SB Nation User Blog: Rand

WatchSpurs

Rand — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:03:53 -0000

This was inspired by boredom and a comment from 'the little o' in response to the excellent BatManu wallpapers with which silverandblack_davis has favored us. So, credit and blame where it's due. Since it's early in the season, I think we could all use a little hyperbole - plus a reverse jinx, to counter all the positive energy around this year's team. We've compared the boys in black and silver to everything else under the sun; why not to the most dysfunctional team of them all?

If you haven't read 'Watchmen', go do that. If you've only seen the movie, go read the book. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ... the WatchSpurs

Tim Duncan - Dr. Manhattan

The Superman is real, and he is a Spur. Timmy's been called cold, unemotional. Even inhuman. He's strangely unloved by the media, despite being by far the greatest ever to do what he does. He is obsessed with the fundamentals of his universe, and making love to him is like being with three men. Only he can save us.

Tony Parker - Rorschach

I know, I wanted Manu to be Rorschach too, but it just ain't the case. Tony is the one who relentlessly takes the fight to the enemy - he's just a little guy, but he will throw himself into mortal danger on principle. His penetration cannot be stopped, he cannot be kept out. He's the leader of our offense. And he talks strangely. He's Rorschach.

Manu Ginobili - The Comedian

Life's a jest, and Manu knows it. Unpredictable, mercurial - you think you know him, he seems like a nice guy, and then he goes and torches the other team to the ground. Manu does not care who you are. Manu does not care what you've done. Manu will do what he wants and take what he wants, by force if necessary. He will kill a defenseless animal or break an opponent's ankles, and he'll do it with a smile on his face.

Richard Jefferson - Ozymandias

On the team, but not of the team - Rage is still something of an outsider. He's still something of an afterthought, but we ignore him at our peril. We know he's got the tools to be horrifically destructive, but our opponents won't recognize them until the damage is done.

George Hill - The Nite Owl

Last year during the preseason it's like he'd forgotten who he was - poor shooting, tentative game management, almost like he'd forgotten who he was. Now he's wearing the uniform that makes him who he is, and he's busting out a set of tools that our opponents don't know how to counter. Best of all, he's finally getting his numbers up again.

DeJuan Blair - The Silk Spectre

He never wanted to be a late-round draft pick. It's not his fault that he fell all the way to the Spurs. But what the hell - he's here now, and he's got a big ol' chip on his shoulder. Some punks are gonna get beat down. And let's be honest ... we'd all hit that.

Oh ... and if somebody with artistic talent were able to create a WatchSpurs wallpaper, it would have a permanent home on my desktop. FYI.

The Magnificent ... how many?

Rand — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:20:01 -0000

Remember the Run-and-Gun-and-Fun-and-Lose 2006-07 Phoenix Suns? The ones who saved basketball by being, oh my god, the most potent offensive force in history? Sure, defense was de thing separating them from de trophy, but who cares: the ball went through the basket. After all, they had five guys who could score - Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, Bell, and Barbosa all averaged 10+ points per game. Imagine! Five guys who can score!

Now, I know what you're thinking, and you're wrong.

You're thinking: wait! But the Spurs have ... hold on ... there's Tim, Tony and Manu ... and RJ, he can score by the bushel ... Hill was a huge scorer in college, and he's started doing it again ... and damn, Blair averages over ten points despite only playing fifteen minutes a night (and then it's in those weird Pop-is-experimenting lineups). Six! Six guys who, at any given time, can go NBA Jam and set the net on fire! Even when running actual half-court sets, we've got six guys who can straight-up kill the other team!

Wrong. See, I told you that you were going to be wrong, and then you went and did it. Jerk. In fact, we do not have six game-changing scorers.

We have nine.

When's the last time you listened to Mick Jagger's 'She's the Boss'? How about Keith Moon's 'Two Sides'? Some guys just weren't meant to go solo, but put them in the right situation with the right teammates and they will bring the proverbial fire. When you ask the wrong things of some guys, you won't be happy with what you get. When FinDog has to carry the offense, he sucks like a chest wound. When Mason has to run the point, he looks lost and crappy. When Bonner has to act like an athlete, he soils himself (just watch how he runs). When the other team is focused on shutting these guys down, these guys get shut down. But how the hell is the other team going to focus on shutting down Finster, RoMaJu and Red Rocket when they've got six legit scorers to deal with?

The 06-07 Suns were dynamite one-through-five, and Diaw was a definite threat, but after that? Their next best contributor was James Jones, who averaged four points a game in Miami last year. We, on the other hand, have three of the top three-point shooters in the league - y'know, on top of the six guys who can tear it up in the paint.

Oh, those boring, boring Spurs.

Click Here to Get Huge

Rand — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:51:42 -0000

BSAT-time, folks. For purposes of this test, all players 6'10" and taller will be referred to as 'seven footers', because people do that for some reason and because it makes this sound even cooler:

1) What is:

Ian Mahinmi

Theo Ratliff

Marcus Haislip

Malik Hairston

George Hill

(A) A list of five guys who we either didn't own or barely used last year.

(B) A list of five guys who have at least a semi-fighting chance of cracking the regular rotation on an elite NBA team.

(C) A list of five guys who, if they were used as a second unit, would not only be fairly middle-of-the-pack among actual NBA second units - they would be the BIGGEST second unit in the NBA.

Seriously. I mean, I know we love small-ball, but it's not unrealistic to think that we could have these exact five players on the court during garbage time this season. Think about what that would look like:

C - Athletic seven-footer

PF - Wily seven-footer with mad shot-blocking skillz and Youngevity(tm)

SF - Athletic seven-footer who, if his YouTube mixes don't lie (and they never do), could block the shuttle launch ... with his fist.

SG - Will have twelve inches on his generic matchup ... of biceps girth. Hairston's stupid-strong, and if not over-tall he's certainly not short for the position.

G - C'mon, it's Qbitz. Albatross. Long, strong, down to get the friction on.

These guys will bestride other teams' scrubs like a Colossus.

(D) All of the above.

---

In fact, now that I think about it, your 09-10 Spurs are a considerably bad-assier lot than any other recent incarnation. Sure, we lost Ime 'Might Have Killed A Man In Africa' Udoka, but think about what we added. Besides Mean-Punch Marcus, we've brought on:

- A guy who the most powerful human being on Earth described in hushed tones as 'a man' (as in, "Now that's a man")

- A guy who played a game after throwing up all night following surgery to repair a broken nose the previous day (and that's nowhere near the top of the 'Wow, Dice is tough' list)

- A guy who can occasionally dominate the paint despite being simultaneously French and made of glass

- A guy who left his bride sort-of at the altar so that he could devote every last ounce of energy to kicking ass and taking names in a Spurs jersey

The Spurs will be walking away with the Larry O'Brien trophy this year. Seriously, even if they don't win the championship, they're just gonna take the trophy and leave. Nobody will try to stop them.

Does Pop owe Holt HCA?

Rand — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:29:33 -0000

Hey all,

Just had a thought. We know how a Spurs season works: we start off soft, look lost and weak, and drop a slew of games in the first half of the season. Then we gel, the team comes together, and for a while after the All Star break we look unbeatable. Then Pop decides we've shown the opposition as much as we need to, we start resting guys, and we play okayish until the real season starts.

How about this year?

Getting bounced by Dallas apparently earned Holt, our beloved owner, a visitation from the ghosts of chamionships past, present and future. The wallet's open, and even if we're done making moves for the offseason we're a lot richer - and Hold is consequently a lot poorer - than has been the case in recent memory. That being the case, I ask you:

Does Pop owe Holt home court advantage?

Sure, we know that Pop could care less whose pine the Spurs play on in the postseason. But playoff games mean mucho dinero for the home team, and HCA (potentially) means extra home games. Do you think there will be some pressure on Coach for us to dominate throughout the season, rather than just at the end of it, so that we can return a little extra green to Holt's wallet when the time comes?

Peak-a-Boo?

Rand — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:04:25 -0000

Western thought, traceable down through Locke and Hume, past Thomas Aquinas and all the way back to Aristotle, rests to a great degree on the endurance of identity. A thing is what it is - an apple is an apple, an orange is an orange, I am me - and our way of thinking revolves around the generally-accepted assumption that an apple today will not be an orange tomorrow. That is all well and good. However, it leaves us open to certain types of intellectual laziness. We are so anxious to quantify, we tend to overlook the inherently transient nature of that being quantified.

In all things we must see reality through the prism of change, even though by doing so we force ourselves to grapple with the thorniest of questions. Is a man who has spent the last ten years in jail the same man who committed the crime that put him there? Can you step into the same river twice (or, to follow St. Augustine's conjecture, even once)? And who are the Spurs?

This season we have seen many different Spurs teams. But have we ever seen the Spurs? We know that there is a certain rock-ribbed poetry about a Spurs squad that has hit its stride, an inevitability that sucks the life out of opponents. We've been good, on occasion. But have we ever seen prime Spurs ball this season? I think not.

Certainly, there have been injuries. There have been acquisitions, and new players added to the fold. But our team's character hasn't changed, has it? Timmy, Tony and Manu have all, at times, shown the kind of dominance that makes them the only true Big Three. But we still haven't seen that true magic.

Maybe it's gone.

Or...

Maybe Pop's tired of hearing about how 'the Spurs always come on strong in the second half of the season'. Maybe he doesn't want to reel off an umpteen-game winning streak right before the playoffs. Maybe he's been telling the truth all along: the regular season doesn't matter.

Maybe he means it.

I've always been eager to give Pop the benefit of the doubt. God knows he's earned it. And now, with Timmy taking it easy and Manu getting comfortable (and Tony playing out of his mind) ... well, isn't this a squad that's about ready to gel? These are all great character guys, guys who know their role. We've got a few more regular-season games to get warmed up, and then the start of the postseason itself to fine-tune. With luck on our side, we could end up facing the Fakers with 80-90% of Duncan and Ginobili, plus 110% of Parker, plus the best set of role-players and specialists this team has seen in recent history.

So c'mon, Spurs. Saddle up. The real season's about to start, and the best is yet to come.

College Basketball Sucks

Rand — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:40:19 -0000

Let me preface this by saying: as of now, I'm a perfect 3-0 in my bracketology - so nobody can accuse me of writing this post out of bitterness. And don't get me wrong, March Madness is a blast. It's just ... well, it's a blast the same way dating a cokehead is a blast. Fun, crazy, unpredictable? No doubt. But once the novelty wears off, you've pretty much got to recognize that you're dealing with an inferior product that will bore, then anger, and finally depress you.

Most of all, I'm tired of hearing weekend-warrior fans get sniffy about how "college teams play better defense than the professionals." Wrong, wrong, wrong. College teams hustle, and they do it against crappy ball-handlers and poor shooters; that, plus the relatively lower game scores, can be used to create the illusion that the NBA is a lackadaisical dunk-fest in comparison. Never mind that college games are 17% shorter, or that the college shot clock is 46% longer. That means that there will be a minimum of 120 possessions in a non-overtime pro game, compared to 68 in a college game. "Only" allowing 65 points - against pissant offensive players, at that - doesn't sound like such lock-down team defense now, does it?

If I wanted to be entertained by a competition amongst losers, I'd watch Wheel of Fortune or Survivor: Whogivesacrap. I watch sports to be entertained by a competition among the best and most talented athletes - and sorry, Charlie, that ain't college basketball.

Update: 7-for-7 so far, and college basketball still sucks. Not as much as LatinD's bracket, though.

Analogies Gone Wild! Simmons does the Oscars.

Rand — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:04:37 -0000

I read Bill Simmons sometimes. I'll thank you not to judge me. Sure, he's no kind of legitimate expert, but he's sorta the Jon Stewart of sports journalism: a hack, but with something to say, and with occasional insights that are worth hearing even if they're hardly original.

In the latest ESPN Magazine, Simmons collected a paycheck for an article that loosely applies sporting statistics to the judging of actors. He came to the conclusion that Meryl Streep is the greatest actor/actress working today. I like his arguments, they just happen to be completely wrong. Here's my take on the subject:

via www.wildaboutmovies.com

The first step in brokering a lasting peace between PTR and photographic images of female human beings

Streep's good. Damn good. But is she really The Greatest, the winningest of the winners? In the world of acting, the Oscar is like the NBA regular-season MVP award. It gets you in magazines, but what does it really mean? The MVP hasn't ended up winning a ring since Duncan in 02-03. And Oscars do not the 'best actor' make.

Meryl Streep is the acting equivalent of Steve Nash - beloved, respected, and a repeat award-winner. How many Streep movies are on your all-time list? 'Doubt' was superb, 'Death Becomes Her' and 'She-Devil' were wildly underrated (why did she forget that she does comedy?), and 'Kramer vs. Kramer', 'Sophie's Choice', and 'Out of Africa' are all on somebody's list of top films. Probably not yours. How many of those flicks do you DVR?

Here's another list for you: 'Star Wars', 'The Empire Strikes Back', 'The Return of the Jedi', 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'The Temple of Doom', 'The Last Crusade', 'Blade Runner', 'Witness', 'The Fugitive', and 'American Graffiti'.

Nobody stacks up to Harrison Ford in terms of the indisputable pantheon gems on his resume. On a gut level you appreciate every single one of those movies more than anything Meryl Streep ever did in her life. And that's okay. Ford is like Manu Ginobili - nobody's ever going to sing the praises of his surgical passing, effortless stroke, or long flowing locks. All he does is go out there and beat people. And even after his recent crimes against humanity, Ford will still take Streep off the dribble on the best day she ever lived.

Your hands. My perspective.

Rand — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:24:05 -0000

I giggled at the screen last night. It was in the fourth quarter, Spurs down by twelve. All I could think was 'man, this comeback is gonna be awesome'.

In an effort to recapture that feeling, I thought I'd take a stroll through popular culture to hunt out instances of the same quiet bravado that I saw in Manu in particular and our boys in general as they set about the task of destroying a team that thought it had its foot on our necks. Here are my suggestions; others are welcome.

1) The source of the title quote. If you can think of a more apt parallel for the magnificent mayhem that the merely-human-yet-preternaturally-focused Manu can accomplish, I'd love to hear it. Oh, bonus points for not needing to Google the quote.

2) With a nod to Big50's very-recent post: Gladiator, after Phoenix stabs Crowe in the final showdown. Because winners are winners, even when we're bleeding.

3) The Matrix, after the agents unload into Neo. Because when you stop to think about it, there is no spoon - and there is no opponent, not when the Big 3 are operating on all cylinders.

4) Tying in both Moore and the Wachowski brothers, V for Vendetta: you don't think Nellie was on the sidelines screaming "Die! Die! Why won't you die? Why ... won't ... you ... die?"

5) The Crow. I'm pretty sure that during that timeout where everybody was fired up and yelling, Manu muttered under his breath: "They're all dead. They just don't know it yet."

What have I missed?

Croshere signing - I'll take some rebounds with my rebounds

Rand — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:37:58 -0000

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3838234

In case you didn't know, we just picked up journeyman forward Austin Croshere for a 10-day contract. I remember being generally well disposed towards the guy when he was in Indiana, and he's certainly got plenty of that good ol' veteran savvy we love so much. Plus, this has got to be a hopeful sign:

"Croshere was waived by Milwaukee on Jan. 6 after appearing in 11 games. He averaged 3.3 rebounds and 2.2 rebounds."

The one thing we could really use is a big who gets boards. And looks goofy as hell. Score!

Pursuit of PERfection - Why Spurs Ruck

Rand — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:49:46 -0000

To 'ruck': to rock or to suck, one or the other, with little middle ground.

Especially with the ubiquity of fantasy sports, there is an inordinate amount of effort that goes into transforming athletes into numbers. This is especially true in baseball, which I can't even follow anymore - any sport in which the difference between greatness and despair sits more than two places after the decimal point has officially lost my interest. That said, there's safety in numbers, and if you know the actual context it's possible to look through the math and see glimmers of truth.

Hollinger's PER (Player Efficiency Rating) statistic is in many ways flawed, but at the very least it makes a reasonable attempt to identify who's overrated and who's underrated in today's NBA. Without further ado, then, a little fun with the (as of today's date) Hollinger PER player rankings.

1) LeBron James, CLE - This is as it should be. At the top of these rankings you'd expect to find players of extraordinary talent in systems that cater to that talent. In this case, the King Without a Ring is a classic showcase star: the whole team is built around helping him do his thing. Does that win championships? Rarely. But it gets you to the top of the PER list. The next three in the list are in the same boat: Wade, Paul and Howard are great players whose teams live or die by their production. Their job is to be the star, and they do that job. You might, in fact, expect that the first few dozen players on the list would fall into this category: the franchise players on each team who get their numbers dialed up time and time again.

5) Tony Parker, SAS - The first Spur, and surely a surprise. Tony's a fine player, sure, but I don't have a clue what kind of shoes he wears. He's certainly not the sole option like the players above him in the list are for their teams. So why such a high PER? He must be pretty damned efficient if he can rank this high while sharing the rock with stars like:

7) Tim Duncan, SAS - And...

8) Manu Ginobili, SAS - Wow. Two more Spurs - a total of three in the top ten. I wonder how far down we'd have to go to find the next team to get three players on the list?

10) Kobe Bryant, LAL

21) Pau Gasol, LAL

24) Andrew Bynum, LAL - Yup, it's the Lakers who put up the next-best Big Three. Should they feel bad that their top-ranked player scores lower than our third? Sure, why not. But what about the other 'Big Three', the Boston Boys?

27) Kevin Garnett, BOS

36) Ray Allen, BOS

38) Rajon Rondo, BOS - Huh? Rondo's the third most efficient player on the Celtics? Where'd Pierce go, anyway?

97) Paul Pierce, BOS - Oh. Awkward.

But enough talk about the competition - let's get back to the Spurs. Obviously, our Big Three (being the *actual* Big Three) are at the top of the heap. You certainly wouldn't expect us to field anybody else in the top 50. That would just be greedy.

47) Matt Bonner, SAS - Huh. Well then. And who is Red Rocket better than?

48) Baron Davis, LAC - Like we didn't already know that. So, who else is ranked where?

88) George Hill, SAS - Qbitz! To the rescue! That's five Spurs in the top 100, all of them more efficient than...

99) Carmelo Anthony, DEN - Now there's a shock. Okay then. Where's everybody .else at?

158) Roger Mason, SAS - Okay, that's not an exalted ranking, but bear in mind - it's a deep league, and he's still outdoing the likes of J.R. Smith and Lamar Odom. Anything over 200, however, and they're probably best off playing limited minutes in highly specialized situations (or, ideally, being traded).

221) Michael Finley, SAS

240) Anthony Tolliver, SAS

266) Kurt Thomas, SAS

288) Fabricio Oberto, SAS

291) Jacque Vaughn, SAS

295) Ime Udoka, SAS

303) Bruce Bowen, SAS

What can we say? Findog we knew about, and we don't even pretend to be asking Bruce to play the same sport as everybody else in the league. Still ... that's a little worrisome, right? Can we afford to have seven active-roster players in the bottom third of the league? If not, we can always get rid of them. Check out the very bottom of the barrel, the last page of the rankings, players 301-317 on the list:

305) Francisco Elson, MIL

313) Brent Barry, HOU

314) Nazr Mohammed, CHA

317) Malik Rose, NYK

Yup - just as three of the top ten players are Spurs, three of the bottom ten players are former Spurs. And all of them have rings.

I don't know what this means. But it must mean something.