Clippers - Suns, the Morning After, With the Aid of Digital Technology
by Steve Perrin on Oct 29, 2009 10:37 AM PDT
in News
119 comments
I've watched the fourth quarter of last night's loss on the DVR at this point, and I want to make one thing clear. Steve Nash won that game; not the referees. And even with Nash's performance, the Clippers had plenty of opportunities to win it themselves. Ignoring the poor execution at the end of the other quarters for a moment, here are some of the lapses for the Clippers in the fourth quarter alone:
- Chris Kaman traveled when he was essentially alone under the basket;
- Eric Gordon missed a wide open layup;
- On a key possession in the final minute with the game tied, the offense could muster no more than a Marcus Camby straightaway three;
- Seconds later, the defense blew the most crucial rotation of the game in the final minute, with Gordon and Kaman both going to Channing Frye at the top of the key leaving Leandro Barbosa all alone in the corner - better shooter, better shot, not the guy to forget.
Having said that, I don't think the officials had their finest hour in the fourth quarter. I guess we'll call it a statistical anomaly that in a game where the foul calls had been evenly distributed through three quarters (17 fouls for each team), eight of the first nine whistles of the fourth quarter were against the Clippers. The result was a quarter in which the Suns took twelve free throws and the Clippers took one.
How to explain the discrepancy? I can't. It's not as if the Clippers turned into a jump shooting team in the fourth quarter. If anything, they were going to the basket more aggressively in the fourth than the rest of the game, with Gordon posting Nash or Kaman posting Stoudemire as the play call time and again.
As for the final seconds, the refs missed Nash grabbing EJ's shirt early in the first play, but there wasn't really any foul when Gordon hit the deck - if anything, he fell over Camby setting the screen. And certainly there's no call on the final shot. Gordon made the mistake of not going hard to his right when Stoudemire jumped the pick and roll - he would have had a much better chance of getting around him or drawing the foul had he done so. He's 20. He'll learn. The irony of course is that the one time the refs did blow the whistle down the stretch was an anticipation call when they knew the Suns had a foul to give. Like I said, not their finest hour.
But you still have to win the game.
The loss obscures some really good things that were happening.
- After a Mr. Flippy first half (6 points, 1 rebound, 2 for 6 shooting), we witnessed a Kaman 2.0 (2.5?) second half - 16 points, 8 rebounds, 8 for 11 shooting. And the really good news for those of us who were concerned that he was relying too heavily on the face up jumper is that in the second half he displayed the full arsenal. He was a monter in the second half.
- Marcus Camby was simply terrific - although let's not expect him to shoot 10 for 15 every night. Nonetheless, it's great to know, especially with Blake Griffin out for awhile, that he's still capable of playing this well (23 points, 11 rebounds, 3 blocks, 3 steals).
- Baron Davis, although he still did not shoot well, played a great game. He scored 12 points and handed out 12 assists, and also came up with 5 steals. And he showed some of the explosiveness we've been missing when he went coast to coast with a steal midway through the fourth quarter. (I started working on my 'Clippers win' post after that play - that really should have been the moment that put them over the top. What happened to my narrative?)
- Eric Gordon played well, but stumbled a bit at the end. Call it part of his education as a go to guy. After burning Nash on consecutive possessions midway through the quarter, Gordon was 6 for 9 for 16 points - a typically hyper-efficient Gordon game, despite missing an uncharacteristic 4 free throws. But he missed his final four shots of the game, in order, a tough reverse layup that he really should have made, a blocked shot after getting that first layup back, when in hindsight he should have recognized that he had Stoudemire and Frye on either side of him and he should have passed the ball, a missed layup when he was all alone, and a desperation three on the final possession, when he hesitated instead of going hard to the basket. If he makes those layups, he's 8 for 11 for 20 points and the Clippers win the game. But like I said, he's still only 20. He'll make those plays down the stretch sooner rather than later.
- Rasual Butler did what he was brought here to do: make shots. He was 7 for 10 with three threes for 19 points and hit what might have been the game saver with 11 seconds left.
The bad news is that beyond Butler, the supposedly improved bench didn't do much. Truth be told, MDsr didn't let them do much. DeAndre Jordon didn't get off the pine, coach no doubt worried that the pace of the game and the range of the Phoenix bigs made this a bad situation for him. Craig Smith got the call at power forward, and struggled in 9 minutes. Sebastian Telfair played fine in his appearances, but was limited to 11 minutes. This left the starters playing major minutes (Baron 37, Camby 39, Gordon 41, Kaman 42) in the second game of a back to back, in the second game of the season.
0 recs |
119 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
still continuing 4th quarter woes!
i see the minutes were great for our starters, really disappointed in EJ he missed 2 wide open layups, especially the one in the fourth, i thought we executed well for the most part, but for some reason we also have a fourth quarter curse, our big men played a hell of a game, this guy named camby geee total surprise, loved his game! Kaman loved his interior O he was glidin in the middle nice drop steps and putting his back against the glas and makin’ the moves!! LOVED THE GAME OVERALL, im not going bash them they played really well together and i do believe the chemistry is there, need to work on the pace a little bit more!
by clippersnomatterwhat on Oct 29, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good post
I guess that lays to rest the “it was just free throw shooting and if you think otherwise you’re an idiot” argument.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Since when does anything I say lay rest to arguments?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 29, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts
First of all, everyone needs to stop complaining about the refs. Refs aside, the CLIPS are responsible for losing this game. I actually have to disagree with you Steve that Nash won this game. Yes he went nuts in the 4th and hit some incredible shots. But the reason he was even in a position to win the game was because the Clips let the game get close when it shouldn’t have been.
The reality is that the Clips fell victim to what many teams USED to fall victim to against the Suns of 2-3 years ago. They were scoring so easily that they failed to realize that they weren’t playing good defense and were letting the Suns get back into the game. Then, when the Suns cut it to 1 in the 4th, the Clips had absolutely no sense of what was going on. They played with zero sense of urgency and intensity until the Suns actually took the lead. It wasn’t until then that it finally occurred to the Clips that they might actually lose the game. Before then, even with their lead cut to 1, they were strolling around like it was pre-season. It was pathetic to watch.
I hate being so hard on the team but we all know that the 1st four games are tough and they needed this one. They could very well go 0-4 now and with a team that really needs a good start, we’re in a precarious situation.
Some more thoughts:
- The team still can’t execute. How is it possible that the team, most of whom was here last year, STILL looks confused about the plays? On the 2nd to last play, what the heck were they doing? Rasual takes the screen and everyone stands around and watches? EJ and Baron on the floor but Butler is the primary ball handler? Nobody else was moving at all. Nobody else came to the ball. No cuts. NOTHING. Just everyone standing around watching Butler dribble and jack up a prayer. That’s coming out of a timeout! How is this possible?
It’s just inexplicable that they’d run plays like that. Even before that, like Steve mentioned, they got bailed out with a Camby jumper at the top of the key. Yet another horrible play. The last play was hardly better as well. Really the Clips were only in it at the end b/c Camby and Butler made two great shots off of broken plays. That’s hardly a recipe for success.
- Dun still doesn’t know how to use Baron properly. Not using him at all in critical plays down the stretch (the last play and the play right before where Butler hit that prayer) is just crazy. He’s easily the best ball handler on the floor. At least run a play where he creates for EJ. Just having him camp out in the corner? That’s not a good use of his talents at all. He’s not a catch and shoot player. They really aren’t on the same page.
- The success of the bigs last night is a bit misleading. The Suns have no front line with a rotation of Frye (who was cut), Amare (pf at center) and Amundson (undrafted). If Kaman and Camby couldn’t dominate that frontline, we would be REALLY worried.
- The fact that Dun played all his starters so much shows how badly he wanted to win this game and how important he thought it was. Nobody can possibly argue otherwise. Like Steve said, it was the 2nd night of a back to back and he ran his starters almost the whole game. Clearly it was an important win. One they absolutely should have had. One they gave away with their nonchalance and failure to execute.
- People may want to point to positive individual stats from this game and try to paint a rosy picture. But the reality is that they lost a game they dominated, against a team they’ll be fighting for a playoff spot, at home. And the reasons they lost are serious causes for concern.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Frye wasnt cut….and the Trailblazers wanted him back but he wanted more minutes so he went to the Suns. He doesnt play much defense, but he does space the floor and can shoot the ball.
by Bellringer21 on Oct 29, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least run a play where he creates for EJ.
In 3.9 seconds? I’m not so sure about this one.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's be clear
They had 5.5 seconds. Nash fouled EJ with the foul to give. Which was going to be the same give it to EJ play. 3.8 seconds with no timeout. Same thing.
And yes 3.9 seconds is enough to run a screen or do something.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With more experience EJ would of thrown a Shot up on that Foul to give that Nash did and then went to the line.
It all comes in time. We have to remember EJ is just Two games out of his Rook Season and these kind of experiences are what he needs.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
by HVYDRT007 on Oct 29, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's true
then why wasn’t the play called for someone more experienced like BD?
And we don’t know what was said in the timeout. What we do know is that the play was poorly executed. As were several offensive and defensive sequences prior to that.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was BD a good closer last year?
You know what you’re getting there, basically a jacked three.
I see how they’re trying to give EJ opportunities based on the alternatives, but he hasn’t looked good up to this point. Hopefully that changes.
The missing piece on this team is a closer more than anything.
by ghost_ride on Oct 29, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cassell
was a very good closer by the way…those guys just don’t grow on trees.
by ghost_ride on Oct 29, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TOTALLY agree
I was going to write about how we’re sorely lacking a real “go-to” guy. I think Dun realizes this and is hoping that he can groom EJ to be that guy. I remember how he tried to give Livingston some of those opportunities too.
It’s too early to judge EJ. How many close games did we even have last year? He’ll get better even if he never turns into Sammy.
I still think Baron would be our best bet if Dun knew how to put him in positions to succeed. You know, instead of having him run a lap around the court, off the ball, to jack up a fadeaway 3….like last year.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear
I don’t have any problem with that last play being called for EJ. I would have preferred it be called for Baron because he’s supposed to be our star, but I can understand why the coach has more faith in EJ.
And I’m ok with EJ being groomed to take on that role as the go-to guy. But honestly, I’m not sure he’s that kind of player. I guess we won’t know until a few more chances like last night.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This loss is a good Learing tool for EJ,
better to know now how to be the go to guy then later. If BD would have been the guy PHX would have covered differently. They really should of had Novak in though, just to space and Decoy.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
by HVYDRT007 on Oct 29, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure though as MG said
This wasn’t as much of a learning as a confirmation of what we saw down the stretch last year from EJ. He’s got to realize the refs swallow the whistle at the end of games and that you need to be able to create a show.
He needs to watch a lot of video on Brandon Roy & Kobe Bryant.
But we also saw how ineffective BD was last year. Other than that show at Portland, he was also largely ineffective.
by ghost_ride on Oct 29, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The team still can’t execute.
After shooting 55%? I’m not so sure about this one. At what percentage do they achieve execution?
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the last 3 plays in the crunch...
looked like good execution to you?
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They scored on two of them
And got what they wanted out of the play on the third. Yes, Gordon did not execute his part on the last play, but I’ve already given him a pass due to lack of reps.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because they got bailed out
Doesn’t mean the plays were executed well.
Again..you seem unable to differentiate a lucky result with good execution.
You’re a numbers guy. With a statistically significant sample size, how many times do they score on those two plays? If you honestly think it’s a high number, then again…you’re right, you don’t know.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that its' pointless to argue with John R on this
He just doesn’t get it
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really missed the point entirely here
Still turning your point on its head, wow many times do they shoot that low a free throw percentage and lose that game?
You wrote a long complaining comment about everything and its mother, when 9/10 they shoot 75% or better from the line and they win going away in a blowout. Jax doesnt even show up in the morning and everyone was happy.
Because they didn’t execute in that most easy and desirable of circumstance, somehow everything went wrong, the Clippers weren’t prepared, and everything is screwed.
Its not me having trouble differentiating a lucky result (for the Suns) with poor execution from the Clippers.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I didn’t write it but originally I was going to add that the whole general lack of focus and intensity was reflected in their poor FT shooting. The team was out there like it was a pre-season game and that’s why they missed FTs and blew the game. There’s absolutely no reason that they should miss all those FTs if it’s not lack of focus. Clearly they didn’t come to win.
And do you have math issues as well? 75% means they would have hit 5-6 more FTs. So then they would have won by 3-4 points. That leads to a “going away in a blowout”? Are you serious right now? Even assuming the made FTs during the game would have led to a bigger lead during the game, more confidence, etc. that’s certainly no basis for a “going away blowout.”
And yes you do have trouble differentiating luck with poor execution b/c your response to my pointing out poorly executed plays is – “they scored.” Uh..ok. The fact you even think that’s a relevant response tells me you’ve got the logic twisted up in your head.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll start at the end first
“And yes you do have trouble differentiating luck with poor execution b/c your response to my pointing out poorly executed plays is – "they scored." Uh..ok. "
I thought it was obvious enough that I was being facetious and contrasting your response to the overall game versus 3 plays.
“75% means they would have hit 5-6 more FTs”
An NBA game just plays out differently when a team is up 12 with 6 minutes to go and 9 with 2 minutes to go. Those 5-6 points wipe away the total game deficit and negate the need for Butler to hit his 3. Also note that 75% was generous. If the Clippers are having a good shooting night and they are up in the 82-85% range (where they should really be living if Jordan doesn’t get minutes) its even more points.
I said it in the other thread and I’ll say it again. If I told you the Clippers will win every game if they just shoot 75% from the line, you would be happy. That’s what happened last night. There would have been no need for last second execution if they took care of the job at the line.
The primary fail was FT%.
“I didn’t write it but originally I was going to add that the whole general lack of focus and intensity was reflected in their poor FT shooting. "
Where else did this lack of focus show up? They hit their first 7 shots or something, and again, shot 55% from the field and didn’t have a gross amount of turnovers. I simply reject that outright.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you're saying they were focused
Yet they missed a ton of FTs, blew a 10 point lead, and failed to execute at the end of the game.
I think everyone knows they failed to execute more than 3 plays. But I’m not Kevin Arnovitz so I’m not going to go back to my DVR and give you every play.
So what’s your reasoning for them missing FTs?
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They missed them?
It happens. And one game they will shoot a much higher than expected averages. And I’m sure you will credit Dunleavy with whipping them in to focus.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Yes, I mean of course they “failed” on more than three plays. In your other comment you said the result is all that matters. This is where that outlook reduces the whole thing to meaningless.
The Suns missed more shots than the Clippers so they failed more times, but won the game. So did they fail or did they succeed? Its so confusing.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missing the forest for the trees
Just go read Steve’s opening post. Please. We are talking about how poorly the Clippers closed this game and what that means for the team going forward. You want to talk about free throws in isolation. You don’t want to talk about issues that for many of us are critically important for the success of this team.
Either you don’t understand the game or you are just arguing to argue. Which is it?
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A classic Jax false dilemma
Last second execution mattered in MAYBE 3 of the 16 NBA games played so far this season. Well less than 20%. And in those, a simple fact is luck is a significant factor. Some amount of those shots hit the rim and bounced out and some hit the rim and bounced in.
If last second execution is important to you, its because you don’t understand basketball. If the Clippers make their FTA, there is no need for last second execution which in turn works to remove luck from the equation. As you like to go on and on about, making your own luck.
It is far preferred to blow a team out. Which, still, the Clippers would have done if they hit their free throws.
I am sorry for you that you can’t grasp this.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Last second execution matters when it matters. It defines winners and losers. That’s why I am so agitated. Luck is always a component. But remember that luck is a combination of opportunity and preparedness, my man.
So now I don’t understand basketball. What you’re saying is that if the Clippers score more points than they did they would have won. Thanks, Einstein.
Have you ever played organized basketball?
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I accept your concession.
Actually, the Celtics won by 33 last night. THAT’s what defines a great team.
I completely agree with you about luck, and that’s why I never worry about one possession when it was six other possessions that made or broke the game. Taking the easy points IS making your own luck.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The great teams win the close games
I don’t know how many different ways to say it.
Blowouts are great. The Suns can argue that all they had to do was hit a few shots that just rimmed out and they would have blown us out.
The same as your argument.
Which is why it’s a nullity.
What exactly did I concede?
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fans didn't help any
it was the most blase opening night crowd I can even remember. Blake Griffin was introduced 1st and barely got any applause at all. The home crowd did nothing to foster a home court advantage.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 29, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The success of the bigs last night is a bit misleading.
Yes they played well, but I’m writing it off whole cloth. I’m not so sure about this one.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You quote me...
but you seem to have reading comprehension issues.
The success of the bigs was A BIT misleading. A BIT. Does that equate to “writing it off whole cloth”? John R not read so good?
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
It wasn’t even a bit misleading. I mean you completely downplay Amare like he’s nothing. Pf at C. That’s the plan, isn’t it?
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare
Is one of the worst post defenders of any starting big in the league. His defense is pathetic and he’s often simply uninterested in playing D.
So if you’re going to try to make Amare out to be some defensive stalwart, then yes…you don’t know.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kaman absolutely DESTROYED Amare last night - I felt sorry for Amare it was so bad
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
Last Play, EJ could of drove and passed to Kaman under the basket guarded by NASH…. EJ panicked, he might be like a CWEBB. Good player, just not a good last shot player.
by sqrebck on Oct 29, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
it’s a lil early to call him CWebb
by Qlippers on Oct 29, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
he had the same pathetic, lost look like CWebb use to get when the game was on the line. And whined like a little baby afterwards.
by sqrebck on Oct 29, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are being unreal. These are growing pains for EJ. It’s the beginning of his SECOND year. Kobe had the same problems his first 2-3 years, anyone remember the series against the Jazz??
Brandon Roy didn’t catch fire till his third year. Things like this happen. Now EJ knows to drive when he has to against a mismatch, not just dribble in place. He’ll get it, and faster than you think.
by Gordon for President on Oct 29, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you ever watch the nba you would know the refs are never going to call that foul.
He had the switch on stoudamire, could have at least tried to do something to get a bucket.
by andrewexd on Oct 29, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think everyone agrees that EJ made a mistake
But he’s also 20 and still learning. Magic Johnson made so many crucial errors in crunch time at the beginning of his career that they started calling him “Tragic Johnson.”
Clearly that faded away as he got more experienced and came through in clutch moments.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, EJ froze up
but he’s still learning. If he is Cwebb, we should trade EJ immediately.
by Qlippers on Oct 29, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
b/c CWebb was pretty damn good.
Just b/c he wasn’t the go-to scorer with the game on the line doesn’t mean he wasn’t a perennial All-Star and one of the best passing bigs in the game.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just kidding about EJ
He’s the blocks I would keep on the team for years
by Qlippers on Oct 29, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know
Just sayin, CWebb was a damn good player.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CWEBB was the Sh!t
just don’t put the ball in his hands for the last shot, or ask him to make a time out.
I love EJ.
by sqrebck on Oct 29, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree here, MG, you've downplayed the Suns starting
bigs a bit here. Ok, you said it’s a BIT misleading but there is no way that Kaman and Camby should DOMINATE Channing Frye and Amare. At what end of the floor? You are now saying Amare is a poor defender. Yep, he’s not a great defender but he is a great player. That is why he’ll be highly coverted next summer. Frye isn’t an all-star but he’s a half decent player. Dominate too strong here.
Also, about not executing. Again, that’s too general. You can’t say they can’t execute and just bring up 3 plays. The team shot 55% from the field. You don’t do that by not executing. That isn’t just luck.
I agree that those final plays weren’t executed well and if that’s what your aiming at, you’d be right. The fact we managed to score on 2 of them was despite the play calling rather than because of it. It’s good to see EJ getting the ball at the end as he should be our number 1 option. I’d also have Rasual rather shoot the 3 than Baron to be honest. This core have been together long enough now to execute at the end. I just feel we choke at the end of games and lose our heads. Some of that is the players responsibility and the floor leaders to help the young players grow and learn. EJ will still make some mistakes though because he’s young. If he’s still doing that 15 games down the line then I’d worry about his ability to take the big shot.
Bingo! Oh me oh my!
by ClippersUK on Oct 29, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a great defender but a great player?
C’mon now. Kinda loose and fast with the term “great player” no? Amare isn’t “great” unless you use that tag for every all-star. He’s an excellent offensive player, and a poor defensive player. There are two ends of the court. To me that makes him a very good player b/c his offense is that good. But I don’t call anyone great when they show no interest at all in defense.
As for dominate, I’m talking about on the offensive end. People are looking at the box score, seeing Kaman and Camby’s gaudy numbers and acting like they expect those numbers every game. My point is that playing teams like Phoenix and GSW inflate numbers, especially for bigs b/c they don’t have anyone on the front line.
So no I’m not downplaying the Suns’ frontline. They are absolutely below average on defense as is the team’s D as a whole. It’s nothing to brag about that you put up big numbers against the Suns…and lost. That’s my point.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I reckon that statement
is fair for Amare “excellent offensive player, poor defensive player”. Ok, if you were meaning offensive end then I’d agree, we should be having a strong night. Defensively, whoever is put up against Amare is having a tough time.
So yeah, teams should score big against them and I think our bigs did that. In fact, Kaman this year is looking excellent in my opinion. can’t wait to see him and Blake on the floor.
Bingo! Oh me oh my!
by ClippersUK on Oct 29, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Kaman has looked good
I’m not saying that our bigs sucked obviously. Just saying that their big nights aren’t quite as exciting as they would be had they come against a quality frontline. Like I said, it’s misleading.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s just inexplicable that they’d run plays like that
Didn’t they score on both of them? I’m not so sure that you can say its a bad game based completely on the fact that they didn’t win, then criticize individual plays even though they actually did have a positive outcome. Feels like playing both sides.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't you the one talking about not being myopic?
That’s you right? In the other thread where you and Jax had your usual bitch fest?
Because I think I was pretty clear that they got bailed out by two shots that saved those broken plays. Just because they scored doesn’t mean it was good execution.
If the team runs a play where Baron stands around at half court for 23 seconds then jacks up a half court fadeaway and it happens to go in…does that make it a good play?
For a guy who seems to pride himself on logical analysis, pointing to a lucky end result as proof of good execution is pretty silly.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the play worked
Amare switch with Nash, the Larger player on BD. EJ was faster than Amare all night with a Kaman / Nash mismatch underneath. Jumping sideways into a player and looking for bailout was crap!!
by sqrebck on Oct 29, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Club Optimism response
Quiet and sleepy at the Club after last night and through the morning. A good, refreshing, timely Thursday morning therapy session: I recommend it highly to all Clipper fans. Lots of deep, cleansing breaths.
We’re right where we want to be right now.
The good news is that the Clippers played so well, that they showed so many good signs and did so many good things, that I’m actually more confident that they can win one of the next two games, and possibly both of them.
It’s a good team. They showed progress, and got some good stuff started. They messed up the home opener about as badly as possibly, but that’s just because they’re our very own hapless, loveable gang of misfits, always exploring the other side of the equation and finding a way to lose, seeking karmic balance, fearing success. It was just part of the journey, part of the learning process, part of Eric Gordon’s education.
The Clippers are going to be very successful, in spite of themselves, with Kaman and BDavis and Camby playing this way. They have to find the right mix and do the right things, and I don’t want to get started on the DJordan DNP or the Smith-Thornton-Butler-KRush-Telfair lineup. Using Club Optimism’s generous 5 game rule, CMDSr still has some leeway to be a moron with his substitution pattern, and he’s already doing a good job of proving his statement that he’s not a good coach when he has injured players. But the team, in its own way, is impressive and good things are happening.
Despite the tough loss (along with losing the Laker game), I’m more confident going on the road to Utah, with Dallas right behind them, than I expected to be. And the Clips are still hungry, they’re going to want to get it together and get a win. There’s a lot to look forward to.
We’re fine. It’s all good up in the Club. It was a bit hectic and confusing there for a while, but we’re past that. No worries.
by citizen zhiv on Oct 29, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does "therapy" = drugs and alcohol?
haha You seem a bit too serene for just therapy my friend.
It’s a bit sad when the Club “Optimism” goal is to start 1-4.
I don’t think the sky is falling. I’m just not all that happy with what I’ve seen in the first two games. I know fans want to paint a pretty picture and all, but realistically, this team needs to get a lot better and isn’t where I expected them to be after all the chemistry talk over training camp.
They have the talent to be much better and I fully expect that they will be. But what I’m seeing right now isn’t a playoff team for sure.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What aren't you happy about, specifically
Besides 3 plays? The offense is humming; the defense is adequate.
Again they shot 55% and you declared which I quote the full declaration, “The team still can’t execute.”
Noone is painting a pretty picture. The Clippers are playing well.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you have short term memory?
You understand there have been TWO games right? Not just one?
They’re not “playing well.” They’ve had one statistically good game and one not so good game. Does that equate “humming” to you? They had 20 turnovers vs. the Lakers. How is that “humming”? They’re also 0-2. So for all the 55% stat you keep throwing out gets you, what really matters is 0-2.
And I’ve already outlined what I’m not happy about, which you complained about it being a long post. You want me to point out specifics, I do, and you counter with big picture statements. Then you try to criticize me for similar big picture statements. Try to stay consistent.
They certainly didn’t execute well in the Lakers game and managed to keep it close by working hard and having our 2nd unit outwork and outplay their 2nd unit. But their offense was hardly “humming”. Against the Suns the starters played much better but they failed to execute when it mattered and they lost…again. So for 96 minutes of basketball, they certainly haven’t executed so many of those minutes for you to sit there and act like they’re playing great basketball.
They’re playing ok basketball, but not playoff basketball. And given how tough things are in the west, I was hoping they would come out strong. That’s what I’m disappointed about.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re also 0-2. So for all the 55% stat you keep throwing out gets you, what really matters is 0-2.
That’s the stuff.
See again my point about all that matters is results. By that logic, again, 2 of the last 3 plays were successful, and that’s “ALL THAT MATTERS”.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it's all that matters vs. your FG stat.
Speaking of it being obvious, I thought it was obvious that FG% means nothing if you lose.
Even if you wanted to apply it to everything (which I didn’t), then your argument is still untenable. So if my complaint that they didn’t execute on 3 plays is trumped by your “they scored”. Guess what 0-2 trumps? Everything else.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
So if nothing else matters? Why talk about it? Still my point all along.
IF THEY HAD HIT THEIR FT, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THE SAME COMMENT AT ALL BECAUSE THE CLIPPERS WOULD HAVE WON.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
If your prediction proved true and the game would have gone much differently had they hit their FTs early (which I don’t disagree with), then they probably wouldn’t have choked in the end. Then yes I wouldn’t complain.
But my points on using Baron would still worry me.
And let’s be honest, my comments would have just been delayed. We’ve seen that kind of poor execution in the 4th in the past. That’s what worries me. It’s not like it was just the first time ever. What I saw last night in the 4th I saw a lot last year. That’s my concern.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair on the Baron thing
Its a choice about a youth movement or no which is just a matter of opinion.
I guess I would disagree with someone who in the past may have agitated for a youth movement, and now that we have it wants the ball in Baron’s hands, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since you're afraid to mention my name
I’ll respond – I didn’t say I wanted the ball in BD’s hands. I responded to someone else. I want organization. I want a coach to run a play that inspires confidence in the team. I want the players to run plays where they don’t look like chickens with their heads cut off. I want the coach to do something other than spend the entire game cursing out the refs.
Etc.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The concern for this season
I’m just concerned because I think most agree that for THIS season, the team will go as far as Baron goes. So if the idea is to marginalize him in the 4th, I just think that’s not a winning recipe.
Again, I don’t have any problem with EJ taking the last shot. But Baron is our best ball handler. So I think he should be used more in the last 5 minutes or so of the game. Instead I felt like Dun continued to take the ball out of his hands and plant him in the corner. Why was Butler the primary ball handler on that play where he hit the 3? That’s just crazy to me.
I agree with you that with 3.6 seconds left, you give it to EJ and go with it. Fine. I still would have preferred Baron in that scenario, but I’m not killing the coach for that decision. He wants to see what EJ is made of. I’m cool with that.
But in the end, I just think Dun has no idea how to maximize Baron’s talents (and he is quite talented) and instead he’s taking the easy way out and choosing to marginalize him.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right - if they hadn't lost, they'd have won
Unfortunately, my friend, they lost. And we as fans get to try to figure out why. And for some of us there are significant concerns.
Maybe I should just go read the box score instead of watching the game and understanding how the game is played and I’d be perfectly happy with what happened – la la la la la – like you.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THEY JUST LOST TWO GAMES
How can anyone say that they are playing well when they just lost the two opening games. Maybe they should have lost the first game, but they choked the second.
What you mean is that they are playing better then the horrible team of last year. But that’s not saying all that much, now is it.
You are Orwellian.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you mean is that they are playing better then the horrible team of last year
This is an indisputed fact, and am I heartened to see that you are not disputing it.
But in fact, I did not mean to say it. Please stick to the many things I actually said.
by John R on Oct 29, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry - what you actually said made no sense so I gave you the benefit of the doubt
I won’t do that in the future.
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"He's not a good coach when he has injured players"
What coach doesn’t have injured players?
by Jax on Oct 29, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dead building
I was at the game yesterday and there was no energy in the building at all. I am not sure if this was b/c people are still in shock over griffin but the preaseason game i went vs the warriors was louder than yesterdays gm. this game was lost in qtrs 1-3, they should easily had a double figure lead but bad ft shooting and other mishaps prevented that from happening. hopefully this is not a preview of what to expect at staples this season.
by ImranQ on Oct 29, 2009 11:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed building was dead
I think everyone was on a “wait, I’ll cheer when they start winning” phase
by Qlippers on Oct 29, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really? it seemed pretty active on tv
by Newtybar on Oct 29, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What game did you guys go to?
the weekday games always start off slow with the crowd, LA+Traffic= Late but once the game was cooking the crowd was pumped at lease in the 100’s for what I saw.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
by HVYDRT007 on Oct 29, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yesterdays gm
i have been to plenty games over the years, and yesterday was pathetic, i went to the preseason gm vs the warriors a few weeks ago and the crowd was much better that night. I am not talking about the number of people there, the energy and noise level was just low. The loudest it got is when they started giving away free tshirts. even clipper darrel seemed subdued(not sure how to spell that word)
by ImranQ on Oct 29, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For an opening night crowd
it was dead. Barely any applause for Blake when he was introduced and just polite applause for the rest of the squad. Opening Night – the place should have rocking, and I’d bet that if Blake was starting and not in civies and they had one on Tuesday the place would have been crazy but instead it was tepid. But what the Clippers needed was crazy and they got nothing.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 29, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Building was dead
Except for the end. When Butler hit the three, that was pretty electric.
But all in all I think that coming off of Blake’s injury, the feeling was a subdued anticipation. Clipper Daryl made the rounds & stirred away some of the quiet. The Clippers should co-ordinate Daryl somehow, instead of spending money on more & more dance/cheer groups that people ignore (unless they have free t-shirts in hand).
The general feeling I got from the crowd was that losing Blake for six weeks (maybe?) left us back to where we were (for the most part) last year. Not much to cheer about untill wins come. Fans are being guarded from being hurt like we were last year.
go clips………guardedly
by sttrumpet on Oct 29, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kaman 2.5........................I like it. Give me more.
Everything starts out New, Gets Old and Dies or is Destroyed.
by HVYDRT007 on Oct 29, 2009 11:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm I'd say more like Kaman 1.75
He still did a lot of goofball things lol.
by Newtybar on Oct 29, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I’m not getting all the love for Kaman. The double double are nice but if you watched the game he got away with several walks, still misses the easy shots, refuses to go right to the rim. I guess making 15 footers removes all those other problems for others but not for me. Better then last year but I still haven’t seen 2.0 this year in my opinion.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Oct 29, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
0-2
We’re not off to a great start, that’s obvious…. but have faith people!
We have EJ, Kaman, Smith and Camby all playing well.
Once BD, Saul, and AT get going.
We will win a lot of games. Let’s give them some time.
by Cay.Clipper1 on Oct 29, 2009 12:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You guys are missing who is really to blame for the loss
I started working on my ‘Clippers win’ post after that play
Unacceptable Mr. Perrin.
by Michael White on Oct 29, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I'm that powerful
Really, I don’t.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 29, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crikey
Did you start it before or after Mike Smith said something to the effect of: “I really think that the Suns don’t have it. They have Stoudamire and Grant Hill and good starters but this is the Clippers game.”
That was the moment I knew the Clips were going to do what they do best, what they’ve done so well for so long: tear our hearts out.
Probably right about the same time that SP started typing.
Not that powerful? How long did it take after you wrote the Antwan Jamison post before Blake Griffin went down?
by citizen zhiv on Oct 29, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
That’s where you’re wrong. Griffin was already hurt. I’m an idiot; not an all powerful being!
(Guess I showed you.)
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 30, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey steve, first time posting.
definitely been checking your blog for awhile now. been a huge clipps fan since 91’ season and it’s great to read in depth clippers analysis when you can’t find it anywhere else. i check it religiously everyday. thanks for the hard work.
here’s a question for you: I don’t think dunleavy is a bad coach; however, i have trouble understanding his playcalling. There was one point where they kept throwing it to baron, and then to gordon when nash was on them. And then it was basically all kaman at the end. Kaman actually did great, and i understand you have to exploit the matchups where baron and ej both had a bit of success. But since they did it repetitively, the sun’s defense figured it out. When they couldn’t get it in, it lead to confusion, forced shots, and turnovers. His offense isn’t the triangle where there are multiple options, but don’t they at least have a 2nd option in this case?
by shimmywitbillycrs on Oct 29, 2009 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Whoa...that's a long handle
I will call you Citizen shimmy.
There was a great quote from George Karl this summer when the Clippers were rumored to be interested in Iverson. Here’s the quote:
I actually spent about a half hour with Mike Dunleavy last night, I told him: ‘If you can get AI to come off the bench and buy in to being a scorer off the bench, I think it can work.’ And, Mike – certain systems and certain styles of coaches – I think Dunleavy plays a way that AI can fit in to. If you’re going to be a team oriented, ball movement offensive team, I don’t think that fits, but I think Mike likes to run some isolations, he likes to run spacing sets, and I think AI could fit in there.
That cracks me up. Because, you know, “team-oriented” and “ball movement” seem like good things. Not relatively good things, not good in certain situation things, but intrinsically, empirically, objectively good. Now, I’m sure Karl’s statement, which was in a radio interview, came off a little differently than he planned, and his point is that there’s a continuum in the NBA from motion type offenses to iso-heavy offenses, and that MDsr falls on the iso end of that spectrum. But I find the quote hilarious.
To your question, sure, there are always other options. And bear in mind that many, many NBA coaches run isos, not just MDsr, and when it’s working, fans and especially announcers heap praise on them. “They’re going to the hot hand, they’re exploiting that matchup, etc”. But here’s what can happen: if the play is iso Kaman on the right block, there are cross screens and other pre-action to get him to the spot. But if the entry pass isn’t there, how long do you wait for it before swinging the ball and going to option 2? 3 seconds, 5 seconds, 10 seconds? And if you walked the ball into the front court, and took a little time setting the cross screen, where are you in the shot clock? So my biggest problem with those sets is in how long they take getting into them. Because they are designed to force the defense to react (if the double comes, who’s open, if it doesn’t go one on one), but if you’re deep in the clock, you may not have enough time to exploit the defenses reaction. As for it being predictable… well predicting something and stopping it are two different things. MDsr doesn’t care about being predictable, if he likes the matchup.
On the possession tied 104, they actually got Kaman to a good spot. But Stoudemire played it well, and Kaman got surrounded, and the spacing was bad off the ball.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 30, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, no, no, no, no!
You’ve all got it all wrong!
Dunleavy lost the game! Dunleavy, only Dunleavy, and nobody but Dunleavy!
At this time it’s not clear howm but of that you can be certain — Dunleavy lost it!
And if you don’t believe me, I’ll re-post, with more exclamation points, and maybe even all caps! And I will continue to do so until you are all convinced!
by pipedreams on Oct 29, 2009 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Speaking of the referees...
Did you guys happen to see this? Excerpts from Tim Donaghy’s new book. Really gives a fascinating insight to how corrupt things can possibly be.
http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read
I've got nothing.
by bc56274 on Oct 29, 2009 1:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I blame
Ralph and Lawler’s Law (the actual law, not the citizen). Clips were the first to 100. They should have just stopped the game then, because essentially the Clippers stopped playing at that point as well.
Do or do not. There is no try.
by Clip Show on Oct 29, 2009 1:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually liked what I saw
Even though they lost it was a fun game and it came down to the wire. We may not have come away with the W but it was better than pretty much every game last season. It was nice to see all the starters from last year healthy and playing together and I’m excited for this season. We’ll get some wins soon enough. Hell, a win in Utah would be HUGE.
by AtotheZ on Oct 29, 2009 2:52 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
This Tim Donaghy thing is really interesting
Too bad the NBA is blackballing any publishers who dares to touch this book. There was an interesting section about the NBA sending videos to officials about how to call a game against the superstars. For example, if Raja Bell was playing against Kobe, they would send a video of Bell guarding Kobe and highlighting what a foul looked like on Kobe.
But we’ll never get to read the book
by Qlippers on Oct 29, 2009 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How can the NBA blackball publishers?
It’s not like the NBA wields terrifying power in the publishing world.
by DariusN on Oct 29, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta say
I’m lovin all this passion so far. Over 200 posts in two threads about last night’s game!
And I only accounted for like half of that…haha.
by madglove on Oct 29, 2009 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Losses Produce
a TON more comments than do wins.
Tough losses like last night, people just need to vent and debate on what the team needs to improve on. After a nice win, we’re all pretty much satisified so there’s not as much reason to come on here or argue.
by ghost_ride on Oct 29, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe this is why SP reverse mojos the games.
More page views!
Kidding…if the Clips became a winning playoff contender, this site would take off!
by Newtybar on Oct 30, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about that.
Losses create more comments in the short term, Wins create more in the long term.
by ghost_ride on Oct 30, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
calls becoming one sided in the 4th quarter
I was reading the tim donaghy excerpts from chrisS.oak’s fanshot and one part was talking about Dick Bavetta. It said he would make one sided calls against the teams outplaying their opponents in the 4th quarter to keep games close after making calls for both teams earlier in the game. It’s unlikely, but could that have happened in this game, the perfect "Bavetta " finish where the game comes down to the wire and the superstar wins it for his team?
by MTM22 on Oct 29, 2009 7:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW
donaghy supports his claim on Bavetta by talking about his officiating in the 2002 game 6 semis with the lakers and the kings. Also, he writes about bavetta’s officiating in the 2000 game 7 semis with the lakers and dunleavy’s blazers where the lakers win the 4th 31-13 and beat the blazers at the line 37-16.
by MTM22 on Oct 29, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The grand conspiracies
If you subscribe to a broader conspiracy, that the NBA is sanctioning and encouraging referee hijinks, one motivation would be to have more close games. So you have the refs help the trailing team down the stretch.
But I’ve never believed that the NBA is powerful enough to do something like that from the top down. Someone would talk. For example, even Donaghy isn’t claiming this is NBA level.
Might individual refs have a mandate to tinker? It’s possible. But there are three refs on a crew. Even if Bavetta went rogue, what are the other guys doing?
It’s the built-in prejudices and star-system that seem like a more likely culprit in some cases. Eric Gordon defending Steve Nash, foul. Steve Nash defending Eric Gordon, no foul.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 30, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol Reggie Miller just dissed the nickname "amazin"
by andrewexd on Oct 29, 2009 9:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He dissed the nickname "Amazing", not "Amazin'"
If Reggie had heard the correct pronunciation I think he would have liked it. W/ “g” boring, dull, unimaginative; w/o “g” cool, hip, creative…this new nickname is going to be a hard sell.
"Excellence...is not an act, but a habit" Aristotle
by Cliptomaniac on Oct 29, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, that's irony right?
The missing G doesn’t really make it cool, does it?
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Oct 30, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd actually take Blake Superior over "Amazin"
Then again I think the best suited nickname for Blake is “The Terminator G1000”, or just “The G1000” for short.
Adaptable, flexible, killing machine.
by Newtybar on Oct 30, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should put off the debate until he actually does some killin
by Jax on Oct 30, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah agreed
its like Sun Yue, when he got his Chinese Magic Johson for what he did in China. Turns out he should be known as Tragic Johnson (yeah yeah, Magic had that nickname once earlier in his career or atleast i heard so from one of the posters.)
by JackduhSun on Oct 30, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
