NBA Playoffs, Magic v. Celtics Game 2: Orlando can't just be different, they have to be better


Screen shot 2010-05-18 at 12.57.11 PM.pngThe Magic made a ridiculous comeback to make the finale of Game of the Eastern Conference Finals more competitive than the bulk of the game, but Orlando still dropped home court advantage and played anything but an impressive game. A Magic team that had been completely untouchable in the playoffs prior to this series now seems very beatable, provided the Celtics continue to defend.

One of the most discussed culprits for Orlando’s Game 1 demise was Dwight Howard’s post play. Howard, even at his most efficient, never quite seems at home in the post, and that’s fine. The responsibility in this case is not Dwight’s; it’s not prudent for him to do something completely unnatural or something as misguided as trying to bully Kendrick Perkins deep into the post.

Instead, Howard’s offense needs to be part of an adjusted system. The Celtics were ready for the Magic going into Game 1, and by eliminating the threat of Orlando’s three-point shooters, the C’s were able to win the day. The foundation of that plan eroded when Jameer Nelson started breaking down the defense, which is clearly an offensive development of the greatest import for the Magic.

Oddly enough, Nelson’s — and Orlando’s — success didn’t lean too heavily on the pick-and-roll. The 2009 series between the Magic and Celtics was greatly influenced by Stan Van Gundy’s ability to get Howard on the move, where he could use his athleticism to its greatest advantage. The same has been heralded as a potential Orlando adjustment for Game 2, but as usual, that won’t quite be enough.

According to Synergy Sports Technology, Orlando was only able to execute three pick-and-roll plays that ended with the roll man (only one of those plays involved Dwight Howard). In contrast, 21 pick-and-roll plays ended with the ball handler. That tells you that the Magic’s problem wasn’t necessarily the lack of frequency in running pick-and-roll plays, but that they struggled in executing them.  

Howard can score down low, even if Game 1 wasn’t his finest performance. However, the Celtics are not going to double team him regardless of his effectiveness, meaning the endgame of Dwight’s dominance will only be his solo production. With Jameer penetrating though, all of a sudden Boston’s bigs have to rotate. Dwight’s open for the lob, or Rashard gets some room in the corner. The Celtics will continue to work and contest, but the shots will continue to get easier for the Magic if they’re willing to work with them.

There’s nothing wrong with a player like Jameer Nelson or Vince Carter creating for themselves off of a screen, but Orlando’s two-man game will have to be more balanced if their offense is going to make a true comeback tonight. Unpredictability can only be a good thing in this case, as the well-defended Magic pick-and-roll in Game 1 only generated 0.67 points per possession. Dwight’s horribly unrefined post-ups, for comparison’s sake, scored 0.79 points per possession.

Running more pick-and-rolls isn’t the answer, just like running more post-ups or more isolation plays isn’t the answer. Orlando needs to make the necessary adjustments, but just has to play better in Game 2 than they did in Game 1.

They’ve certainly given themselves room for improvement. Sebastian Pruiti of NBA Playbook broke down the video for some of the Magic’s early three-point attempts, which were shockingly good but just didn’t go down. Dwight caught plenty of rim on a number of and-one attempts, but the rolls didn’t go his way. Rashard Lewis was invisible, Vince Carter started off as a one-man show, and Matt Barnes really didn’t do anything constructive in his 15 minutes on the floor.

The rotation and approach will be tweaked, but this Magic team is good enough to expect other kinds of improvement. There’s enough talent there that you can expect more shots to fall for them even if Boston is on a roll defensively. The Celtics deserve credit for the defense in Game 1, but it wasn’t the only factor influencing the Magic’s subpar offensive production. Orlando did plenty to work against themselves, and only so much of that will be solved with schemes and lineups. 

Doc Rivers: Clippers might blow up roster if they fall short this season

Chris Paul, Blake Griffin DeAndre Jordan, Doc Rivers
Leave a comment

The Clippers have gone 56-26, 57-25 and 56-26 the last three years – clearing the commonly accepted 55-win bar for championship contention.

But they’ve also won only zero, one and one playoff series in that span.

Zach Lowe of Grantland:

The Clippers have had three cracks at it with Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, and DeAndre Jordan all in their primes, and they’re not afraid to admit the fourth could be their last — that another flameout will force them to ask whether the core has grown stale.

“We’re right on the borderline,” Doc Rivers tells Grantland during a long sit-down at his office. “I have no problem saying that. I’m a believer that teams can get stale. After a while, you don’t win. It just doesn’t work. We’re right at the edge. Oklahoma City is on the edge. Memphis, too. We just have to accept it.”

I disagree with Rivers.

It’s so hard to assemble a roster that can win a title, and the Clippers absolutely have one. If they fall short this season, they’ll probably still have a title-contending roster the following year. They shouldn’t throw that away just for the sake of change.

Paul (30), Jordan (27) and Griffin (26) are young enough for the Clippers to remain patient.

Rivers makes a good point later in Lowe’s article:

“You need luck in the West,” he says. “Look at Golden State. They didn’t have to play us or the Spurs. But that’s also a lesson for us: When you have a chance to close, you have to do it.”

The Warriors were the NBA’s best team last season, but they also got plenty of breaks. That’s why they won the title.

The Clippers might need more luck to win a championship, but it wouldn’t be an overwhelming amount. The better a team is, the less luck it needs. The Grizzlies can probably win a title with all the right breaks, but they need more than the Clippers.

It’s about being good enough to win with the right breaks.

The Clippers are that. They’ll probably be that unless they do something drastic.

Unless a lopsided trade comes around, I’d stick with Paul, Griffin and Jordan until they really prove they can’t win together. That would take years. A team not winning a title is not proof it can’t win a title. Every year, multiple teams can win a championship. Obviously, only one does.

Rivers has it good with his big three. This shouldn’t be a make-or-break year for them.

51 Q: Which coaches start the year on the hot seat?

Lionel Hollins
1 Comment

Going into every season, there are a few coaches under pressure to perform or risk losing their jobs. This season, the operative word there is “few.” Looking around the NBA, most coaches are either new on the job or aren’t in any real danger of losing theirs. There are five brand-new coaches: Billy Donovan (Oklahoma City), Fred Hoiberg (Chicago), Alvin Gentry (New Orleans), Michael Malone (Denver) and Scott Skiles (Orlando). The coaches they replaced were mostly the ones whose names often came up in these discussions. Practically everywhere else, there is either a long track record of success or clear signs that ownership is happy with the job the coach is doing. Coaches who are actually on the hot seat are few and far between. But here are a few who might find themselves in trouble if their teams underperform:

Jeff Hornacek (Phoenix Suns): Two years ago, Hornacek was a Coach of the Year candidate for taking a team that was supposed to be one of the league’s very works and making them into almost a playoff team. Last season was another near-miss. This season, the Suns are once again on the bubble of being a playoff team — there’s a chance they could grab the eighth seed in the Western Conference, if a lot goes right. Hornacek deserves a lot of credit for their sooner-than-expected success. The only reason he’s on this list is the potential for a chemistry disaster on this roster. Between Markieff Morris‘ situation and another attempt at a two-point guard lineup (this time with Eric Bledsoe and Brandon Knight), there’s a lot that could go wrong, and if the Suns fall out of playoff contention. Hornacek could find himself in a little hot water. But that’s unlikely.

Lionel Hollins (Brooklyn Nets): Hollins has always felt like something of a short-term solution in Brooklyn. The Nets tried going young at the head coaching spot with Jason Kidd, who clashed with management over control before leaving for Milwaukee. This Nets roster is middling at best — some solid veterans, not a lot of young talent, no future hope to speak of unless they land a marquee free agent next summer. Their ceiling is the eighth seed and a first-round exit; their floor is a lot worse than that. It would take a catastrophic start to the year for Hollins to lose his job during the season, but there isn’t exactly a lot of long-term security in his position.

Derek Fisher (New York Knicks): It’s hard to see Phil Jackson firing his protege less than two years in, but the Knicks enter the season with the goal of competing for a playoff spot and a lot of potential to be worse than that. Don’t rule out James Dolan stepping in.

Steve Clifford (Charlotte Hornets): Clifford’s chances of losing his job during the season basically disappeared when Michael Kidd-Gilchrist went down with a shoulder injury that will likely keep him out the entire season. Without their best perimeter defender, the Hornets’ expectations are a lot lower than they would have been. Now, it’s hard to see them competing seriously for a playoff spot unless Jeremy Lamb makes a huge leap and proves himself capable of being an NBA-caliber starter. If they’re even competitive, it will be an enormous credit to Clifford, who is well-regarded around the league. The story would have been different if they had entered the season with a healthy roster and underperformed, but the MKG injury likely buys Clifford a year before this conversation starts up again.