Nuggets @ Suns Game Thread

[myrondizzo]

You wouldn't get it, unless you saw it. This team was DEAD IN THE WATER.

Hypothetically, isn't it possible that the Suns would have had a bigger lead had House not missed so many shots in the first three quarters? Then they wouldn't have needed him to bail them out.

he was 1 of 5 up until that point.

 

[arthurracoon]

Fair enough.

But the Suns were down, and looking HORRIBLE. House came in and couldnt miss a thing. Phoenix went up by 10 and never looked back. House is an extremely interesting player. He either makes 10 in a row, or misses 10 in a row. When he is cold, there's an easy solution - the bench. But when he is hot, watch out. He'll build a 5-10 point lead by himself, as he did tonight.

without him, the Suns would have lost this game, imo.

I love how House got the crowd completly into the game. That was just amazing. Once you see him make one shot, you know he's ON. From then on, you want the ball in his hands untill he's off.

 

[arthurracoon]

Marion was impressive as well tonight with some of his rebounds.

Diaw seemed to make some stupid plays tonight (at least more so that i usually see him make).

 

[George O'Brien]

Diaw has to be the only PF in the league to play 42 minutes and get only 3 rebounds but dish out 9 assists.

I didn't get a chance to see the game (music biz), but from the stats the Suns continued to play defense - holding the Nuggets to 43% shooting inspite of big nights by Camby and Carmelo. The rest of the Nuggets shot under 31% including 0 of 7 for 3. Even though Camby grabbed 20 rebounds, the Nuggets grabbed only 1 more than the Suns.

BTW, the Suns prior to tonight's game are ranked 15th in opponents shooting percentage at 43.4% - ahead of GS, Detroit, and Dallas.

In the last six games, the Sun's defense has tightened up considerably after a poor start of the season:

Nuggets - 43%
Pacers - 42.9%
Rockets - 41.3%
Raptors - 39.8%
Spurs - 40.7%
Jazz - 42%

Considering how short a time this team has played together, this is really quite impressive.

 

[sly fly]

You wouldn't get it, unless you saw it. This team was DEAD IN THE WATER.

Hypothetically, isn't it possible that the Suns would have had a bigger lead had House not missed so many shots in the first three quarters? Then they wouldn't have needed him to bail them out.

Nope. House was the difference tonight.

I recognize House's weaknesses, but I also can see his strengths.

House was born to shoot. Not many of us are. As long as he recognizes he's not Nash, Marbury, Kidd, or Parker... he'll be fine in this offense.

Make the easy play on offense, work to get open, and keep the head on a swivel with the ball... and he'll be fine.

 

[Chaz]

The difference was instead of pulling House out when he started cold D'Antoni put Nash in.

House started coming off screens and spotting up and Nash was feeding him the ball in good position to score.

House left when Marion returned but for a while he gave the Suns a nice boost that reclaimed the lead.


The other big shot was Marion's corner 3 with under 2 min left.

 

[Amare32]

Thought Eddie was huge and gave the team a real spark. He was a big reason why we built that lead up in the 4th.

 

[sunsfn]

House gives more than his shooting, he gives energy in times that are needed by any team.

There will be games when he comes in and will not shoot good, but will get a couple assists and run with energy and help the team win.

Camby is having a great year but, the question is not will he stay healthy, the question is how many games is he going to miss this year.

 

[JS22]

You wouldn't get it, unless you saw it. This team was DEAD IN THE WATER.

Hypothetically, isn't it possible that the Suns would have had a bigger lead had House not missed so many shots in the first three quarters? Then they wouldn't have needed him to bail them out.

Nevermind. I can see that this is going to go nowhere.

 

[jbeecham]

Don't forget the great play of KT last night. He played very good defense on KMart and grabbed 16 rebounds to go with his 16 pts. He probably should've been switched over to Camby though because Diaw, Marion and James Jones couldn't guard Camby.

 

[Dustbuster]

We actually had pretty decent offense out of the frontcourt of Marion, Diaw, and KT (22,15,16 points, respectively). That's 53 points (over half our total points) from those three players alone. Nothing wrong there, offensively. I would say our greater weakness in our starting lineup offensively would be Bell, who really tends to disappear offensively. There are spurts where he hits a bunch of baskets (he tends to get 80% of his points in about a five minute spurt somewhere in the game) and then disappear. He doesn't take or demand shots to the point where it is often a deficiency. His shooting percentage has dropped off a bit because he has become less of a focal point in our offense, and its a shame, because he has the capability to be a high percentage guard in our system.

He's only averaging a little over 11 points per game (over a point less than last year) although getting about seven minutes more per game. If he could get his scoring up to even 14ppg on average, it makes our starting lineup much stronger and more balanced.

I like Barbosa off the bench for energy and offense, and think that he can easily average 12+ppg off the bench, which will help to get our scoring average up. It probably will also mean pretty much the end of Jimmy getting any kind of substantial minutes. Barbosa can add about four times the amount of offense in the same amount of time on the floor as Jimmy, who just seems completely lost this year.

With Barbosa back I can see our scoring average per game up about 5 points with a similar defensive production, which equals a pretty strong team. Barbosa's penetration also provides an excellent second option when our jumpshots aren't hitting.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric, quoting fordonen, "I love Eddie House, and he was incredible for that stretch in the 4th, but I think, if anything, his game tonight validates elindholm's points."

Eric >>I'd call it a wash.

I couldn't watch the game, but the write-up said that House made a bunch of shots in a row in the fourth. Since he was 5-12 for the game, that means that he was bricking it up the rest of the time.<<


IMO, it isn't even a wash - Eddie's performance tonight further invalidates Eric's points. It was a game in which he wasn't hot, shooting 5/12 or a bit under 42%, as Eric noted, but despite that he provided the spark when it was needed - and as copiously noted by others it wasn't just with his shooting. Two of his assists were very good - worthy of Nash. They were to Kurt and Boris breaking to the hoop... KT even got an 'and1'. Also noteworthy was that after his hot streak he missed a shot then a few seconds later passed one up to hit a wide open Nash, who scored. Showing an awareness that Nash was hitting at a better clip than himself.

In his earlier stint on the floor he didn't shoot that well - 1 of 5 someone said and that seems about right - but he did a decent job of subbing for Nash and running the offense. As he has in every game since Barbosa went down.


Eric, "My opinion is that, in a close game, possessions in the first half count as much as those in the last few minutes. But I know that not everyone sees it that way."

Obviously they count as much in the final score. Who really cares if its an illusion that Eddie's nine points in a burst turned the tide of the game, his teammates were fooled like all of us onlookers, and went on to play with renewed energy. It even fooled the Nugs' coach who called a couple of quick timeouts, as coaches will. Another illusion was Camby's terrific, energetic play and hot shooting, which picked up his team and got them back into the game during the 3rd quarter.

 

[elindholm]

Who really cares if its an illusion that Eddie's nine points in a burst turned the tide of the game, his teammates were fooled like all of us onlookers, and went on to play with renewed energy.

Apparently not you.

I already asked whether it is possible that, had House not been "off" in the first half, the Suns would have had enough of a comfort zone that their later doldrums wouldn't have jeopardized the lead. I was told no, it is not possible. Do you give me the same answer?

Why should House get extra credit for helping to solve a problem that he helped create? The only objective way of assessing whether his overall game performance was positive or negative is to, well, look at his overall game performance.

If your boss underpays you by 10% all year long, then gives you an 8% Christmas bonus, does that make him a good guy? And if everyone in your office is depressed by their holiday prospects but then elated by their bonuses, does that prove that you got the extra money "when it was needed"?

Another illusion was Camby's terrific, energetic play and hot shooting, which picked up his team and got them back into the game during the 3rd quarter.

Boy, I would have thought you to be the last one on this board to make such a silly argument. Camby shot 12-19 and played almost the entire game while committing only three turnovers and two fouls.

I'll give House credit for one thing: His energy and dynamism seem to befuddle even rational minds. And, in fairness, if those rational minds include those of the players and coaches on the floor, then I guess it doesn't matter how superstitious one has to be in order to get swept up in the House hysteria. In fact, I suggest we coin a specific term for it: Housteria.

 

[newfan101]

I'll give House credit for one thing: His energy and dynamism seem to befuddle even rational minds. And, in fairness, if those rational minds include those of the players and coaches on the floor, then I guess it doesn't matter how superstitious one has to be in order to get swept up in the House hysteria. In fact, I suggest we coin a specific term for it: Housteria.

Well congratulations. I bow down to your superior intellect. There's no fooling you. When Eddie House goes on a hot streak, energizes the crowd, pulls the Suns ahead, and plays generally great basketball for a guy making the MINIMUM, us ignoramuses are all just getting suckered. But not you. You are SO above any supercilious "conditions" like "Housteria." Pity us for our irrational thinking.

How much of a snob do you have to be to have the nerve to suggest that anyone who likes Eddie House is suffering from some kind of mass delusion? I'm officially flabbergasted. Most of us have conceded his weaknesses anyway, so I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. It's probably because my brain has been turned into jelly from all this Eddie House voodoo superstition.

I'm amazed that one so brilliant can find this much time and energy to spend discrediting the merits of a backup guard who gets roughly 12 minutes a game. How DO you do it?

 

[fordronken]

Well congratulations. I bow down to your superior intellect. There's no fooling you. When Eddie House goes on a hot streak, energizes the crowd, pulls the Suns ahead, and plays generally great basketball for a guy making the MINIMUM, us ignoramuses are all just getting suckered. But not you. You are SO above any supercilious "conditions" like "Housteria." Pity us for our irrational thinking.

How much of a snob do you have to be to have the nerve to suggest that anyone who likes Eddie House is suffering from some kind of mass delusion? I'm officially flabbergasted. Most of us have conceded his weaknesses anyway, so I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. It's probably because my brain has been turned into jelly from all this Eddie House voodoo superstition.

I'm amazed that one so brilliant can find this much time and energy to spend discrediting the merits of a backup guard who gets roughly 12 minutes a game. How DO you do it?

Come on. You're taking things a bit too literal, here. The point is this: it's a lot more fun to get ten point lead in the fourth quarter when a streaky shooter gets hot and "takes over the game", than it is to just have a ten point lead from a solid overall game where the lead was never really threatened.

Elindholm's points about his bad first half bring up a very good argument which nobody here seems to be willing to comment on. In fact, the greatest flaws in Eric's arguments, I think are his willingness to say something like "Houseteria" which automatically riles people to the point that it becomes the entire basis of their reply.

 

[Chaz]

I find this argument really interesting.

House did not shoot well (or very much) early but yet the Suns were up 17 at the half. Denver came back in the third against the starters.

Then with Nash and House in the back court the Suns got the momentum back and built a lead again.

I would agree that it would be easy to overstate House's contribution. He had some nice assists but he also jacked up some bad shots with other players open. However, he did provide energy and some timely made shots when the Suns needed them. To me it is not logical to dismiss his contribution because he didn't shoot a high percentage over all.

House didn't win the game by a long shot. We can point to the Suns new found toughness and defense for that.

 

[BillsCarnage]

Welcome to the new guys. No need to watch out for me--I'm only the second-most-hostile poster on the boards.

Who is first?

There seems to be a lot of hostility at goazcats.
Don't think they like Devil fans much.

 

[elindholm]

Well congratulations. I bow down to your superior intellect. There's no fooling you.

I wish. Last season, I proclaimed that Hunter was more important to the Suns' future than Johnson. As it turns out, the team kept neither, but it was still a grossly mistaken assessment. And, like several others here, not only was I convinced that Tsakalidis was about to turn it around every time he strung together a couple of good games, but I lamented the Suns' giving up on him so quickly. Of course, I was wrong on both counts there.

And I might also be wrong about House. That won't stop me from making my case energetically as long as I have good reasons to hold my opinion.

and plays generally great basketball for a guy making the MINIMUM

Why does everyone keep bringing up House's salary? I'd play in the NBA for free, but it wouldn't make me suck any less. I've never said that House is bad value or that the Suns made a mistake in spending the money on him.

 

[AZZenny]

Having seen House a couple times live, and also on TV, I find him a lot of fun to watch - he is very energized, very competitive, brash, and he definitely gets the fans into the team.

That's not a delusion, it's a perception - it's the way his style of play affects people, perhaps players as well, and perceptions do impact behavior.

If he's hitting baskets two or three in a row, he's quite exciting, and he can single-handedly start to shift 'momentum.' Not every player has the persona or the energetic style to be able to do that.

He's an asset to this Suns team, used smartly, which I think Coach D' is figuring how to do.

 

[JS22]

Who really cares if its an illusion that Eddie's nine points in a burst turned the tide of the game, his teammates were fooled like all of us onlookers, and went on to play with renewed energy.

Apparently not you.

I already asked whether it is possible that, had House not been "off" in the first half, the Suns would have had enough of a comfort zone that their later doldrums wouldn't have jeopardized the lead. I was told no, it is not possible. Do you give me the same answer?

Why should House get extra credit for helping to solve a problem that he helped create? The only objective way of assessing whether his overall game performance was positive or negative is to, well, look at his overall game performance.

If your boss underpays you by 10% all year long, then gives you an 8% Christmas bonus, does that make him a good guy? And if everyone in your office is depressed by their holiday prospects but then elated by their bonuses, does that prove that you got the extra money "when it was needed"?

Another illusion was Camby's terrific, energetic play and hot shooting, which picked up his team and got them back into the game during the 3rd quarter.

Boy, I would have thought you to be the last one on this board to make such a silly argument. Camby shot 12-19 and played almost the entire game while committing only three turnovers and two fouls.

I'll give House credit for one thing: His energy and dynamism seem to befuddle even rational minds. And, in fairness, if those rational minds include those of the players and coaches on the floor, then I guess it doesn't matter how superstitious one has to be in order to get swept up in the House hysteria. In fact, I suggest we coin a specific term for it: Housteria.

:roll:

 

[arthurracoon]

Having seen House a couple times live, and also on TV, I find him a lot of fun to watch - he is very energized, very competitive, brash, and he definitely gets the fans into the team.

That's not a delusion, it's a perception - it's the way his style of play affects people, perhaps players as well, and perceptions do impact behavior.

If he's hitting baskets two or three in a row, he's quite exciting, and he can single-handedly start to shift 'momentum.' Not every player has the persona or the energetic style to be able to do that.

He's an asset to this Suns team, used smartly, which I think Coach D' is figuring how to do.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric "I already asked whether it is possible that, had House not been "off" in the first half, the Suns would have had enough of a comfort zone that their later doldrums wouldn't have jeopardized the lead. I was told no, it is not possible. Do you give me the same answer?"

If Eddie had had a 'normal streak' instead of cold one he would have made one more of his five attempts. Would two more points have kept the Nuggets from picking up a head of steam in the third quarter? Doubtful, though not impossible. If he'd hit 5 of 5 early the added eight points would have been more likely to make a difference - but then we'd be discussing that hot streak instead, and it would run along the same lines as this one, I'm sure.


"Why should House get extra credit for helping to solve a problem that he helped create? The only objective way of assessing whether his overall game performance was positive or negative is to, well, look at his overall game performance."

I've been assessing his overall performance all along. Thanks for agreeing that is the correct approach. Actually, I think you agreed somewhat with me about his contribution at running the team when I brought that up.


"I'll give House credit for one thing: His energy and dynamism seem to befuddle even rational minds."

This is a two edged sword, you know... or would be if there were rational minds on both sides of the debate.


"Boy, I would have thought you to be the last one on this board to make such a silly argument. Camby shot 12-19 and played almost the entire game while committing only three turnovers and two fouls."

It's the same argument applied to a vastly better player. Had Camby played the first half as energetically and as well as he did the third quarter there's little doubt the Nugs would have less distance to come back from.