What Game Were They Watching?? (The Inaugural Post)
Add Bill Raftery to the list that includes Charley Rosen as those whose word I cannot put 100% stock into when it comes to basketball. Yeah, they probably know more than I, but last night's Mavs/Jazz game was no more "great" as the former claimed in the post game show, than Adrian Griffin is a 3-point threat, as latter claimed last year.
Ugh! It was a tough game, I will concede. A good kind to win. But it was sloppy and over-officiated. There were 42 turnovers combined (almost evenly split) and 75 free throws (35 for the Mavs; 40 for the Jazz). There were questionable calls on both sides. Derek Fisher was whistled for two charges that might not otherwise have been cited, particularly the last one against Jason Terry. And the technical and second flagrant on Jerry Stackhouse were laughable. Despite what the two homer Utah announcers said, Jerry Sloan was jawing as much as Stack as Stack was at him. Double-T, at worst. And Stack has an unfortunate habit of being hit with unwarranted flagrants. His foul that took Joe Johnson out of Game 1, and the rest of the playoff series a couple years ago against the Suns comes to mind. Last night, it was his foul on Matt Harpring under the basket. Even the aforementioned homers (who aren't as big homers as Joel Myers and Stu Lantz, who were oblivious to the contact Smush Parker made on Terry's last second drive the other night [That said, I believe it was an acceptable no-call]) saw that one correctly. That first T, and the flagrant from which it resulted, when Stack was trying to clear room between he and Harpring (after which he quickly offered to help Harpring up from the floor), stopped the momentum the Mavs had in building a 7-point 1st quarter lead.
The Mavs continue to impress. They had no business winning here in San Antonio the other night, what with (a) them trying to extend to a 13-game winning streak (b) against a team like the Spurs, (c) on the road, (d) who were trying to avoid a 3-game losing streak themselves. I believe they put their foot on the Spurs throat, if only psychologically. And they darn near pulled out the game in L.A. While their rotations out double teams to 3-point shooters seemed a little slow, said shooters were on that night. There's only so much a team can do faced with a team that's on from the outside. Many Mavs opponents can attest to that. Last night, however, I thought the Mavs had to win so as not to give the Jazz any reason to think they had the Mavs number. They are building a reputation as a team that is never out of a game regardless of the in-game (officiating, quality of the other team) or out-game (streaks on the line, season series records, psychological aspects) circumstances. I was seriously thinking about going to bed mid-game due to my work hours lately and the way the game was going. If anything, they made it hard for me to consider doing so in the future.
While a 3-0 road-trip would have been the best outcome, a 2-1 record, with the wins and loss falling as they did, was the next best thing.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I think the reasons the Mavs are winning such games is largely due to Avery's influence. In other words, I think it's mostly coaching. Not in-game, specific-game coaching, but the psyche he has imposed on this team.
Ugh! It was a tough game, I will concede. A good kind to win. But it was sloppy and over-officiated. There were 42 turnovers combined (almost evenly split) and 75 free throws (35 for the Mavs; 40 for the Jazz). There were questionable calls on both sides. Derek Fisher was whistled for two charges that might not otherwise have been cited, particularly the last one against Jason Terry. And the technical and second flagrant on Jerry Stackhouse were laughable. Despite what the two homer Utah announcers said, Jerry Sloan was jawing as much as Stack as Stack was at him. Double-T, at worst. And Stack has an unfortunate habit of being hit with unwarranted flagrants. His foul that took Joe Johnson out of Game 1, and the rest of the playoff series a couple years ago against the Suns comes to mind. Last night, it was his foul on Matt Harpring under the basket. Even the aforementioned homers (who aren't as big homers as Joel Myers and Stu Lantz, who were oblivious to the contact Smush Parker made on Terry's last second drive the other night [That said, I believe it was an acceptable no-call]) saw that one correctly. That first T, and the flagrant from which it resulted, when Stack was trying to clear room between he and Harpring (after which he quickly offered to help Harpring up from the floor), stopped the momentum the Mavs had in building a 7-point 1st quarter lead.
The Mavs continue to impress. They had no business winning here in San Antonio the other night, what with (a) them trying to extend to a 13-game winning streak (b) against a team like the Spurs, (c) on the road, (d) who were trying to avoid a 3-game losing streak themselves. I believe they put their foot on the Spurs throat, if only psychologically. And they darn near pulled out the game in L.A. While their rotations out double teams to 3-point shooters seemed a little slow, said shooters were on that night. There's only so much a team can do faced with a team that's on from the outside. Many Mavs opponents can attest to that. Last night, however, I thought the Mavs had to win so as not to give the Jazz any reason to think they had the Mavs number. They are building a reputation as a team that is never out of a game regardless of the in-game (officiating, quality of the other team) or out-game (streaks on the line, season series records, psychological aspects) circumstances. I was seriously thinking about going to bed mid-game due to my work hours lately and the way the game was going. If anything, they made it hard for me to consider doing so in the future.
While a 3-0 road-trip would have been the best outcome, a 2-1 record, with the wins and loss falling as they did, was the next best thing.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that I think the reasons the Mavs are winning such games is largely due to Avery's influence. In other words, I think it's mostly coaching. Not in-game, specific-game coaching, but the psyche he has imposed on this team.
posted by Chris at 7:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home