With David Lee out, Stephen Curry becomes even more important in Game 2

8 Comments

The playoffs are all about adjustments, but even though the Warriors find themselves down 1-0 to the Nuggets they really don’t have to change too much heading into this all important game two.

Missing David Lee certainly hurts. When looking at the match ups in this series, he was one player who clearly had an advantage for the Warriors. His ability to space the floor as a shooter, score from the low post, and act as a facilitator have been staples of the Warriors’ offense all season. Replacing those things won’t come easy and several players will need to find a way to chip in a bit extra to make it happen.

First on that list is Stephen Curry. His 7-20 shooting from game one simply wasn’t good enough, even though he did find a way to sort out some of his issues in the 2nd half. The Warriors need a more efficient scoring effort to go with the playmaking Curry flashed in game one. Getting him into spots on the floor where he can get better looks — be it through isolation or working off picks — should be a high priority for head coach Mark Jackson and I expect him to have some wrinkles in place to do just that.

Another player who needs to raise his game is Carl Landry. Landry will need to find a way to be effective from the post and as a mid-range threat, providing some of the balance Lee has offered the Warriors’ offense all season. Landry will never be the passer that Lee is, but if he can hit the open jumpers he’ll get out of the pick and roll while doing some damage from the low block in isolation, the Warriors will take it.

Landry’s bench mate, Jarrett Jack, will also need to be better than he was in game one. Jack was badly outplayed by Andre Miller and if the Warriors are to be competitive in this series they’ll need that match up to be much more even (or even won by Jack) in the coming games.

If the Warriors can get those contributions from those players and combine them with the solid defense they flashed in the first contest, they should be able play another close game. The, key, however is to not get overwhelmed early by a Nuggets team who surely gained some confidence after getting a win when they clearly weren’t at their best either.

This may prove difficult with Kenneth Faried likely returning, the Nuggets’ role players (at least ones not named Andre Miller) likely to shoot better than they did in game one, and the home crowd spurring them on. They’ll be energetic and will attack relentlessly. It’s what they always do.

But if the Warriors simply keep their heads about them, find a way to maximize Curry’s touches, and do as good a job of getting back in transition and they did in game one, they should be right there. Of course all those things are easier said than done, but that’s the task at hand.

They’re the underdogs for a reason, right?

Tristan Thompson: Cavaliers’ stated 3-4-week timeline for my injury was never realistic

Jason Miller/Getty Images
Leave a comment

When Tristan Thompson suffered a calf injury early last month, the Cavaliers announced he’d miss 3-4 weeks.

More than five weeks later, Thompson still hasn’t played.

Tom Withers of the Associated Press:

Thompson:

Who said that was the real timetable? They told you guys three to four weeks. That was never the case. The first week, I was on crutches the whole time. So, there was no chance. So, I don’t know. I don’t know who told you three to four weeks. For that, I’m sorry.

Thompson sounds close to returning, so this issue should pass. But teams are usually conservative in these estimates so as not to expose their players to criticism for not working hard enough in rehab. Thompson was left hung out to dry here.

Maybe Thompson, who’s famously low-maintenance, doesn’t mind. But if a 3-4-week timeline was never realistic, I wouldn’t blame him for resenting the Cavs.

Poor communication on injuries might not be limited to only the 76ers.

Heat’s Dion Waiters: ‘I’m not coming off no bench’

Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
2 Comments

Heat coach Erik Spoelstra said Dion Waiters must be more efficient.

But Waiters’ effective field-goal percentage this season (46.1) is nearly precisely his career mark (46.2). It appears last season’s career high (48.8) in a contract year was the outlier.

What if Waiters just can’t change? Could Miami bring him off the bench?

Waiters, via Tom D’Angelo of The Palm Beach Post:

“I’m a starter in this league, man, that’s who I am. We’re going to nip that in the bud right now. I’m not coming off no bench.”

This is peak Waiters, supremely confident/cocky. He’s not good enough to demand a starting spot, but here he is doing it anyway.

That make’s Spoelstra’s job trickier if he’s considering bringing Waiters off the bench. It might be the optimal basketball move, but NBA coaches must also deal with their players egos.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Waiters should come off the bench. Miami’s starting lineup – Goran Dragic, Waiters, Josh Richardson, Justise Winslow and Hassan Whiteside – is outscoring opponents by 6.3 points per 100 possessions. (The Heat are -3.4 per 100 overall.) That unit defends, and Waiters eases the playmaking burden on Dragic.

But if I were the Heat, I also wouldn’t take the possibility of not starting Waiters off the table. At an underwhelming 12-13, they don’t have the luxury of never experimenting – even if it might upset Waiters.

Bradley Beal: Wizards lost to Clippers after what referees described as a ‘s— rule’

AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill
2 Comments

The Clippers beat the Wizards on Saturday, but not without a controversial finish.

Washington trailed 113-112 with 1.2 seconds left and inbounded the ball from the sideline to Bradley Beal, who made a shot, but after the buzzer sounded. However, the clock started early.

The sequence:

After review, officials gave the Wizards the ball in the corner with 1.1 seconds left. In a tough position with less time and on its secondary play, Washington didn’t score.

Beal, via Chase Hughes of NBC Sports Washington:

“Excuse my language because I’m going to say verbatim what they said,” Beal said. “They said it’s kind of a ‘some s*** rule,’ it’s a freak rule. To me, it didn’t really make sense because you take a basket away. You go back and he says we get the same amount of time, but we didn’t get the same amount of time and then we get the ball in the corner. It’s kind of the tough s*** rule. I don’t understand it. I don’t get it. We ran a great play and now that you take that away, we’ve gotta set up with a different play and they get a chance to set up and change some things. Now we’ve gotta do a different play with the ball in the corner.”

Referee Bill Spooner, via the NBA:

Spooner contradicts himself here. Was the time lost 0.1 seconds or 1.1 seconds? He said both at different points. He also clearly means the game clock, not the shot clock.

Here’s the relevant example from the NBA’s casebook:

Player A1 inbounds the ball at 0.8 of the period and the game clock starts early when the timer thought the ball was deflected. Player A2 receives the ball and the game horn sounds as he immediately turns to shoot a successful basket. How is this handled?

The on-court officials will signal for replay and the Replay Center Official will determine how much time ran off the clock prior to it being legally touched. If the successful basket was released prior to 0:00, the basket will be scored and if from the ball being legally touched until it cleared the net is less than 0.8, the game clock shall be reset to that amount of time. If the ball is still in Player A1’s hands at 0:00, the field goal cannot be scored and Team A will retain possession on the sideline nearest the point of interruption and the game clock reset to the amount of lost time.

Why would the game clock be set to the amount of lost time? I can see the game clock being reduced by the amount of lost time, which seemingly happened – in error, according to Spooner – Saturday. But just setting the clock to the amount of lost time unfairly punishes the team that is already disadvantaged by the timekeeping error.

From the rule to the enforcement, this was just sloppy.

Kevin Garnett: I want to help buy out Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor, not partner with him

AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt
2 Comments

Kevin Garnett’s rift with the Timberwolves – specifically owner Glen Taylor – is still going strong.

Garnett, via Shlomo Sprung of Awful Announcing:

“I don’t want to be partners with Glen [Taylor], and I wouldn’t want to be partners with Glen in Minnesota,” he said. “I would love to be part of a group that buys him out and kind of removes him and go forward.”

Taylor recently said he’s not interested in selling the franchise. That could be a bargaining tactic, but at face value, Garnett isn’t getting involved anytime soon.

Garnett and Taylor could break the ice with a clearly joyous occasion, a simple number-retirement ceremony. But even that is too much for the two.