That Mavericks team wasn't even remotely close to the defensive team the Pacers are. They were exposed, and by the way, that Golden State team was not bad, and is much better than this Wizards team you are speaking of. But this isn't just about just wins and losses during the season, the Pacers team is on an entirely different level than the Wizards. From coaching, fundamentals, bench, i mean we can go on and on. Wizards cannot match up with the Pacers.
I've said in the past I think that describes all his posts (hence why he constantly guarantees one thing and then guarantees the opposite), but I call him on it anyway. He claims they match up well because Washington would somehow force Indiana to go small. Nonsense.
I don't think you understand upset. Just because you don't think it would be doesn't mean that it would be. As Jets fans we always expect to beat the Pats one game and it's usually an upset. Just because as Jets fans we believe there is a higher likelihood than the overall consensus doesn't mean it isn't an upset
IND rarely matches up small though, not even against MIA or NY last year. Vogel does not like to do it. They take their chances with West on defense and then go to West and Hibbert to win on the inside. And on top of that, WAS starts Gortat and Nene. Ariza is at the 3. That's not a "small" lineup
^Because the Knicks didnt force em to go small, if the Knicks could have made more shots from the outside, all of Indiana's size would have looked useless. The Knicks couldnt make a shot so the only other way to score was to go into the paint which of course the Pacers did a good job defensively stopping. The Pacers strength of being big/strong can all be negated if they run into a team that is hitting the three's and moving the ball well. Wall and Beal would obviously be the key to getting this done.
Hitting the 3 ball is not playing small. Playing small in the NBA usually refers to using a "stretch" 4 or a tradition SF and slotting him into the PF role. It does mean you have an extra shooter in theory on the floor, but overall "big" teams can get 3s too. It depends on personnel more so than big/small for hitting the 3 ball. The Knicks didn't force them to go small because IND was comfortable staying big. Both teams could cross match well and IND has great rotational defense and individual defenders. So why exactly would WAS force IND to go small with Nene at the 4? Are you predicting a lineup change heading into the playoffs for WAS? And yes if a team can move the ball well and hit 3 pointers, they will cause trouble for any team. That's nothing specific to match ups between IND and WAS though. It just sort of feels like you are throwing out a feeling, what's the NBA reasoning behind it? Moving the ball and hitting open shots isn't some revolutionary strategy that no other team has tried against IND
The whole idea that you can force the other team to go small is silly to me anyway. Let's say you have four perimeter guys and you feel the other team won't be able to cover them effectively with 3 perimeter guys (and two bigger guys who aren't comfortable guarding outside). You're going to get killed inside, probably more than outweighing whatever advantage you might have. A big reason Dallas got upset all those years ago was poor coaching. They went small to match Golden State, and that's not correct strategy.
Thats the whole chess match aspect of it. If a team goes small they can be beat from the inside but of course if you win the perimeter matchups it might force the other team to go small and vise/versa, if the other team is pounding you from the inside, you might have to big to stop the bleeding. Personally I do not believe the records of these teams is as big of a deal as it has been out to be. These 7 game series are a lot different and are about the matchups and coaching decisions.
It's pretty hard to win going small. You would need to have your shooters hit a lot of jumpers and also create a lot of steals. In college, you often see matchups in the tournament of a team with one or more legit big men against a team with none. The only time the upsets happen are when the team without big men gets hot shooting 3s. If you give me two teams with similar caliber players, with one going small and one using a traditional lineup, the traditional lineup will prevail more often than not. Really, if you look at the NBA (or the elite college teams each year), it's pretty rare for a team to regularly go with a small lineup. Once in a while, in certain situations, sure. Unless you want to say the Knicks are going small when they play Carmelo as a 4, or Minnesota with Love as a 4? Both of those guys are good shooters but they're also very good rebounders (and bigger than small forwards typically are), so I'm not sure that's really going small. But in any case, Washington and Indiana played twice. Indiana played its regular lineup and pounded the Wizards both times.
That's not fun. I thought you had some overlooked lineup or some reason Washington could surprise IND.
I was reading buyout is more likely. Will be interesting to see where MWP and Granger go. I think MWP could be a good 5-10 minute guy on a contender and Granger could offer a bit more.
Nene wasn't jinxed by anyone! But he was mentioned in Simmons' worst contracts column: Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure I saw one of the worst free throw shooters of all time a few days ago. Jan Vesely. He's a scrub who plays in garbage time for the Nuggets (The Wizards brilliantly picked him in the top 10). I think he airballed his first shot and his second was nowhere close. I bet Biedrins would beat him in a FT shooting contest.
