Apparently, it is possible for an NBA team to allow a player to score 46 points and be universally praised for it. Dwight Howard ran all over the Atlanta Hawks' single-coverage, but because nobody else on his team decided to do much of anything, the Hawks came away with a Game 1 victory on the road. Howard and Jameer Nelson scored 73 points; everyone else on the Magic scored 20. Howard and Nelson shot 26-41; everyone else shot 8-34. It was a brilliant strategy by the Hawks to make sure that their horrible teammates had horrible games. Let's praise them for it!Hawks fans and neutral observers agree: playing Josh Powell instead of Zaza Pachulia is not a strategy. Shooting lots of long two-point jumpers is a strategy, however, and I, for one, anxiously await seeing how it will play out.
Snark aside, the bottom line is this. Playing Howard straight-up and taking away the three-point shooters is a strategy. Allowing Howard to score 46 points and hope his teammates shoot 8-34 is not.
(HT: Orlando Pinstriped Post)
4 comments:
"Snark aside, the bottom line is this. Playing Howard straight-up and taking away the three-point shooters is a strategy. Allowing Howard to score 46 points and hope his teammates shoot 8-34 is not."
So its a strategy unless it works?
I think he means that allowing Howard to go off the way he did was not part of the original strategy. It only looks that way, and thus has been praised by many as such, because the Magic guards shot so poorly--even when open.
I think the implication here is that the Hawks will ultimately lose if they continue to fail in stopping Howard. Allowing the other team's center to go 45-20, no matter the context, is probably an unsustainable strategy if your strategy is, well, to win.
If Howard continues to play like he did in Game 1, all the perimeter players for the Magic need to do is find a pulse and the Hawks are done for.
Tough to say where the Hawks defense of the perimeter ended and the awful shooting began for the Magic in Game 1.
I get what he's saying, I just don't agree with the argument at all on several levels.
Look at game two, the defense was there again, if Joe could've gotten to the line at all the Hawks would've won that game.
Post a Comment