Spurs-Celts

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Happy Turkey day all!

As a number of you have noted, one should not panic over one loss.
Personally, I'm ecstatic that the Celts are 7-5, and although December
looms as a difficult month we also need to remember that the Cs will -
hopefully - finally get to see the dividends (Fortson) of their big
off-season trade by the end of the month.

A loss is a loss whether by 1 or 31, but Way does raise a valid point
however in discussing the way in which the Cs lost to the reigning champs.
SA got by Philadelphia by a score of 94-91 two nights ago. Now we can
simply chalk up the differences between our game and the Philly game to the
"hot hand" but I think that would be misleading, at least in part. We could
also deduce, as has Way, that our frontcourt is inferior to Philly's hence
making a trade a necessity but I think that this inference is also
mistaken. As someone (I believe Cecil) pointed out, the Twin Towers were
anything but neutralized in Philly - 48 pts 28 rebs in 78 min as opposed to
41 and 24 in 62 min against Boston. (FWIW IMHO McHale & Parish never got
"twin tower" status because of the presence of Bird).

I think the key differences between the two games can be traced to coaching
philosophies. Brown is content, even eager to play a slow-down game -
nothing surprising here since the slower the game, the more important each
point scored by Iverson. This is the same logic that made Phil Jackson look
so smart during the MJ era. Pitino, as we all know, prefers a much faster
paced game - "frenetic" is the word that comes to mind - and employs a
defense intended in part to force the pace. This is why the bench is so
much more important for a Pitino coached team than any other team. I have
to give Pitino credit this year because he has shown a degree of
flexibility that seemed absent in previous years. However, even given this
new openness Pitino still remains firmly committed to the coaching
philosophy that got him here - and why shouldn't he? Again, this is no
surprise. I'm not going to criticize Pitino or his philosophy. I've done
enough of that in the past - and in any case Heinsohn's being doing it for
me lately. ;>) At this point I'm content to chalk it up to differences in
philosophies. But in analyzing losses like the one against the Spurs we
should take into account the fact that it may say more about the coaching
than the players' effort or the make-up of the team personnel.

I'm not saying Pitino "lost" us the game; after all, I think we all had
this in the loss column from the beginning of the season. What I'm saying
is that his system, which when properly adjusted can result in wins like
the one over Indiana, can also lead to implosions like the one last night
EVEN IF THE PLAYERS FOLLOW IT TO A "T". 

The effectiveness of the pressing/trapping defense is in direct proportion
to the selfishness of the opponent (one reason why it works so well against
the Knicks!). As the most veteran team in the NBA, the Spurs have had a
little practice in sublimating the ego and passing to the open man. In
looking over the boxscore a stat that leaps out at me is that SA had 35
assists on 47 made baskets - nearly 75%!! - and five Spurs had 4 or more
assists. Bill Cooper's game summary/analysis is an invaluable asset to this
list (thank you, Bill, once again!) but I do have to challenge him when he
singles out only one player (in this case Paul Pierce) for chastisement
regarding "easy lay-ups and open threes". Unfortunately, that is precisely
what Pitino's defense generates *IF* there is no steal/forced
turnover/forced shot. (Just as a side note, when will the announcers stop
crediting the "press" for every steal and turnover but blaming an
individual player for every break-away dunk or wide-open shot?) SA may have
had the hot hand, but they were certainly helped by a defensive schema that
rarely allowed ANYONE to play one-on-one defense. Personally I would much
rather make the "superstar" beat us (and hopefully wear him down trying)
than allow a Mario Elie to shoot 10-12 on what were basically uncontested
shots. (I love the fact that MJ's career high points in the playoffs came
in a LOSS to the Celts!) Pitino on the other hand would rather gamble on
whether the more marginal players are able to step up for the other team -
a difference in philosophy.

As mentioned above, another consequence of Pitino's particular Bball
philosophy is a reliance upon the bench. Rick didn't deviate from this last
night as McCarty, Cheaney, Battie, Barros and Williams all went for big
minutes in the first half long before the game was obviously lost for good.
Many of them came away from the game with good stats (Eric W in particular)
but this is skewed by the fact that the Bomb Squad also got the bulk of the
garbage time minutes against the Spur's flunkies. Now although I can
understand the logic behind Pitino's playing the bench extensive minutes, I
am still amazed that ANY pro coach would insert a player of such marginal
quality as McCarty (my latest whipping boy, as my wife well knows. . . )
into a game 3/4ths through the FIRST quarter when the game is still within
reach but rapidly spinning out of control. Bball is a very psychological
game (Shaq at the FT line. . .) and the difference between playing 20-24
minutes and being down perhaps 10-12 at the half versus only playing 12-14
minutes and being down 24 seem pretty significant to me from a
psychological standpoint. Resting starters for the stretch run only makes
sense if there is going to be a stretch run rather than garbage time. But
beyond the issue of resting starters, Pitino obviously feels that he has to
take his best players out in any case because otherwise the players on the
floor would not have the energy to be able to continue to implement his
defense schemes. So once again a difference in philosophy dictates certain
decisions - playing our scrubs significant minutes and playing them - in
this case - when the game is on the line, that is to say, when the deficit
was threatening to become psychologically crippling (not just for us but
also for the refs, remember). These same considerations - and not
necessarily the lack of a "killer instinct" - are what have prevented the
Celts from completely blowing out - psychologically - opponents like
Chicago early in games.

A final comment on why last night's game does not "prove" that our
frontcourt is in need of revamping. For one thing, for my money it was not
the twin towers that beat us but the fact that the Spurs as a team and
particularly the more marginal players stepped up to the challenge of
passing the ball and making open shots. Secondly, our primary frontcourt
players did not really play all that much, and not because they were
limited by foul trouble: Pervis - 10 min 1 PF, Vitaly - 26 min 2 PF, Tony -
20 min 0 PF!! Once again coaching decisions played a larger role than
player shortcomings in determining the minutes and the final numbers, and
even the numbers were not too bad considering the competition: combined our
three centers shot 12-19 for 25 pts along with 12 rebs. Obviously, I'm
overlooking a key problem: the Walker/McCarty vs Duncan/Rose match-up. But,
once again, the blame for this match-up should not be laid at either
players' feet since match-ups are a coach's decision - that's why Pitino
gets the big bucks! I'll refrain from any further comment on Pitino's
decisions concerning the PF spot since I've already flogged it to death in
previous posts. ;>)

So, in conclusion, the dimensions of our loss to SA are not necessarily due
to the lack of competent frontcourt personnel but lie rooted in the very
nature of Pitino's coaching philosophy. Pitino's philosophy can result in
amazing successes, as demonstrated by his track record, but when not
properly adapted to circumstances it can lead to blowouts and blown
opportunities (Chicago). Whatever Pitino's philosophy, however, the Cs are
still above .500 and Fortson's arrival should provide a good shot in the
arm while alleviating some of the difficulties at PF.

Best wishes, particularly to those traveling this holiday!

-Tom Murphy

PS: Why DID we sign Marty Conlon anyway? for practices? Because he's Irish?
Maybe he can replace Lucky? ;>)