Re: Magic game

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

At 02:54 PM 10/25/00 +0200, Hironaka wrote:
>    If you watch the Magic last year, I don't think you'll find a team more
>admirable in its defensive intensity. Doc Rivers coached that undertalented,
>undersized, slowish team to the number one ranking in turnovers caused, a 5th
>place ranking in steals and a 9th place ranking in FG% allowed at .445.
The last
>stat (FG%) is the most impressive one by far given their lack of any center
>(Amaechi averaged a puny 3.3 rebounds and 0.43 blocks as the center and
leading
>scorer on the frontline).

Don't agree with this assessment. They had Armstrong, Abdul Wahad, Outlaw,
Ben Wallace on that team. All of these guys are strong defensive players,
even before Rivers got there. In particular Outlaw, Wallace, and Abdul
Wahad certainly aren't known for their offensive games at all. Orlando was
8th in the league in blocked shots last year. Their team had much more
defensive talent than the Celtics -- compare Wallace to Vitaly, Outlaw to
Walker, Armstrong to Anderson.

>    What is happening right now is akin to buying more shares in a stock
you own
>because it has just tanked to an attractively-priced all-time low.
Sometimes this
>works out for investors, but I also think it is only appropriate for
people to
>examine evidence from the past season's performance themselves rather than
just
>listen to what the CEO tells you should do with your money. If instead you
base
>your faith on listening in on the CEO conference call (the rough
equivalent of
>watching the "Pitino Show"), I believe it is just as easy to get seduced into
>feeling management is more on top of things and has covered all the bases.
You
>end up thinking "hey these guys sound more articulate and professional as
>managers than I expected and would never make myopic, tunnel-vision
decisions,
>and besides what could possibly give us the right or temerity to complain or
>voice doubt?" Here I'm kind of echoing what Kestus said earlier. I agree
with him
>on this one.

See, I would extend this analogy to going to the annual shareholder meeting
and criticizing specific strategies of the company based on what I read in
the business column of the Boston Herald. I'm not saying, buy everything
that Pitino says and support him no matter how bad the record is. I'm just
saying that the technical advice coming from the average fan (or individual
shareholder) is probably made with too little expertise or information. Now
this is a moot point because Pitino's not reading the list looking for
hints on how to improve his coaching.

>    Like Alex I don't think I've EVER heard any coach criticize the
coaching of a
>peer, nor could I imagine how this could be in their interests. But there are
>criticisms of the system out there, plain and simple. A system by nature
means
>forgoing or deemphasizing other possible solutions even if you are aware
of them,
>so it really  just doesn't work for me to hear that Pitino knows
everything there
>is to know about basketball and so we should all just quit whining and
pretending
>we could possibly know better. I may agree with Alex halfway on this issue
>(absolutely, give Pitino another year), but I don't like being cowed into
total
>faith or criticized for, in essence, having the temerity to harbor my doubts.

No, what I've heard is guys go out and actually say, Pitino is a good
coach. I mean, you're not going to hear them badmouth each other, true. But
numerous basketball people confirm that Pitino is a good coach. And I'm not
even saying, don't criticize Pitino. I'm just pointing out that if you
describe in great detail how his system is leading to Dana Barros covering
Tim Duncan -- he's not sticking with his system because he's not aware of
that, because he is. It's obviously not a goal of his system to create that
matchup. And I'm not even really talking about Joe's posts in general even
though I don't agree with a lot of them. He's articulate and bases his
posts on actual observations. I'm talking about the people who say, "Pitego
is a ignoramus who doesn't know how to coach basketball."

>    I don't know if there is a growing level of annoyance on this list with
>critics of the system like me, Kestus, Forant and so on. There probably is.
>Negativity sucks. But look, I was off in my prediction by 11 wins last
year and
>12 the year before and I guess my point is I really, really want Pitino to
>succeed, but  I don't know how any of you guys can look at the final two
or three
>months of the last season (with an easy and home-heavy schedule and everyone
>finally healthy) and not feel totally wrecked by the experience.

I wouldn't lump you and Kestas with Forant.

>    Do you remember when these two guys poured in a combined 68 points, 16
>boards, 8 assists and 5 steals in the key game against Detroit (Potapenko
chipped
>in 14 rebounds), and yet our headless chickens STILL lost the game by
giving up
>56.3 FG% in the game? How can any fan not feel a little disillusioned with
the
>defensive gimmicks that have shortcircuited a great, even career, effort
by our
>franchise players?

Joe's assumption is that when the team plays bad defense, it is the fault
of the system and not the natural talents or efforts of the players. That's
an opinion that he's developed from obviously watching the games, looking
at box scores, and thinking about them. I'm fine with that. 

My take on it is a bit different. This is how I think it through. First,
the "system" is designed, in general, to give up a higher FG% in return for
more turnovers. Second, we don't have any team shotblocking and we have
defensive athleticism and length only at one spot (Pierce). Griffin is a
defender in the sense that he gets steals but not in terms of stopping his
man. Third, our players are young and young teams generally suck on
defense. Who are the worst defensive teams in the league? Vancouver and the
Clippers. They both have similar young talent that looks good on paper but
sucks on defense. You look at the top 7 defensive teams -- Lakers, Miami,
NY, Pheonix, San Antonio, Portland, Philly -- probably 80% of their
starting lineups are 28+. Everyone but Pheonix had shotblocking in the
middle. (Pheonix has great team athleticism, especially Kidd at the point).
Fourth, the system really is complicated, as Joe points out, and it
probably is more ineffective when first implemented by new players. And
finally, there are games when it really does work very well and we stop
some good offensive teams. Granted, it's not as many as the games when we
get scorched by some pretty bad teams.

So when I look at all this information, I'm not surprised that we're below
average in FG defense. Should we be the worst in the league? No, that's not
the goal of any great coach regardless of system. Pitino freely admits
that's a glaring problem. There's clearly execution issues and the coach
isn't doing the best job he could. But would the personnel he used last
year make up a good defensive team if he just switched systems? I don't
believe that at all. I look at the front line that we were considering:
Potapenko, Fortson, Walker. And check off: Length: no. Athleticism: no.
Shotblocking: no. Experience: no. I don't care if you let them play
man-to-man or headless chicken, they're going to be terrible. 

So is the system beyond criticism? No. Do I think it's the "gimmick" that's
holding back our players from being a good defensive team? No. 

Alex