I’ve always been conflicted in my admiration for Allen Iverson. In some ways he has been the absolute worst thing that happened to basketball. Or at least, the figurehead of one of the NBA’s worst eras. Yet he carried so many redeeming qualities many of us wanted to believe he was simply misunderstood.
As a fan, I fear his legacy will be as misconstrued as the optimistic tag we labeled him with.
Once unguardable, Iverson is now merely untouchable. The season began with the understanding that the Grizzlies were it. The last chance. And he blew it.
The Clippers already have a dysfunctional point guard, Isiah Thomas is no longer employed in the NBA and Larry Brown has already picked up a malcontent shooting guard. Even the Knicks, simply trying to get through a year in an admitted throw away season refused to sign Iverson in favor of developing players who likely aren’t in their long range plans.
History will not be kind to Allen Iverson. Always a polarizing figure between old and young, purists and innovators, the last two years will now sadly be used as the closing arguments for his harshest critics.
But Iverson is as much a victim of timing as he is his mind set. His biggest flaw is not that he insisted on his game past his prime, but rather, that the game passed him up while he was still in it.
Iverson is like that ex-girlfriend met during a weird transition moment in life: she might have been all kinds of wrong but she was exactly what you needed at the time.
Allen Iverson was at his peak from 1999-2005 during one of the weaker moment in NBA history. He was THE post Jordan superstar in a league struggling to find a new identity and on the verge of rebranding its style of play. The talent was watered down and the coaches overbearing.
In the NBA he came up in, you could build a winning team around the singular talents of one player if you surrounded him by role players capable of grinding games to a halt. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago most NBA teams centered their offense around isolation plays for star athletes.
And in Iverson, Philadelphia had a superstar who was so unique from myriad of Jordan clones general managers were trying to build teams around. Even better, he was a far cry from the “we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot of money” aftertaste of the lockout. He played with passion. He cared.
Unfortunately his unique style of play may hurt Iverson’s legacy the most. Iverson appealed to a hip-hop generation with a style both innovative and flashy yet entirely opposed to everything we know about winning basketball. It was worshipped and mimicked on blacktops across the nation even as most experts acknowledged we’d never see anyone ever fully replicate Iverson.
Make no mistake about it, in his prime you could win with Iverson. He was that good. It may not have been THE formula for winning but it was a successful one. Why won’t we remember it as such. Because it cannot be replicated.
In the hands of lesser talents Iverson had a style that led to brutal displays of basketball. You can pull off a reasonable facsimile of Jordan if you can ignore all the dunk highlights and realize that his game was rooted in fundamentals and drive. Iverson played a flawed style that only works if you are as good as Iverson. And therein lies the problem: for what he does, no one has ever been as good as Iverson.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The case for starting Bonner and Finley
Exciting and promising as the early season is, some Spurs fans are still seeing red thanks to the continued presence of Michael Finley and the Spurs’ red-headed “center”, Matt Bonner, in the starting lineup.
When the Spurs signed Antonio McDyess it was assumed he’d join Tim Duncan in the starting lineup as the Spurs second best big man. Likewise, the signing of Richard Jefferson led many to believe Finley would also be pushed to the bench—if not retirement.
Instead assumed starters Roger Mason and McDyess find themselves, along with Manu Ginobili, anchoring a very stout second unit while many wonder why the Spurs don’t simply put their best five in the starting lineup.
Yes, despite the words and actions of some of basketball’s greatest minds (Ginobili and Lamar Odom have been both the second best players and sixth men of championship teams) the uninformed basketball mind (of which we can now confirm to include Allen Iverson) still holds onto an outdated concept of a hallowed starting five.
The criticisms of the Spurs current starting unit is that the defensive deficiencies put the Spurs at horrid starts leaving them at a huge disadvantage—as if the first five minutes won or lost games. Fast starts are nice, but they often go for naught if your second unit squanders the lead. Is it not better to have a slightly inferior starting five so that you can gain a significant advantage to end the first quarter and start the second?
I would argue the better use of a rotation is one that allows for the least amount of drop off in talent over the course of a game while maximizing the strengths of your lineup, keeping in mind that a fatigued version of your best lineup is still a lesser talented version of said lineup.
And I’m not sure starting Finley and Bonner doesn’t satisfy those requirements. Scoff if you must but in starting Finley and Bonner you not only mask their weaknesses but maximize the strengths of everyone else on your roster.
In starters Tim Duncan and Tony Parker you have two franchise caliber players that excel in creating shots for teammates. The flip side is that for all Parker’s speed or Duncan’s length neither is a particularly explosive player and thus each requires sufficient spacing to work at their peak. So the starting lineup is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Bonner and Finley need someone to create their shots and Duncan and Parker need people to create their space.
It can be argued that Ginobili, Mason and McDyess offer the same spacing without the defensive costs but neither are as effective shooting the three-pointer and both offer skills that are redundant in a Parker/Duncan starting lineup that are sorely needed in the second unit.
Case in point: Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker have great chemistry and while both are capable off the ball their greatest strengths are as a team’s primary playmaker. Even though the combination is by far the Spurs best backcourt do you really want a combination that limits one or the other as a spot up shooter for long stretches? Or is it better to let each have their run playing to their strengths while staying in rhythm for that last stretch run?
Roger Mason, another strong candidate to start, is another interesting case. Like Finley he is strictly a shooter though at this point he’s certainly a better overall player. Unlike Finley, however, Mason has enough ball handling ability to create jump shots at times and this is vital in taking pressure off of backup point guard George Hill, who while improved, still does not create the same wide open looks Parker does (making it harder for Finley to find his own offense in a second unit). Thus a second unit with Mason and Ginobili in the backcourt actually makes George Hill a better player.
And finally there is Bonner. While I wouldn’t be alarmed to see McDyess eventually be inserted into the starting lineup I can give you some new viewpoint of why perhaps he’s not so far. The Spurs two primary second tier big men offer very different strengths while holding the same exact weakness: defense. For that reason alone you simply can’t play DeJuan Blair and Bonner together. Ever.
So as much as a fan favorite as Blair is—and it’s obvious he really is—by having Bonner AND Blair on the bench you practically guarantee that you can only effectively use just one from night to night, forcing you to use just one or the other instead of both on any given night. And at the end of the night do you really want to minimize a valuable asset?
And that’s what this starting lineup comes down to. Are Bonner and Finley still valuable assets to an NBA team? Finley may not be the defender he once was (not that it was ever his specialty in the first place) the numbers show he is still a quality ROLE player who needs to play next to a quality defensive wingman to hide his flaws. And stretch fours are a valuable commodity in the league and as much as we rib Bonner he’s not as hopeless in his deficiencies as shooting specialists like Steve Novak or Tim Thomas.
Ultimately we’ll hit the playoffs and our rotations will be shortened and perhaps both will find themselves on the outside looking in. But over a long season there are plenty of minutes to fill and the goal remains maximizing every single one of them without taxing your still aging core.
When the Spurs signed Antonio McDyess it was assumed he’d join Tim Duncan in the starting lineup as the Spurs second best big man. Likewise, the signing of Richard Jefferson led many to believe Finley would also be pushed to the bench—if not retirement.
Instead assumed starters Roger Mason and McDyess find themselves, along with Manu Ginobili, anchoring a very stout second unit while many wonder why the Spurs don’t simply put their best five in the starting lineup.
Yes, despite the words and actions of some of basketball’s greatest minds (Ginobili and Lamar Odom have been both the second best players and sixth men of championship teams) the uninformed basketball mind (of which we can now confirm to include Allen Iverson) still holds onto an outdated concept of a hallowed starting five.
The criticisms of the Spurs current starting unit is that the defensive deficiencies put the Spurs at horrid starts leaving them at a huge disadvantage—as if the first five minutes won or lost games. Fast starts are nice, but they often go for naught if your second unit squanders the lead. Is it not better to have a slightly inferior starting five so that you can gain a significant advantage to end the first quarter and start the second?
I would argue the better use of a rotation is one that allows for the least amount of drop off in talent over the course of a game while maximizing the strengths of your lineup, keeping in mind that a fatigued version of your best lineup is still a lesser talented version of said lineup.
And I’m not sure starting Finley and Bonner doesn’t satisfy those requirements. Scoff if you must but in starting Finley and Bonner you not only mask their weaknesses but maximize the strengths of everyone else on your roster.
In starters Tim Duncan and Tony Parker you have two franchise caliber players that excel in creating shots for teammates. The flip side is that for all Parker’s speed or Duncan’s length neither is a particularly explosive player and thus each requires sufficient spacing to work at their peak. So the starting lineup is a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Bonner and Finley need someone to create their shots and Duncan and Parker need people to create their space.
It can be argued that Ginobili, Mason and McDyess offer the same spacing without the defensive costs but neither are as effective shooting the three-pointer and both offer skills that are redundant in a Parker/Duncan starting lineup that are sorely needed in the second unit.
Case in point: Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker have great chemistry and while both are capable off the ball their greatest strengths are as a team’s primary playmaker. Even though the combination is by far the Spurs best backcourt do you really want a combination that limits one or the other as a spot up shooter for long stretches? Or is it better to let each have their run playing to their strengths while staying in rhythm for that last stretch run?
Roger Mason, another strong candidate to start, is another interesting case. Like Finley he is strictly a shooter though at this point he’s certainly a better overall player. Unlike Finley, however, Mason has enough ball handling ability to create jump shots at times and this is vital in taking pressure off of backup point guard George Hill, who while improved, still does not create the same wide open looks Parker does (making it harder for Finley to find his own offense in a second unit). Thus a second unit with Mason and Ginobili in the backcourt actually makes George Hill a better player.
And finally there is Bonner. While I wouldn’t be alarmed to see McDyess eventually be inserted into the starting lineup I can give you some new viewpoint of why perhaps he’s not so far. The Spurs two primary second tier big men offer very different strengths while holding the same exact weakness: defense. For that reason alone you simply can’t play DeJuan Blair and Bonner together. Ever.
So as much as a fan favorite as Blair is—and it’s obvious he really is—by having Bonner AND Blair on the bench you practically guarantee that you can only effectively use just one from night to night, forcing you to use just one or the other instead of both on any given night. And at the end of the night do you really want to minimize a valuable asset?
And that’s what this starting lineup comes down to. Are Bonner and Finley still valuable assets to an NBA team? Finley may not be the defender he once was (not that it was ever his specialty in the first place) the numbers show he is still a quality ROLE player who needs to play next to a quality defensive wingman to hide his flaws. And stretch fours are a valuable commodity in the league and as much as we rib Bonner he’s not as hopeless in his deficiencies as shooting specialists like Steve Novak or Tim Thomas.
Ultimately we’ll hit the playoffs and our rotations will be shortened and perhaps both will find themselves on the outside looking in. But over a long season there are plenty of minutes to fill and the goal remains maximizing every single one of them without taxing your still aging core.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Beer or Wine: The Spurs through three games
Three games into the season and the Spurs have already shown glimpses of their newfound strengths while leaving just enough reminders of familiar weaknesses.
Over the past few years the Spurs have been a team to be watched simply for a great appreciation and understanding of basketball. Not boring, as the casual observer would claim, but not the thrill a minute roller coaster other marquee teams offer. I suppose—borrowing from Gregg Popovich’s hobbies—one could compare it to wine tasting vs. a keg party.
You appreciate wine. Savor it. Intellectually break down its tastes and smells amongst other aficionados. Wine tasting parties are scripted and on schedule. Keg parties you enjoy the hell out of. At the end of the night there might not be a single coherent thought and often you don’t know who you’re with but damn it if it wasn’t fun. Both can be enjoyable. Only one is exciting.
The loss to the Bulls aside, if nothing else the first three games have at least interjected some of that frat party excitement back into Spurs fans lives. It’s a completely different feeling to watch one of our wings (Jefferson) fill the lanes of a fast break with an edge-of-your-seat anticipation (as opposed to appreciating how each teammate runs to a designated spot on the three-point line).
It’s one of many new skill sets the Spurs now boast that shows—through a small sample size of three games—the Spurs may have the best offensive team of the Tim Duncan era. Popovich was absolutely right in his decree that the Spurs would not longer suffer through 4-on-5 offensive sets. The team has finally moved away from surrounding their stars with limited spot up shooters in favor of role players with very diverse offensive skill sets.
In their two wins George Hills has proven to be a vastly improved shooter with enough slashing ability to keep a defense off balance. Blair, for all his faults, creates plays, opportunities and shots outside of the Spurs game plan like only Manu Ginobili or Robert Horry could. His steal last night against a Kings outlet past was absolutely Horry like. Even Mason, a jump shooter, has enough ball handling ability to create better jump shots.
Think about it. In two of their first three games the Spurs racked up 113 points, reaching the 100-point mark early in the fourth in both games before taking their foot off the accelerator.
Ah, but that one loss to the Bulls. At best it appears the Spurs could still have trouble with energetic teams on the second end of back to backs. At worst, the offense is still completely dependent on the three-pointer. Because the Spurs do not generate a lot of fast break points or free throws the Spurs need space for Duncan or Tony Parker to operate. While the new additions make it harder for teams to sell out running the Spurs off the three-point line, because we have so few elite athletes, ultimately it still comes down to hitting shots.
In the first two games we’ve also shown a still watered down defense. It could be a lack of corporate knowledge with so many new faces or a lack of Bruce Bowens. But what it’s lacked in field goal defense it’s replace with actual defensive plays. Turnovers, steals, blocks. Fast break points.
Now the defense can and will improve as everyone gets use to each other but the steals or defensive chaos. Those are new dimensions to the Spurs created by the likes of Hill, Blair and Ratliff. Popovich may have reduced the playbook to speed up the learning curve of our new players, but it’s the ability of our new players to create plays outside of the script that make this possible.
Through three games they’ve still been the Spurs, only it’s as if someone snuck in a case and blue jeans to our party.
(Editor's Note: I apoligize for not getting game by game recaps but this blog doesn't pay any bills--or generate a lot of feedback--as of yet. If you have any talent stringing together sentences and want to contribute, feel free to leave contact information)
Over the past few years the Spurs have been a team to be watched simply for a great appreciation and understanding of basketball. Not boring, as the casual observer would claim, but not the thrill a minute roller coaster other marquee teams offer. I suppose—borrowing from Gregg Popovich’s hobbies—one could compare it to wine tasting vs. a keg party.
You appreciate wine. Savor it. Intellectually break down its tastes and smells amongst other aficionados. Wine tasting parties are scripted and on schedule. Keg parties you enjoy the hell out of. At the end of the night there might not be a single coherent thought and often you don’t know who you’re with but damn it if it wasn’t fun. Both can be enjoyable. Only one is exciting.
The loss to the Bulls aside, if nothing else the first three games have at least interjected some of that frat party excitement back into Spurs fans lives. It’s a completely different feeling to watch one of our wings (Jefferson) fill the lanes of a fast break with an edge-of-your-seat anticipation (as opposed to appreciating how each teammate runs to a designated spot on the three-point line).
It’s one of many new skill sets the Spurs now boast that shows—through a small sample size of three games—the Spurs may have the best offensive team of the Tim Duncan era. Popovich was absolutely right in his decree that the Spurs would not longer suffer through 4-on-5 offensive sets. The team has finally moved away from surrounding their stars with limited spot up shooters in favor of role players with very diverse offensive skill sets.
In their two wins George Hills has proven to be a vastly improved shooter with enough slashing ability to keep a defense off balance. Blair, for all his faults, creates plays, opportunities and shots outside of the Spurs game plan like only Manu Ginobili or Robert Horry could. His steal last night against a Kings outlet past was absolutely Horry like. Even Mason, a jump shooter, has enough ball handling ability to create better jump shots.
Think about it. In two of their first three games the Spurs racked up 113 points, reaching the 100-point mark early in the fourth in both games before taking their foot off the accelerator.
Ah, but that one loss to the Bulls. At best it appears the Spurs could still have trouble with energetic teams on the second end of back to backs. At worst, the offense is still completely dependent on the three-pointer. Because the Spurs do not generate a lot of fast break points or free throws the Spurs need space for Duncan or Tony Parker to operate. While the new additions make it harder for teams to sell out running the Spurs off the three-point line, because we have so few elite athletes, ultimately it still comes down to hitting shots.
In the first two games we’ve also shown a still watered down defense. It could be a lack of corporate knowledge with so many new faces or a lack of Bruce Bowens. But what it’s lacked in field goal defense it’s replace with actual defensive plays. Turnovers, steals, blocks. Fast break points.
Now the defense can and will improve as everyone gets use to each other but the steals or defensive chaos. Those are new dimensions to the Spurs created by the likes of Hill, Blair and Ratliff. Popovich may have reduced the playbook to speed up the learning curve of our new players, but it’s the ability of our new players to create plays outside of the script that make this possible.
Through three games they’ve still been the Spurs, only it’s as if someone snuck in a case and blue jeans to our party.
(Editor's Note: I apoligize for not getting game by game recaps but this blog doesn't pay any bills--or generate a lot of feedback--as of yet. If you have any talent stringing together sentences and want to contribute, feel free to leave contact information)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)