SB Nation User Blog: Rand

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.

A few notes from the Pistons game

Rand — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:39:40 -0000

Well. Okay then. This much, at least, I know:

The good news: if we hadn't been sloppy as hell out there, we'd have won. Manu and TP shot a combined 10-24; that's not gonna happen too often. Plus, we were sloppy as hell, and ordinarily we're good at not being sloppy as hell. 'Course, ordinarily JFK was good at not getting shot in the head; just because it's not a habit doesn't make it less horrific when it happens.
Jacque Vaughn stepped onto the court tonight. Best Case Scenario: Pop is giving the JV a little play to attract some GM desperate for a savvy veteran leper. Worst Case Scenario: Pop thinks that the JV has a legitimate excuse to be wearing a Spurs uniform that doesn't involve selling Spurs uniforms.
Tim Duncan was created when military scientists, after countless failed experiments with pieces of structural lumber and streusel topping, finally achieved the Ultimate Stud Muffin. 9-19 be damned, he was a hoss out there tonight.
Qbitz is a goddamned Spur. There is no statistical category that tracks catching up with an opponent on the fast break and swatting away easy lay-ups, but we all know the truth. Now if only he could get more than six minutes in a game that could have used a lot less JV and even a smidge less TP.
Matt Bonner looks great! Let's trade his ginger-whiskered ass quick, maybe he's got somebody fooled!
Timmy sat on a cameraman's face. In a week, the cameraman's oncologist will be at a loss - he's never seen a cancerous face-lesion go into remission that fast. The FDA will fast-track approval for over-the-counter sales of Tim Duncan ass sweat.
Quelle dommage - Le P'tit Francais is not yet in top form. Shooting struggles aside, we don't seem to be getting in the extra pass with him running the point. What if we gave *him* some time in the second unit? With him slashing and Mason at the arc, we'd have a deadly drive-and-dish pairing that could put up serious points against an enemy second unit. 'Course, we'd have to find *somebody* to start at PG. Maybe somebody with long arms and dreamy brown eyes a fella could get lost in...
Seriously. Can somebody please go Kathy-Bates-in-'Misery' on the JV? At this point I'd rather see James Caan in black and silver.
Rasheed Wallace needs to get Tim Duncan to sit on his head. It would fix his attitude and cure that freaky little grey patch on the back of his skull.

A Pack of Lies: A Preview of This Year's Pessimism

Rand — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:45:02 -0000

Let's face it: we're all bitter, cynical pessimists. We have to be - at no point in this century have we been more than two years away from a ring, and we've got a legit GOAT flanked by two no-nonsense all-stars. If we weren't pessimists, we'd be arrogant jerks. And we're not jerks. So we're going to spend the rest of this season, like every season, going back to the same old wells for reasons why we can't win it all this year.

One problem: those wells are drying up.

The Spurs are too old. This one just gets better every year, right? Unfortunately, I was momentarily distracted by a bumblebee, and when I turned back around Los Spurs had pulled a fast one. A couple of fast ones, actually - fast, athletic, and above all young. Out with RoHo, in with Hill and Mason - and suddenly time is on our side.

We don't have the offense. God, tell me about it. I have this dream where I'm naked, and I'm falling, and Pop has got Fab, Horry, Bowen and FinDog in with JV running the point. But now ... feel free to double-check my math, but Duncan + Parker + Manu + Mason + Hill = five guys who can go off at any time. That means the only way Pop can field a No-O lineup once we whittle this down to a nine-man rotation will be if he decides to go four-on-five.

Point guards? What point guards? For how long have we lived and died by the fact that Manu can de facto run the point when we need him to? Because face it, Parker has to sit sometime, and Manu was the only other guy on the team who could be reliably counted on not to dribble off his foot. Don't look now guys, but at this point it would take some creativity on Pop's part to field a lineup containing not one but two guys who can handle, pass, and create.

Our bench makes a mud puddle look like the Marianas Trench. Yikes. If we didn't insist on pretending that Manu's a reserve, we'd be looking at bench production you can count without taking off your shoes. We're used to very delicate math in San Antonio - an average of twenty points apiece from our big three, another fifteen or so from some combination of Bowen corners, Fab garbage collection, and FinDog doggery, and then whatever the hell the scrubs can put together while the real players wince from the sidelines. Now? I just watched a game in which the bench came up with 54 points. More than twice what the other team's bench scored. Stop me if you can see where I'm going with this.

Time to face facts, gentlemen: it's time to turn over a new leaf. And so I humbly submit two plausible reasons for despair, to keep us from unsightly glee whenever Manu turns back the clock with an exclamation-point dunk or Mr. Hill rejects the #1 draft pick. Some fear for this year:

Chemistry problems. We've never seen Mason and Hill in the same rotation as Manu and Parker. Who knows what could happen? Sure, Hill seems to actually do better off the bench, and it's hard to picture career-backup-turned-lottery-winner Mason getting chippy with Emmanuel "I don't give a flying f***" Ginobili, but who knows. Maybe having defensive pressure diverted towards the all-stars will destroy the newbies' sense of self-worth, and they'll start to sulk at being guarded by scrubs.

Too many steps have been lost. Tim and Bruce are minus a step, people. Finley? Seven steps. Okay, there's no actual evidence for the first one, and the last one has been true since last century. But ... Bruce! What will we do, now that Mr. Potato Head isn't quite so quick on his ankle-snapping feet? I'm worried that pretty soon, all he'll be good for will be throwing elbows, funnelling opponents in to the bigs and taking the occasional spot-up jumper.

Wait...

Welcome to the team, Ime

Rand — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:57:03 -0000

Ime Udoka will be pleased to know that I am officially blessing him as a member of my beloved Spurs.

Mister H.A.T. (Horrible Arm Thing) just looks like a Spur - sure, he makes a few boneheaded turnovers, but when Game 7 was over and I glanced at the box score I was shocked to see that he had fewer than 15 points and 7 rebounds. He looked quietly fantastic, and more importantly he made the other guys look unsettled and off-balance. When Udoka is on the floor, the opponent is not having any fun. And that, cats and kittens, is the hallmark of good Spurs basketball.

Popovich: Not that much better

Rand — Fri, 02 May 2008 23:27:41 -0000

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/05/02/weekly.countdown/1.html

"But it isn't like Gregg Popovich is that much a better coach than Byron Scott."

Here's a fun fact for you: Byron Scott has coached in 318 fewer games than Popovich ... and lost 14 more. Gregg Popovich has won more than twice as many games as Scott has. But he's lost fourteen fewer.

Scott has more fail than Pop. Pop has more than twice as much win as Scott.

How much is "that much" anyway?