Yesterday I noted how, of the 9 games we had played, 7 had been decided by 5 points or less. Well, you can officially make that 8 of 10 as the Spurs held off a late rally by the Clippers last night to win 86-83 in LA. The Spurs now head home with a .500 record where they await a Nuggets team that has been rejuvenated by the arrival of Chauncey Billups.
Both Kurt Thomas and Ime Udoka returned to the floor after receiving DNP-CDs two days ago in Sacramento. I still am not completely positive as to why each saw zero minutes on Sunday. My only explanation is that Popovich was saving them for the second leg of the back-to-back as we traditionally struggle in such games. But neither proved to be very productive, each going 1-3 from the field.
Tim Duncan scored 20 points and hauled in 15 rebounds in another well-crafted performance, but the real hero of this game was Roger Mason. leading the team with 21 points on 9-16 shooting, Mason showed some bravado by taking a pull up jumper from beyond the arc with 8 seconds left instead of hitting Duncan who was rolling to the hoop after having just set a pick. Mason nailed the shot, giving the Spurs a 3-point lead and moments later the win. He has done an excellent job filling the offensive gap during Parker and Ginobili's absence and I am increasingly confident that he is the reliable fourth option this team has been in need of.
Jacques Vaughn played poorly, succumbing to aggressive traps by either turning the ball over or mismanaging the offensive set. For further evidence note that when Vaughn entered the game for Hill with 4:05 left in the fourth, we were up 83-76. We would not score again until there was 8 seconds left.
I wanted to note that we played excellent perimeter defense during the Clippers final shot attempt. Popovich put in our "smartest" rotation: Vaughn, Bowen, Finley, Mason, and Duncan. And eventually the veteran unit forced Baron Davis into taking a difficult, low-percentage shot.
For further thoughts on the Clippers I'll turn to Kevin Arnovitz of ClipperBlog:
The Clippers play a fairly crisp game tonight. They work themselves some nice looks against a smart defensive team. Their coverages seem as tight as they’ve been in a while — even with the problems on the perimeter. The Clippers destroy the Spurs on the boards [47-36, including 14-5 on the offensive glass]. The 13 turnovers are manageable [a couple of them are offensive fouls]. Chris Kaman is able to find himself space to shoot his face-up 15-footer. He turns the ball over only once. Cuttino Mobley runs off 11 consecutive point at the start of the second half to keep the Clippers in the game. But Baron is awful.
As I mentioned earlier, the Spurs will be back in San Antonio on Wednesday where they will face the 6-4 Nuggets. The game begins at 8:30 Eastern/7:30 Central.
Oscar Wilde once quipped that "One should never make one’s debut with a scandal. One should reserve that to give an interest to one’s old age." Well, Mark Cuban, you're a little early, but this will have to do.
So what does a Spurs-addicted hoop head make of Cuban's forays into the pratfalls of fortune? Not what you might think.
I love Mark Cuban.
Why?
To start, sheer selfishness. He's been good to the Spurs. Outside of the 2006 Western Conference semifinals (please, Manu, just foul Dirk a little harder next time), the Mavs have been a great aide to the Spurs success, especially recently.
Take for example, the muddle-headed Jason Kidd for Devin Harris trade. In one foolish maneuver, Cuban managed to turn the Spurs arch-rivals into something of a cupcake, shipping out the one Dallas player for which the Spurs had no answer. If I recall correctly, Tony Parker publicly sounded the bells of relief after that panic-induced gift basket arrived in the mail. That move alone is worth a few years of gratitude. Although, somewhat disappointingly, the trade included the "we can just trade him next February" out clause, which I imagine is in the cards.
I love Mark Cuban for his addle-brained mishandling of Avery Johnson, one of only two coaches in the league that has shown he can beat Popovich. His care of Johnson was compounded over time, and, as you know, led to his eventual termination. Many think the Mavs were poster boys of underachievement under Johnson---but don't count me in that number. Johnson's teams overachieved. They were never as good as their record.
And of course I love Mark Cuban for being at the ownership helm for the Mavericks epic choke against the Warriors in 2007--- a choke that in many ways paved the way toward a Spurs 4th championship. The Mavs were the only team that could beat the Spurs that season, and they withdrew themselves from the fight before the opening bell. I distinctly remember that I started celebrating a 4th championship during Game 7 of the Mavs-Warriors series. It was cocky and arrogant, sure, but the final three rounds of that postseason were mere formality. Too bad for the league that LeBron James was forced to play the role of human rubber stamp.
You see, Mark Cuban is the gift that keeps giving.
But my love for Cuban extends beyond the interests of the Spurs. Mark Cuban, setting all rival cheap shooting aside, has been good for the Association.
In 2001, Cuban purchased the Dallas franchise, taking it from the cellar to an eventual place in the NBA Finals. We don't talk about this as much as we should, but an owner has a dramatic effect on whether it's team will be a winner or not. See Johnson, Robert. Since taking control of the franchise, Cuban has done nothing but field playoff-caliber teams who have a better shot at winning than most. This is never a guarantee. Dallas is blessed to have Cuban.
Mark Cuban brought a number of culture-changing initiatives to his team, and through the Mavs to the NBA. People forget, that it is Don Nelson, hired by Cuban, who made smaller, faster teams fashionable again. Nelson's Mavericks teams were a kind of precursor to the 7 Seconds or Less Suns, albeit more in principle than in system. The point was to score, and often. This was a huge tidal shift from the ugly ball of the 90s practiced by the likes of Riley's Knicks.
Mark Cuban has never been afraid to challenge the NBA or its Commissioner. Often, he has done this to a fault. But as good as David Stern has been for the league, Cuban came along at a time when Stern's perspective struck me as staid. I like to think the NBA's push to alternative broadcasting streams and other such tech-savvy implementations had something to do with Cuban. Whether this is true or not, it's undeniable that Cuban has brought an outside-the-box freshness to the Board of Governors that is all boon, no bane. His voice deserves a respectful hearing.
I love Mark Cuban for cheering for his team with an almost adolescent enthusiasm. I look forward to his towel waving, jersey donning, and ref taunting fanatics. He has passions just like mine, even if for the enemy squad. But make no mistake, when Mark Cuban barks and howls from his spot and the end of the Dallas bench, he is not just shaking his pom-poms for the team, he is out in front as a cheerleader for the league.
So, yes, I'm pulling for Cuban. Thankfully, the early punditry suggests he'll be okay.
From yesterday's cycle, Henry Abbott wrote a helpful piece on the Cuban insider trading brouhaha. Reading between his lines, it's obvious the Cuban's action were more clumsy than flagitious. Citing from his exchange with Randy Shain,
So what is the penalty likely to be? Mark Cuban's going to have to write a big check. The complaint calls for "disgorgement of profits" which is government talk for giving back the money that you should not have made. With the $750,000 he reportedly made, plus some fines, my guess is that might be a million dollars.
And then this could be all done. It's a civil filing at this point. I can't imagine there will be a criminal filing, like what happened in the Martha Stewart case. That tends to only happen if there is a cover-up, which there isn't any suggestion of here.
She went to jail. He's going to be angry, and is likely going to have to pay a million dollars. But at the end of the day: So what?
What's wrong about doing what he did? In the big picture, there's nothing wrong, of course, with selling a stock that is going down.
But what the SEC, the regulators, are trying to prevent is someone making a trade that benefits them unfairly. In the NBA, you can make a trade sometimes that benefits both parties. In stocks, it's a zero sum game. If I make money on a stock transaction, somebody else loses.
When Mark Cuban found out about the PIPE financing, he apparently believed the stock would go down, and sold his stock. That didn't screw Mamma.com, and it didn't screw the SEC. It screwed the poor schlub who bought that stock from him and presumably didn't know about the PIPE. The SEC's job is to make it so that both parties at least have a shot at knowing the same things before they trade, and if the allegations are true, that's what didn't happen here.
In short, this amounts to a billionaire's peccadillo. From where I sit, this water has already passed under the bridge and down that dirty River Walk. Mark Cuban is fine by me.
The X's and O's of Basketball does an excellent job breaking down plays, oftentimes catching things the average fan would never recognize. If you are looking to gain a deeper knowledge of in-game tactics, there may be no better daily read on the internet. The author took a look at the end of the Kings-Spurs game last night, offering a couple of quick thoughts and a telling clip:
The Kings started out doubling Duncan hard, on the first dribble after the catch. But in the last 2 possessions, they don't (well, they do double but its way too late). I don't understand why you wouldn't double hard after you just doubled Duncan hard and forced the ball out of Duncan's hands and the turnover. Watch,
The author goes on to breakdown the last few plays, including the well executed ball-screen we ran with 19 seconds left. In his opinion Reggie Theus abandoned a defensive strategy that very well could have won the Kings the game. But, as he is known to do, he also gave Popovich proper due for running an excellent offensive set during our final possession.
Spurs rookie George Hill is off to a good start in San Antonio. The shooting guard turned point is starting in place of the injured Tony Parker, averaging 8 points in 22 minutes per game. Last Friday, in a win against the Rockets, Hill played an impressive 36 minutes on 8 for 13 for 17 points. He added 6 rebounds and 5 assists with zero turnovers to his line. Those of us who watch San Antonio closely marvel at how far he's come since a shaky summer league.
Night-to-night, he is still an uneven player (last night, for example, he attempted to play the Kings in a full-on rookie daze, looking hesitant and unsure on every possession), his skill set is impressive, and it's improving with each week. His 13.15 PER is solid for a rookie, especially one playing a new position. If he can couple this production with floor leadership and confidence within the system, Hill will be a marked improvement over Jacques Vaughn (7.04 PER) whose only assets are intelligence and floor leadership.
The current Spurs back court is greatly improved over last season's squad. In addition to Hill's per minute production, consider that George Mason Jr. maintains a 16.49 PER, which dwarfs Finley's 11.35 from a year ago. Finley lost weight in the off season and is playing much better this year, although his PER more or less remains the same. Mason and Hill were immediate defensive upgrades over Finley and Vaughn, and will become more effective as they learn the system.
This to say, the Spurs will have an exceptional back court rotation once Tony Parker and ManuGinobili return, and their current scoring struggles should completely dissipate. Better still, they should be able to manage the minutes of their injured stars in order to ease them into shape while still preserving them for the playoffs. If they can figure out their front court rotation, the Spurs will be a force.
But I digress. That's the stuff of a different post. This post is about George Hill.
George Hill has a bright future in San Antonio. But his story starts with a strange preface, one that leaves the reader wondering if the Spurs are as lucky as they are smart.
Last summer, the the Spurs had promised to draft Nico Batum at 26. After he was selected by Houston, and eventually traded to Portland, Batum and BounaNdiaye, his agent, openly expressed discouragement about not lasting one more spot to their pledged destination of San Antonio. One well-connected draft expert told me that Ndiaye was so confident in the Spurs selection that he was shocked when Houston called his clients number.
On June 20, just prior to the draft, a rumor began to circulate that Batum had heart problems---his father is said to have died of a heart attack while playing basketball, something the family denies. In response to those rumors, he flew to the Cleveland Clinic for tests, where he was given a clean bill of health. But Ndiaya, who also represents the Spurs Ian Mahinmi, did not release the records to the the league, instead only the Spurs and Cavs, where San Antonio family members Danny Ferry and Mike Brown preside, received the test results. This odd exchange was further compounded when Batum immediately flew from Cleveland to San Antonio, worked out for the Spurs, and then withdrew from all subsequent work outs.
In other words, Batum and the Spurs cleverly manipulated the draft process to allow Batum to fall to San Antonio at 26. There is no question that the Spurs made Batum a first round promise.
But a funny thing happened on the way to 26. Hours before the draft the Spurs sent out a league-wide email shopping their pick. Yes, an email. Chad Ford reported it this way:
The Spurs sent an e-mail to every team in the league at 3:30 p.m. saying that they were willing to move the 26th pick. The e-mail asked league executives to "E-mail us your interest and your offers to 26."
The Spurs, it stands to reason, got wind of Rockets-Blazers deal and knew their man would not be available. They were in a scramble.
This is the back drop against which George Hill was drafted. The 26th pick came around and Hill, whose name did not appear in the draft media guide, and who played ball at a school some did not know existed, had his number called by the Spurs. On their live draft blog, the good folks at Draft Express simply commented, "A surprising pick to say the least."
But the surprises continued. Hill insisted that the Spurs had made him a promise: "I'm excited to be going to a class organization like the Spurs. I worked out for them twice and really hit if off with (Gregg Popovich). They told me if I was there at 26, they'd take me." On draft night, Popovich corroborated Hill's story with this confident evaluation:
The Spurs passed on Darrell Arthur and Mario Chalmers to select Hill, so it's not as if the Spurs were without options in the wake of Houston's selection. Hill may have been a surprise pick, but to everyone but the Spurs. Of those still available, they picked the player they wanted.
It's impossible to know which promise the Spurs would have honored if both Batum and Hill had been available at 26. My suspicion, which could never be substantiated, is that the Spurs had hoped for both players, either at 26 and 45, or through some combination of trades.
Others suggest that Popovich wanted Hill all along, and the Batum promise and email were part of an elaborate ruse to throw front office blood hounds off the Hill trail. But I'm dubious that the Spurs would go to such lengths, especially with an agent who represents a big part of their future.
It's worth noting that Popovich wasn't blowing smoke. Hill was playing even before Parker's injury. The Spurs said that he would play right away, and he did. They knew more than most; they selected their guy.
As it turns out, the Spurs were fine either way. Batum looks good in Portland, and would have been a timely addition behind Bowen and Udoka. George Hill is the real deal for San Antonio and is, at worst, a productive back up point guard. Based on his early development, he could be more. In my estimation, he could turn into Devin Harris level starter--not an All-Star, but a quality player nonetheless.
This is one of the story lines to follow if you stalk about the Alamo. For now, Spurs fans should be thankful for yet another good draft pick. Be patient with the kid--he will struggle here and there--because he's a keeper.
Update: For the benefit of future Spurs historians, I'm adding this postscript. Thanks to the Free Darko crew for unearthing this gem:
Yes, I know, it's in French. But a French-speaking friend confirms that the video more or less attests to the argument in the post above. I trust him. Won't you?
With the Spurs now at 4-5, I am increasingly convinced this entire season is one elaborate scheme to take years off my life. Of the 9 games we’ve played, 7 have been decided by 5 points or less. Whether widely hyped (Houston, Portland) or perennially mediocre (Milwaukee, Minnesota) the Spurs seem to battle every team down to the final buzzer. That trend continued yesterday evening as the Spurs defeated the Sacramento Kings 90-88.
Michael Finley was reinserted into the starting lineup this evening, not unjustly. He has played well throughout the last few games and continued to last night, shooting 8-17 from the field over the course of 35 minutes for 21 overall points. I’m excited by his offensive production but I am highly skeptical he can put up these kinds of numbers on a consistent basis. He replaced Ime Udoka who, along with Kurt Thomas, received a DNP-CD. In all honesty, I found this rather surprising.
Neither Udoka nor Thomas have played particularly well this season but with neither Ime nor Kurt seeing the court that meant the Spurs played a 9 man rotation (which was fundamentally an 8 man rotation, given the fact that Anthony Tolliver saw 7 minutes of playing time). Popovich has always run deep rotations during the regular season and given the injuries we have suffered, my initial reaction was that bench players (as well as guys who were starting only two days ago) would be seeing even greater minutes. I don’t know what to make out of this decision. Maybe Pop is trying to shock them into action. Maybe there is a trade in the works and he isn’t messing around by playing guys he knows won’t be on the team in a few days (that is purely speculative). Either way, I thought the decision was strange.
Meanwhile, Roger Mason stepped up alongside Finley to provide 18 points on 6-14 shooting. Mason has had a bit of a boom-bust tenure with the Spurs so far during which he has shot the lights out one night only to flat-line the next. If yesterday’s numbers were indicative of what Mason could possibly look like on a consistent basis, I would be pretty excited. Duncan scored 20 points and hauled down 10 boards which, for the greatest power forward of all time, is pretty much par for the course.
Jacques Vaughn seized the opportunity Popovich gave him (he saw 23 minutes of court time last night compared to only 12 against Houston) and produced a respectable 10 points along with 6 assists. George Hill came back down to earth, scoring only 4 points on 2-7 shooting, but that is to be expected of a guy who can still count the number of pro games he’s played in on two hands. What was more frustrating than Hill’s offensive numbers was his contribution to our perimeter defensive woes.
During the first half we gave up a variety of open outside looks to the Kings that culminated in a 40% 3-point shooting night for Sacramento. And although I haven’t seen the breakdown by halves, that percentage must have dipped during the second half when the Spurs actually decided to make the proper rotations and aggressively close out on shooters who were in a position to receive the ball. I genuinely believe that our difficulty shutting down outside shooters (historically an area we have excelled in) had something to do with the absence of Udoka and Thomas. Yes, we lack our two best back court players and that is going to negatively effect our perimeter defense. But most of the open looks created by Sacramento were produced by a reasonably effective inside-outside game that was forcing Hill and Bowen to slide into the lane. Without Thomas and Udoka there to provide reliable interior defense while Duncan was resting the Kings picked and slashed their way into the paint, continually collapsing the Spurs’ defensive sets. In general our defense has been far superior the last 4 games than it was the first 5, but I was underwhelmed by our performance in the first half.
Tonight the Spurs have a chance to bring their record to .500 for the first time this season when they take on the Clippers in LA. Although the Spurs oftentimes have difficulty with back-to-back games (another fact which makes me question Pop’s decision to play such a shallow rotation), this is a very winnable game. The game begins at 10:30 Eastern/9:30 Central on NBA TV.
When I heard the Spurs were cutting Desmon Farmer and calling up Blake Ahearn, I was ambivalent. I liked Farmer just fine. He seemed to be exactly what I expected him to be: a decent shooter whose game was limited beyond that. But the DNP-CDs he earned the last two games didn't bode well for last year's D-League scoring champ. He took some liberty on the offensive end which may have raised some eyebrows on the coaching staff but in all honesty he probably just didn't show the high level of commitment on the defensive end of the court that is so essential to earning minutes with this team.
And then there is Blake Ahearn. Who? That's pretty much what I said until I got a call from my good friend Matt Moore who is a well-known Spurs hater/D-League aficionado. I didn't expect the call, and I definitely didn't expect him to be excited about Ahearn's arrival in San Antonio. In Moore's opinion Ahearn is a crack shot from both the line (he still holds the NCAA record for best career FT percentage) and the field who shares the humility and tireless work ethic that forms the bedrock of the Spurs collective ethos. For Matt's extended thoughts on the matter, check out a profile of Ahearn he wrote back in February.
48 Minutes of Hell Contributor Timothy Varner was more hesitant to give the move his endorsement:
I don't think Ahearn is a lock to play. He's a third string point, at best. The Spurs did this same thing last year with a merry go round of call ups. They like to award 10 day contracts that function like extended interviews. It's more about whether the guy will fit in the locker room, and all that. But they already have 3 points, so unless Parker is injured for longer than we expect or Vaughn is gone...
The other possibility is that they want a premier D-League point to run the show in Austin to help the development of their young players, but this is doubtful.
Farmer can only score, and didn't in his limited minutes. It's pretty obvious by now that when healthy Parker-Hill, Mason-Ginobili is the best back court in the league, and will provide plenty of scoring from those positions. Hairston fills a hole at 3, but I'm not sure what Ahearn brings to the table other than great shooting and zero athleticism.
I told Tim to take a glance at Matt's profile and although it didn't exactly change his mind, he had some further thoughts on the matter after giving it a read:
1) It is possible the Spurs would like to groom a back up third point to replace JV next year, and giving a guy a year in the system before expecting anything of him is smart.
2) He's a Spur in terms of character--hard working, unheralded, driven...
But again, I'm not too concerned about Ahearn until he lasts through his two 10 day contracts. I've seen this movie before.
I believe Ahearn will suit up for the Spurs this evening when the silver and black travel to Sacramento to take on the 4-6 Kings. The game begins at 9 Eastern/8 Central. UPDATE: Ahearn did not play this evening, although the Spurs did sneak out of Sacramento with a 90-88 victory.
Yesterday evening I had the pleasure of attending the Free Darko book signing here in Chicago. We ate some really solid deep dish, watched the Cavs/Nuggets and the Warriors/Pistons and talked with Recluse and DLIC about hoops and what not. I also had the opportunity to meet Trey. He’s alright, I guess. If you haven’t had an opportunity to check out the book (which may be many of you, as it just came out on Tuesday) make sure you pick up a copy.
As many people have noted, it’s not just 200 pages worth of blog posts bound and printed. It is a lucid and thoughtful reinterpretation of the NBA that will be relevant for years to come. I am not sure their “manifesto” actually has the potential to replace traditional forms of basketball fandom, but it certainly has inspired me to move beyond my purely partisan sensibilities. Before FD, I was a Spurs fan. Since I began reading their writing several years ago, I have blossomed into a lover of the entire Association. I still balance my allegiance to the silver and black with my more liberated side (my only serious criticism of the book would be the idea that they do not give the potential for this balance sufficient consideration), but without a doubt their writing has changed the way I think about the game.
Although the Spurs are the epitome of being “anti-FD,” the Spurs lovers out there will be pleasantly surprised to find an entire chapter dedicated to Tim Duncan. For a group of sportswriters who have raised “style” and “personality” to fetishized levels, they are genuinely intrigued by the Big Fundamental. His placidity and lack of style are enigmatic. Duncan “redefines style to encompass elements completely devoid of stylishness.” Embracing negation as a form of positivity is an idea I have been a proponent of for some time. I have written about how defense can be understood as a form of self-expression, and although understanding Duncan’s offensive game as being stylish because it abandons any semblance of style has a modal difference in relationship to my thoughts on defense, I think they spring from the same fount.
In some ways, this entire chapter reads as a kind of “come to Jesus” for the Free Darko Collective. These writers, fully-throated proponents of the systems of basketball pioneered by coaches like Mike D’Antoni and Don Nelson, have for years been haunted by Duncan’s ability to magnetically attract on-court success. Countless numbers of FD’s patron saints have met their martyrdom at the hands of Duncan’s Spurs. And yet, despite a decade of frustration, even sometimes hatred, the men of FD have seemingly come to a place where they respect Duncan and the broader role he plays in the NBA:
Duncan is a vessel through which a beam of magnificence passes. He is the NBA’s designated holder of pure athletic dignity, the kind that danced around with ring with Joe Louis and that ran with Joe DiMaggio around the base paths. Duncan emanates such honor ad humility that many members of the media have idealized him, fashioning him as some sort of puritanical savior to the league. And although this status is somewhat over-blown, without Duncan, one wonders if the Association would ring hollow to the public, who might view it as merely a noisy shell of celebrity and finesse. Duncan keeps us honest. His righteous and calming presence provides balance-- and enables the NBA to unashamedly pursue its primary function as a flabbergasting playground for all to enjoy.
I think this season may show us new sides of Duncan that we have not previously seen. Tim has never faced hardship they way he will over the coming months. The Free Darko Collective admits that the potential of inner turmoil is what drives their continued interest in Duncan: “We watch perhaps the greatest power forward in the history of the NBA go relatively unnoticed among his flashier colleagues and wonder why he does not express frustration.” In order for the Spurs to make the playoffs, Duncan may have to play the best basketball of his career, something many commentators think is no longer possible. So far he has done a heroic job struggling to keep this team afloat, although with limited success. As the losses pile up over the course of November, I am intrigued to see to what extent Duncan’s inner peace will begin to erode. Faced with the specter of mediocrity, will the saintly giant reveal that even he too is fallen?
Graydon Gordian: Editor-in-Chief. An ex-pat Texan who resides in Chicago. A fan of the Spurs, Steelers, Mets and Longhorns (and I'll throw Arsenal in there for good measure). A firm believer that sports has a cultural and aesthetic significance far beyond the game in and of itself. A proud member of the Hardwood Paroxysm staff. Contact him at graydon.gordian@gmail.com
Timothy Varner: Freelance Writer and Spurs Aficionado. Cody Adams: Author of The Erection of Disbelief. Resident film critic here at 48 Minutes of Hell. Inimitable.
