on this team faster than I ever thought possible. Must suck to lead such a negative existence.

There is just a lot of skeptecism right now. The skepticism is deserved in my opinion, if only because it seemed we were on the cusp of an amazing off season and found out it was all fools gold.

Despite all this, I am sure after we rattle off 10 wins in a row I will be drunk on kool-aide and convinced of our 2007 championship.

 

[Mainstreet]

Come to think of it, why did the Suns sign Richardson in the first place? He played well for them for one year, struggling only a bit in the playoffs. (This board is fond of saying his postseason was awful, but the numbers don't bear that out.) At the time, he seemed somewhat redundant with Johnson, I remember discussion about how he was "good value" for the contract and the Suns landed him as an asset while they were in a position to do so.

Well, he was such good value that it has now cost three first-round picks just to get rid of him. That's starting to look like one of the worst signings of all time.

It's really looking this way.

I was alluding to this in my previous post. However, as bad as the Richardson signing turned out to be, the Suns signing of Nash was oppositely brilliant. I think the Suns were looking at Q as a Jason Richardson type player with an inside game. I think the Suns viewed the Signing of Q and Nash as an opportunity to get two star quality players in one season. BC sure made a blunder in signing Q without insurance coverage for his back.

 

[Chaplin]

chap, is your entire existence based around the Suns? I'm pretty sure just because people have doubts about the Suns doesn't mean the rest of their entire world's are mired in negative existences and if they are, they probably have mental problems and don't need you piling on.

This is more than just "doubts" about the Suns. Come on now.

 

[Ballamania]

with the CURRENT roster, the suns will win 55 games barring injuries. they will be exciting and fun to watch and probably blowout quite a few teams. with the CURRENT roster, the suns should hope that the spurs are outta the playoffs before they see them. i hate to lose to anybody but when you keep losing to the same team and dont adjust it is extra frustrating. unless some injuries bite them, the spurs are not going anywhere.

 

[azirish]

Worrying about the Suns regular season record is beside the point. Baring injuries, the Suns should win more than 60. They will win most games in shootouts because there are not many teams with a strong enough combination of low post offense and outside shooting to keep up.

One of the most common misconceptions about the NBA is the notion that great defense (without fouling) can stop a great offensive team. It can't. Eddie Johnson wrote an article last season in which he showed that every team that won the championship had at least a very good offense (the Pistons had the weakest offense of any winner since the Bad Boys era) and they won because they shot well.

During the regular season when refs actually call fouls, the Suns will be all but unstoppable. This year's team will look a lot like the 2004-05 team, espcially if Amare gets his hops back. Diaw is better than Hunter (except on shot blocking), Barbosa is vastly better, Bell is better than Q (except in rebounding), and while Hill is not as good a shooter as JJ he is much better going to the basket and getting FT's.

This team is going to scare a lot of points. The real question is how opponents will respond. Bigger, stronger teams can try to slow the game down and pound it into the post. But unless they have an extremely efficient offense, they are not likely to make up for all the quickness mismatches on the other end. The net result is that the Suns shooters are left open or available as cutters with open paths to the basket, and that doesn't even count the extra man available on the break

Some times teams try to respond by going small, but that creates a different problem: trying to stop Amare. Nobody can stop Amare without help and it is much harder to do when using a small lineup.

If healthy, the Suns offense will destroy teams during the regular season. The only team with the answer is the Spurs because they have a very efficient offense and are allowed to foul to slow down the Suns offense.

I really want the Suns to get another big for the Spurs series, but I'm not sure it will make any difference if the games are called the way they were this year. The Suns simply cannot overcome the Spurs AND the refs even with more inside help.

Still, adding someone like PJ Brown could be enough to keep Amare out of early foul trouble and slow Duncan down at times. But the bottom line is that PJ would not be the key to beating the Spurs. The key remains doing a better job of attacking the Spurs defense because the Spurs are going to score no matter what the Suns do to Duncan. The Suns just have to score more.

 

[elindholm]

I really want the Suns to get another big for the Spurs series, but I'm not sure it will make any difference if the games are called the way they were this year. The Suns simply cannot overcome the Spurs AND the refs even with more inside help.

You've made this point before, but I still don't agree with it. The Suns were 2-2 in the Spurs series. I thought they were the inferior team, but not by much. If everyone else has improved as much as you say they have, "someone like" Kurt Thomas could be the difference maker. The Suns couldn't do what they wanted to against the Spurs, but they were still effective.

But the bottom line is that PJ would not be the key to beating the Spurs.

The problem with a statement like this is the fuzzy definition of what "the key" is. Every rotation player counts, even if it's a player who misses every shot in his ten minutes a game but lets a star rest. Brown would not be "the key" any more than Barbosa or Diaw or anyone else, but he could be part of "the key" by rounding out the squad into something fairly competitive. (That said, I don't think Brown would be enough, but he would be a step in the right direction.) Eventually, "the key" is simply having the right combination of players who can do the right things at the right time.

The key remains doing a better job of attacking the Spurs defense because the Spurs are going to score no matter what the Suns do to Duncan. The Suns just have to score more.

That's the party line, but it's hogwash. The Suns scored plenty against the Spurs. No team has won a title giving up as many points per possession as the Suns do. Often their first-shot defense was pretty good, but their defensive rebounding was terrible, as it was all season long. When teams are closely matched, letting one have an extra dozen offensive chances per game figures to be decisive. Thomas was, by far, the Suns' best interior defender and best position rebounder. His departure leaves a gaping hole that can't be filled by scoring more points.

 

[azirish]

I'd rather have a big who can deal with Duncan. But I'm not convinced the Suns could not win playing small.

I was looking at the stats for Game 6. The Suns fell terribly behind in the third quarter and began the fourth 14 behind, but got back into the game by playing small.

For the game, KT played only 17 minutes and had 3 rebounds and 5 points. Yet for the game, the Suns equalled the Spurs in rebounds at 43 and blocked shots at 9. The Suns matched the Spurs in shooting percentage over 48%. So why did the Suns lose?

1. The Suns had 17 turnovers compared to 12 by the Spurs
2. The Suns had 2 more personal fouls called but the Spurs took 6 more fouls shots.

Nobody has evaluated the videos of game 6 the way they did game 3, but my memory of it was that the Spurs were allowed to manhandle Nash in the decisive third quarter when the Suns scored only 16 points compared to 28 by the Spurs.

The other game that KT did not play much in was Game 1 when he played just under 13 minutes. The Spurs certainly did better on the boards, but at the same time their manhandling of Nash held the Suns to only 18 assists.

The Spurs shot 50% from the field to the Suns 46.4%, but overall the Suns did not shoot well. Bell 3 of 8, Barbosa 7 of 17, Jones 0 of 2, and Stoudemire 6 of 17. Good defense by the Spurs? The Spurs had 25 personal fouls to only 24 for the Suns; but took 6 more fouls shots.

Does this prove the Suns will necesarily win playing the Spurs small with better oficiating? No, but it suggests that the Suns can play good enough defense with small ball that they can compete if they shoot well.

I'd rather have a big who can deal with Duncan, but I'm not ready to give up if there isn't one.

 

[elindholm]

I was looking at the stats for Game 6. The Suns fell terribly behind in the third quarter and began the fourth 14 behind, but got back into the game by playing small.

I don't remember that the Suns ever really got back into Game 6, but I'll take your word for it. Either way, it doesn't mean anything. We already know that small ball can sometimes be successful in brief spurts. The question is whether it's good enough to win four out of seven 48-minute games. Historically, the answer is a decisive No.

The Suns matched the Spurs in shooting percentage over 48%. So why did the Suns lose?

1. The Suns had 17 turnovers compared to 12 by the Spurs
2. The Suns had 2 more personal fouls called but the Spurs took 6 more fouls shots.

Or, to put it another way, the Spurs got more shot attempts: three from the field and six from the line.

Nobody has evaluated the videos of game 6 the way they did game 3, but my memory of it was that the Spurs were allowed to manhandle Nash in the decisive third quarter when the Suns scored only 16 points compared to 28 by the Spurs.

Yes, and Nash was uncharacteristically passive, which I attribute to his having worn himself out mentally in Game 5. It was only once the Suns were facing a huge deficit that he woke up and realized his season would be over if he didn't pull off a miracle. By then it was too late.

The Spurs shot 50% from the field to the Suns 46.4%, but overall the Suns did not shoot well. Bell 3 of 8, Barbosa 7 of 17, Jones 0 of 2, and Stoudemire 6 of 17.

I don't understand this comment at all. 46% is 46%. In any particular game, there will always be some players who shoot well and others who shoot poorly. Obviously other Phoenix players must have done well in Game 1 in order to bring the percentage up.

The Suns lost Game 1 because they gave up 111 points. The Suns were 2-1 when holding San Antonio under 100 (the loss being Game 5, when they were too undermanned to score) and 0-3 otherwise. The Suns scored over 100 in every game except Game 5, and it was enough to win only twice.

I'd rather have a big who can deal with Duncan, but I'm not ready to give up if there isn't one.

But in fact you are ready to give up if there is one. You said that trying to defend the Spurs is hopeless, so the Suns' only chance to is score even more. That's exactly in line with D'Antoni's absurd spin about how Thomas was slowing the team down.

 

[azirish]

46% is just not good enough for a tem that averages close to 50% during the regular season, especially in an environment when the Suns were not taking as many threes due to a stretched defense by the Spurs.

If the Spurs can HOLD the Suns to 46% shooting in every game, the Spurs will win the series, no matter what the Suns do on defense. The Suns need to be vastly more efficient in the half court to make up for the Spurs taking away the Suns three point shooting (the Suns averaged only 7.6 threes hit in the Spurs series compared to 9.6 during the regular season.)

Improving the Suns half court offense against the Spurs is no easy thing, but that is what it will take to win. This means better movement off the ball, ball movement, hitting open shots, and better finishing at the basket. If we assume the refs will let Bowen mug Nash, then the rest of the team needs to know how to attack the Spurs without him.

Obviously the Suns need to step up their defense too, but this is a team built to score points and they cannot let the Spurs intimidate the Suns into playing the Spurs style.

 

[elindholm]

46% is just not good enough for a tem that averages close to 50% during the regular season

Come on, George, that's laughable. Of course the Suns aren't going to shoot as well against good defensive teams as they do against poor ones. An average includes your difficult days as well as your easy ones.

To put the shoe on the other foot, the Spurs could say, "Our opponents averaged only 44% shooting for the regular season, so there's no way we can win if we allow someone to shoot 46% in the playoffs." But it would be silly for them to say that when their opponent is the league's best offensive team.

If the Spurs can HOLD the Suns to 46% shooting in every game, the Spurs will win the series, no matter what the Suns do on defense.

That's not how averages work either. It's not as though the Suns will shoot exactly 46% in seven straight games. If that 46% average includes some games up around 50 and some in the low 40s, sure, that's enough to win. The Suns shot 49% in Game 3, but lost because other things went wrong.

The Suns need to be vastly more efficient in the half court to make up for the Spurs taking away the Suns three point shooting (the Suns averaged only 7.6 threes hit in the Spurs series compared to 9.6 during the regular season.)

Again, the evidence that the Suns' offense struggled mightily is just not there. The Suns averaged 100.5 points on 47.4% shooting against the Spurs. That's down from their regular season averages, but by an amount that should come as no surprise or alarm given the opponent and the fact that scoring always goes down in the playoffs.

Had you polled a panel of NBA experts before the series started, told them that the Suns would average better than 100 points on better than 47% shooting, and asked them who would win the series, most would have said Phoenix. And, in fact, had the Suns won the series with those numbers -- and we know that, realistically, they weren't far from doing so -- you can be sure that Spurs fans would be saying, "There's no way we can win if we allow a team to score that efficiently."

Obviously the Suns need to step up their defense too, but this is a team built to score points and they cannot let the Spurs intimidate the Suns into playing the Spurs style.

But except for the fouling, the series was played in the Suns' style. True, the Suns didn't run or get as many three-point attempts as they are used to, but their half-court offense was just fine, in spite of Bowen's thug tactics.