Tim Duncan Choked? (Manu more important?)

[LB3533]

So I was listening to the latest Celtics Stuff Live edition with Steve Bulpett and he said that he was not sure why the Spurs did not go to Duncan more down on the low box?

And I thought to myself..."wait a minute, the Spurs DID go to Duncan down on the box, he just kept missing!!"

That got me to think even more (dangerous thing there)....do the Lakers have a better defense than people are giving them credit for OR did Tim Duncan choke?

Let's take a look at some of Tim Duncan's numbers....sure they don't prove a heck of a lot except one thing....people like to see numbers for something to base a judgment on or form a basis of opinion.

Overall in the WCF, Tim Duncan's line: 22.4ppg, 17.4rpg, 4.8apg, 2.4tpg, 1.2spg, 2.0bpg (about 40.1mpg) [These are some fantastic numbers, better than KG's put up!]

Shots: 43-101 @ 42.6% (Antoine Walker-esqe, without the 3 point attempts)

FT's: 26-44 @ 59.1% (Career 68% shooter and on season 73%)

Avg: 20.2 shots per game and 8.8 FT's per game (suggests that the Spurs did go to Tim and Duncan did play on the box and got some calls to go to the line, but missed a ton of "free" throws) [Season 15.1 FGA per game, 5.9 FTA per game]

Game 1: Spurs should have won, they were up like 20 and choked the game away, Duncan had a fabulous game 30 and 18 on 25 shots

Game 2: Blowout game in the Lakers favor, Duncan plays only 32 minutes and scores 12 points on 14 shot attempts.

Game 3: Spurs only victory (up 11 at halftime thanks in large part to Manu's five 1st half 3 pointers), Duncan goes for 20 and 20 (22 points and 21 rebounds) on 8-17 shooting, very good win for the Spurs.

Game 4: Close game, Spurs lose 91-93. Duncan's line: 10-26 shooting = 38%, 9-11 FTs (Kobe went to the line ZERO in this game). 29 and 17 for Duncan, Manu 2-8 for 7 points. [Had the Spurs won this close game, the series would have been 2-2 not Lakers leading 3-1]

*Note: Brent Barry = huge game 23 points, 5-12 on 3's and basically WAS Manu Ginobli in this game, Barry stepped up and Duncan wilted when the Spurs needed key basket after key basket.

Game 5: Duncan goes for a triple double in a must win game for the Spurs or else they get eliminated and go home. Spurs lose anyway 92-100 because Duncan shot 7-19 @ 36.8% and 5-10 from the line. [Keep in mind the Spurs lead this game by 17 early in the 1st half]

I remember this last game vividly, Duncan got the ball a ton down the stretch in the 4th quarter and each time he either missed shot after shot from down on the box or Tim got fouled and bricked his FT's.

So what does this all mean?

Is Paul Gasol a pretty good defender from the low block?

(Quote: “You can’t stop [KG],” Gasol said. “I’ll try to make it as tough for him as I can. I thought I did a decent job on Tim Duncan. Every one of us is going to have to do his best.”)

Did Tim Duncan choke?

Well, the Spurs lead two games early and blew big leads both times and lost both games. Someone said that it was already hard to win 4 games in the WCF against the likes of the Lakers or any Western team for that matter, much less try to win 6 games.

Now I don't know how a Gregg Popovich led team can choke games away or a series away unless his best player chokes a little bit too.

OR

Is Manu Ginobli more important to the success of the Spurs?

Tony Parker was largely consistent the whole series (19.3ppg, 5.6apg, 4rpg on 47.7% shooting) and played better as the series became more urgent for the Spurs (22 and 6 in Games 3-5 on 52% shooting).

Manu was hurt, no question. He only showed up for one game (Game 3: 30 points, most of it in the first half) and it was from the 3 point line...not his normal slashing to the hoop with wreckless abandon.

That is Manu's game = wreckless abandon with a mixture of FLOPPING.

Overall, Manu averaged 12.6 ppg in the WCF on 35.8% shooting.

This guy led the Spurs in scoring with 19.5 ppg during the regular season. Yet he only managed to score 10 or less in 4 out of the 5 games in the WCF.

Bottomline: the last 2 games of the WCF, when the Spurs needed Duncan to step up (knowing that Manu was hurting), Duncan shot 17-45 @ 37.8%, from close range and 66.7% from the line. I mean if Brent Barry can step up for one game, shouldn't Duncan be able to elevate his game?

Also, there is no question the series would be much closer had Ginobli been healthy...had the Spurs not given away 2 games....had the refs not suck.

But as much credit as Duncan gets for the 4 titles in 9 years for the Spurs...he is surely not getting much national blame for the Spurs loss.

There is more focus on the Spurs old age or Manu's injury as the reasons for the Spurs ultimate demise.

In a close, alternate reality, in a not so distant galaxy far away...the Spurs should have been up 3-2 on the Lakers, but they are not...they are at home fishing because their best player choked....I mean their best player was injured.

[TheReaLPuba]

Duncan put up some very good numbers overall so in that sense I don't think he choked...he just wasn't very efficient.

His free throw shooting was poor but he was never a great free throw shooter to begin with....maybe he did begin to feel the pressure mentally.

Obviously Manu's injury and poor production made it harder for the Spurs to score as a team but other guys did step up as you mentioned....just not Duncan.

I too remember that last game and when they went to Duncan on the block he tried to draw fouls and lost focus on making the shot so he would miss...and miss...and miss again. Other times he would get fouled and miss some freebies....never a good thing when you're down in a playoff game in the WCF.

Did Duncan choke? Not easy to say....but he certainly didn't play great that's for sure.

Are people really surprised now that Parker was Finals MVP?

Maybe Duncan is just losing steam....

[LB3533]

Maybe Duncan is losing steam, he is after all, getting up there in age (32).

But I still don't think that his age should cause Duncan to play so inefficiently, nor do I believe the Lakers' interior defense is that "superior" to cause so many problems for Duncan to score down low.

[wdleehi]

The loss of Manu meant that Duncan had to do more and play more minutes.  He tired out. 

[Bankshot]

Duncan didn't choke. He didn't have much help.  This was probably the worst Spurs team in years (even Sean Grande said that).  There are several reasons the Spurs lost, imo:

1. Ginobli was hurt and only managed one good game in the series (the game the Spurs won)
2. Bowen is not the defender he once was (although I always thought he was an overrated hacker rather than a great defensive player), and he doesn't score! 
2. Horry didn't score for 3 straight games, I believe.  Horry is DONE.
3. finley had only a few productive quarters in the entire series.DONE.
4. Barry was the only bench player that made an impact.

People make this big stink of how the Lakers rolled over the Spurs, but the Spurs were not the same Spurs of past years.  Most of their role players are old and DONE, plus Ginobli was hurt.

[LB3533]

The loss of Manu meant that Duncan had to do more and play more minutes.  He tired out. 

I agree with this, but we are talking about the WCF....fatigue shouldn't stop the greatest power forward ever.

[LB3533]

Duncan didn't choke. He didn't have much help.  This was probably the worst Spurs team in years (even Sean Grande said that).  There are several reasons the Spurs lost, imo:

1. Ginobli was hurt and only managed one good game in the series (the game the Spurs won)
2. Bowen is not the defender he once was (although I always thought he was an overrated hacker rather than a great defensive player), and he doesn't score! 
2. Horry didn't score for 3 straight games, I believe.  Horry is DONE.
3. finley had only a few productive quarters in the entire series.DONE.
4. Barry was the only bench player that made an impact.

People make this big stink of how the Lakers rolled over the Spurs, but the Spurs were not the same Spurs of past years.  Most of their role players are old and DONE, plus Ginobli was hurt.

Well, as I stated in my original post, the Spurs were leading 3 out of the 5 games and probably should have led the series 3-2....despite Ginobli's injury...despite poor help from their role players, despite Bowen's defensive decline.....so I think Duncan not coming through in the clutch is the biggest reason why the Spurs lost to the Lakers.

[libermaniac]

Can a guy just miss shots without choking?  I mean, it's basketball ... sometimes your shots just don't fall.  People sometimes seem to forget that there is some randomness in basketball, and they try to explain EVERY loss.

[drza44]

This was an interesting and well thought out post, but I disagree in a couple of fundamental ways (heh, I said "fundamental" in a post about Duncan).

1) Big men are not traditional go-to guys in close games.  By definition, they do their best work down-low in an area that is congested and thus easier to defend.  Also, they need others to get them the ball.  Duncan's job is to dominate over the course of a whole game and get the team in a position to win, and make good decisions late/score when he can.  It is up to the perimeter players, the ball-handlers and the long-range shooters, to ensure that the team's offense does not stagnate late when the opponent clogs the lane.

2) I disagree that just because a perimeter player does their job, that makes them more important than the big man.  That was something that irked me about ESPN's coverage of the Spurs game 3 win...that because that was the one game that Manu produced and the Spurs won, Manu was considered more important than Duncan.  In my view, consistent excellence is much more valuable than sporadic brilliance.  The reason that Manu's (or Barry's) burst showed up as so important was because it doesn't happen all the time.  Just because Duncan played at a high level almost every night, while Manu showed up once in 5 games, does NOT make Manu the more important or better player.  It makes him the more INCONSISTENT player, the one that didn't fulfill his role more times than not.  I think this is a case of really reversing who should get the credit and who should get the blame.

Conclusion: Duncan deserves some blame for not making more shots (especially the FTs, for which there's no excuse), but they also weren't all good shots.  He was forcing shots to make up for the fact that Manu was hobbling, shooting through difficult situations, and basically playing a different game than he normally does.  Ironically, this is what most of the basketball-watching world (including most Celtics fans) want KG to do, and he gets villified for not doing it.  I don't think, given that, that the same basketball world could then villify Duncan for trying it and failing.  Especially considering that on the whole, he fulfilled his part of the bargain.  The team lost because others, most notably Manu, could not fulfill his.

[coco]

I was always on the camp saying that the key of beating SA wasn't stopping TD but Manu.  Manu creates so much for his teamates and plays with so much possitive passion/intensity...it's rediculous the lack of respect he gets(i.e. no all star status)

[hpantazo]

Duncan was pretty bad in the series, and it wasn't the laker's, it was him. Tommy put it best when reviewing the end of game 5, when kobe drove to the basket for a layup to seal the win. He said Duncan just showed him a way to the basket and let him go. It looked that way from the replay too. ESPN called it kobe's amazing ability to close out games, but it looked like a lack of defense by Duncan to me.

[cuckroller]

The take of a Laker Fan.

The ineffectiveness of the outside shooter of San Antonio was key throughout this series.  Gasol, in my estimation, did a middling good job on Duncan (mostly by interrupting the mechanics of Duncan's bread and butter shot - backing in, turning towards the basket, and kissing it off the glass) and he did this mostly by immobilizing alternately one or the other of Duncan's elbows while he was backing in - usually the right elbow).  However, there was a lot of under the basket clogging by the help defense because the outside shooters were just not effective.  Manu Ginobili - has always had problems with the more "pesky" type of body-up defenders such as Vujacic.  Vujacic was able to get into his head.  Certainly, the fact that Ginobili was obviously impeded in his lateral movements, and that his ability to push off when elevating for jump shots was diminished by the ankle injury, made defending him a lot easier.

The bench of the Spurs just never did show up in this series.  This is a problem that must be corrected in the off-season.  The old-timers just no longer have the type of youthful energy that would have been required to make an impact in this series.  The Laker second unit was just able to take them to school in this series.  They were just never able to give their starters (I speak of the Spurs) a much needed bench rest.

[drza44]

I was always on the camp saying that the key of beating SA wasn't stopping TD but Manu.  Manu creates so much for his teamates and plays with so much possitive passion/intensity...it's rediculous the lack of respect he gets(i.e. no all star status)

All of this can be true, and Duncan still be the more important player.  The reason that stopping Manu is more of a key than stopping Duncan is that it is easier to stop Manu than it is to stop Duncan.  For the most part, Duncan is going to get his.  Manu, on the other hand, can be removed.  If both are strong, the team is very hard to beat.  So yeah, the strategy might be to stop the one that can be stopped more regularly.  That doesn't make him the most important player, though.

Let me put it another way.  If you were starting a team, and you had a choice between one player that was a superstar every day and another that was a superstar 2 games out of 3.  Which would you take?  Which would be more important?  This takes nothing away from Manu, who I also think is a top-15 player and should be on every All Star team.  But he is not more important than Duncan.