Dunleavy in the Playoffs
by mikey p
on May 5, 2008 2:32 PM PDT
Is he better suited?As I
As I watch this years playoffs, I am reminded of the 05-06 Clippers playoff run, the "glory days" of LAC basketball. What I recall from that season is that the team won 47 games while dealing with injuries (but probably underachieved) and that they tanked the last few games to earn more favorable seeding with Denver, and home court (NBA rules quirk which has since been changed).
But the playoff run was impressive. Sure they played perhaps the weakest team of the West playoff contenders that year. But they annhilated the Nuggets in that series. In the next round they took on an undermanned, overachieving Suns team coming off of a brutal 7 game series with the Lakers. Some pundits even picked the Clippers to win the series. It ended up being one of the most exciting 7 game series of the decade. Dunleavy proved quite adequete at making adjustments from game to game (as did D'Antoni), until game 7, where a 3 days rest gave Phoenix the rest they needed to prevail.
It seemed that that team hit another gear when they hit the playoffs. They were very suited for postseason ball. They were able to match up well with the two teams that they faced, but because of a deep 8 man rotation, would likely have matched up well vs. any of the other teams that year. They seemed able to play all styles. Now, as we have seen, that is not such a great think in the regular season. We have watched MDSr. overthink matchups from game to game, switching lineups, and robbing the team of any positive identity. But in the playoffs, adaptation is very useful. This coach has a solid playoff record, and this team seems like it will be able to compete in that environment.
The key is getting to the playoffs, which Dunleavy is not so great at doing.
0 recs |
19
comments
| Add your comment
EmailComments
I think...
the Clippers “tanked” perfectly and managed to stay in the easier side of the bracket of the playoffs that year, a sort of “perfect storm” if you will. If you look at the regular season records, the Clips took Denver 3-1 and split with the Suns and Lakers. Therefore, the Clips making it to the conference finals was not that unrealistic. If they had landed on the other side of the bracket, they would have faced the Spurs (1-2 in the regular season) or the Mavericks (1-3, with the lone win coming at the last regular season game which meant nothing to anyone), and most likely would not have advanced past the first round.
With that said, MDSr DID make some good adjustments in the playoffs, but also made some questionable/bad ones. Granted, in the playoffs, every decision, play, foul, etc is magnified, but on the whole, MDSr gave the Clippers MORE chances to win than NOT to win. But back to my main point…I think the Clips really lucked out with the playoff draw that year. I would point to that as being the number one reason the Clips were one defensive stop (or 8 second back court violation) away from the conference finals.
by Clip Show on
May 5, 2008 3:17 PM PDT
reply
0 recs
Spurs
That could have been 2-1 if the Clippers would have won that OT game in SA. Kaman has it in the post to win in regulation and gets himself a good look but misses. This is about 3 games after Maggette goes down. The Spurs run away with it in OT. Not surprising given the Clippers are on their 3rd game in 4 nights.
My only point is that I do think that team could compete with anyone including San Antonio and Dallas. I’m not saying they were locks, but as we saw a couple bounces go your way and you go through and the other goes home.
Yes, I did remember the particulars of that game off the top of my head this morning. Yes, this is probably a bad thing.
by John R on
May 6, 2008 8:46 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
I think with SA
that year, as it has been with almost every year with the Spurs, they know how to close out and win games against the Clippers, no matter how favorable the matchups were for the Clips. They have that killer instinct that all championship teams have. I think that would have been the biggest obstacle for the Clippers that year. That potential series might even have gone 7 games but the Clips most likely would have ended up on the losing end.
As far as Dallas that year though, they thoroughly OWNED the Clips…so I don’t see any way they were going to lose to the Clips in the conference finals…Clips would have done well to win 2 games in that series.
BTW, John, I totally remember that SA game as well. Didn’t Dunleavy decide to foul Duncan the possession before, and Timmy MADE both foul shots to tie the game? You knew once the game went into OT that the Clips had wasted an opportunity to beat them too…Again…that killer instinct coming through…
by Clip Show on
May 6, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Playing Percentages on TD
1 -13 from the line vs 11-21 from the field to that point. Get the ball back with a chance to win versus be exposed to a last second shot to win outright or force overtime. Worst possible outcome with a foul is still only overtime.
The difference can be that slim. If Duncan misses 1 of 2 or the Clippers score its a brilliant decision. Instead the “worst” happens and the game ends tied. With just that amount of luck you can be the goat or the GOAT and the coaching carousel begins anew.
by John R on
May 6, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Luck is
a combination of opportunity and preparedness. Perhaps a coach can blame it on “bad luck” once, or twice, but not over a career. Such excuses get old and tired real fast.
by Jax on
May 6, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
LOLOCOPTER
You can “blame” it on luck forever. Its the nature of the statistics. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 100 times, the chance of the next flip being heads is still 50-50. If you are playing craps 7 is still the most likely single outcome of the next dice roll, no matter how many times 7 has been rolled.
But then I’ve seen guys roll for an hour without throwing a 7. That doesn’t mean a guy just walking up to the table was wrong to bet “Any 7”.
In an NBA head coaching career, you might only get up to that bar to spin that wheel a few times. Its the nature of the low count of opportunities presented by playoff appearances. You could make the high percentage play all of those times, be unlucky all of those times, and simple folks looking for answers would still blame you. It is what it is.
by John R on
May 6, 2008 11:29 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
The ad hominem attacks notwithstanding . . .
Some coaches are better than others. Some players are better than others. Some front offices are better than others. Coaches, like players, are not widgets.
There are many factors that go into whether or not a coach is successful in the league. Some of the factors are beyond the control of the coach. Others are well within the coach’s control. Nothing happens in a vacumn. The cream will almost always rise to the top of the glass over the long run. MDSr has had several opportunities to prove himself and he’s failed (in my humble opinion) on each and every occasion, save one – getting DTS to open his wallet.
In short, I would suggest that we all take responsibility for our lives just like MDSr should take responsibilty for his record.
by Jax on
May 6, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
I thought the Duncan foul was ultimately a good decision
even if it is another example of Dunleavy overthinking. TD buried the shots. With about 5 seconds left, EB had a great look at the game winner, but it rimmed out.
The Dallas matchup was not a good one, but I think they could have competed with San Antonio. The point is that, had the playoff structure been like it is now, the Clips would not have run into Dallas, who would have been the 2 seed. Instead, they were the 4 seed, while Denver was the 3 seed with a 6 seed record.
Either way, the Clips should have been playing Denver or Phoenix in the early round, and possibly SA in the next round.
by mikey p on
May 6, 2008 11:42 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
I agree
with the fouling of TD as well. It was just sort of one of those things where you do what is perceived as the correct thing to do (statistically), and it didn’t work out. Granted, we are talking about a regular season game that happened almost 2 years ago, and had no bearing on that season whatsoever. I find it very interesting that we all remember this game…for what reason, I am not sure.
by Clip Show on
May 6, 2008 2:39 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
for what reason, I am not sure.
in my case, it is because I am a pathetic Clippers fan that watches way too much bad basketball
by mikey p on
May 6, 2008 7:08 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Of course there was the Daniel Ewing "adjustment"
In game, I think Dunleavy stinks. But give him a few days to try to figure out how to stop a guy, and he does ok.
I’m just saying. That team did get the luck of the draw, though I think they would have matched up with San Antonio.
I believe that The Pacers backing out of the Artest/Maggette trade may have kept the Clips out of the Finals.
by mikey p on
May 5, 2008 8:01 PM PDT
reply
0 recs
Interesting thread...
And yes, a little pathetic.
“He’s a good playoff coach… too bad the Clippers have only been to the playoffs once in his five seasons.”
Certainly it echoes a theme Dunleavy himself has used in the past. “We can match up with anyone.” Which begs the question, why? Don’t the best teams make their opponent match up with them? Besides, while I think that was arguably true for that 2006 playoff team, I’m not so sure it’s true anymore. With Sam gone, and until and unless they can find a decent scoring option in the backcourt, they’re just incredibly dependent on the post – even their best scoring guard, Mobley, is really a post player.
Still, watching the ‘coaching carousel’ spin around in New York and Dallas and Milwaukee and Phoenix and Charlotte makes me glad the Clippers haven’t gotten on it yet. Larry Brown may be good for a couple of playoff appearances (and first round exits) in Charlotte before they tire of his act – and then it’ll be back to square one. I’m so over him. Rick Carlisle? Really? Because… um… why? Because in his last coaching job his team got worse every single one of his 4 years? Scott Skiles, who coached a playoff favorite to last place in his last job? And don’t get me started on Mark Jackson, who may end up being a great coach and after all who would want to work for the Knicks – but let’s face it, his NBA coaching resume looks only slightly better than mine right now. After all, I have more head coaching experience (with 9 year olds).
The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!
by ClipperSteve on
May 6, 2008 9:28 AM PDT
reply
0 recs
New info on an old thread
Hollinger has a bit on D’Antoni on his ESPN blog today. Free today it appears. If you don’t get there in time, he talks about how each team has a 3.3% chance of winning it all each year and more about odds, etc. He talks about how Popovich and Jackson have all the playoff victories, mostly because of Jordan, Duncan and Shaq of course. But our fanpost’s subject has his name dropped:
Among coaches with at least 25 playoff wins, only D’Antoni, Jackson, Popovich, Byron Scott, Larry Brown and Mike Dunleavy are over .500; D’Antoni is the only one that hasn’t made the Finals, at least yet. (Jerry Sloan, Mike Brown and Stan Van Gundy can also join that club, depending on how they fare the next few weeks).
Coaching in the Jordan/Shaq/Duncan era, including stints with the Bucks and Clippers, and having a >.500 record in the playoffs? This is not a success?
by John R on
May 12, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
reply
0 recs
Interesting
That’s pretty elite company, at least until SVG and Mike Brown crash the party.
The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!
by ClipperSteve on
May 12, 2008 3:28 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Um, no
Most of those wins came from taking over established playoff teams such as the Lakers and Blazers.
This is a pointless argument. If you like his coaching style, then you will look for supportive stats. If you don’t, there are plenty of stats and other factors that support you as well.
by Jax on
May 13, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Dunleavy has had playoff success
If we are talking about style, I think that his is suited to playoff basketball. Slow, grinding offense, and an emphasis on defense. A philosophy of adapting to styles rather than adopting one.
We all saw what that formula did for 12 playoff games to two run-and-gun teams. As always, though, Dunleavy became puckered and paranoid down the stretch, and it cost him.
If he can only get the team to the playoffs, his teams are dangerous.
by mikey p on
May 13, 2008 12:21 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
A big if...
And one which perhaps explains in part his winning playoff record. He only gets to the playoffs with teams who are too good not to get there. Maybe he misses the cut with teams that are close – saving him those unceremonious 0-4 losses to the number 1 seed that kill your playoff winning percentage.
The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!
by ClipperSteve on
May 13, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
New FanPost
