Truthless Lineup Holds It Down At the Palace
A Daily Babble Production
It's hard to remember the last time Paul Pierce sat through the midst of the fourth quarter of a close game without five fouls or medical issues. He did just that last night, and the Celtics came out no worse for the wear.
Rather than getting his rest as he often does between the end of the third and early portion of the fourth quarter, Pierce played through the second half until committing his fourth foul on a charge at the 8:48 mark of the final period. After the ensuing timeout, Pierce went to the bench for Ray Allen. In a 66-60 game, the Celtics went to a lineup of Rajon Rondo, Eddie House, Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins.
Perkins would be replaced by the Infuriated Infant after being ejected for a flagrant two foul with just inside six minutes to play. That was the only substitution Doc Rivers made during Pierce's time on the bench.
It became a test for the Celtics, and by virtue of the fact that they stretched Pierce's rest phase all the way to the 2:31 mark of the quarter, they clearly passed. Playing without their go-to fourth quarter scorer, the C's got the job done. Rajon Rondo continued to control the offense, penetrating to find Kevin Garnett for an easy lay-up and then kicking to Eddie House the three that extended the Celts' lead to eleven and forced Michael Curry to call for time. Large Baby chipped in with a strong take to the rim for a lay-up of his own as well as the huge offensive rebound that preceded the House trey. And Ray Allen was Ray Allen, hitting all three freebie attempts in that stretch.
At the defensive end, the Celtics allowed the Pistons to shoot 5-for-9. They were also the beneficiaries of Jason Maxiell missing a pair of free throws and giving Ray Allen one of his own when he retaliated to Kendrick Perkins' flagrant with a shove that earned him a technical. But at the same time, the Celtics were playing with a suspect defensive swing combination of Ray Allen and Eddie House, and they still managed to force two turnovers, including a shot clock violation. When it was all said and done, they had allowed just 11 points in 6:15 without Pierce on the court, and in scoring 12 of their own extended the lead from six to seven.
Playing with a lead in the fourth quarter, taking time off the clock and not blowing the lead is all a team needs to do, and the Celtics managed to do exactly that playing without Paul Pierce in the fourth quarter. Good for Pierce to get some rest in a game in which he still played 38 minutes, and good to see Doc Rivers continuing to adjust his rotations to mix in two or three reserves at a time with his starters, thus helping each of them to play as productive a role as possible.
More random thoughts from a grind-it-out win in Auburn Hills:
- Regardless of any message that may have been sent, two foul shots, possession and an ejection with six minutes to play in a five-point game is an idiotic way to send that message. As mentioned earlier, the Celtics were fortunate that Jason Maxiell missed both free throws and that he committed a technical that sent Ray Allen to the line for an extra point as well. That doesn't make Kendrick Perkins' play any smarter. There was no doubt that he committed a flagrant two and should have been ejected for it. I'm all for sending a message in certain situations, but there is a time and a place. That wasn't it.
- My favorite part of the evening: The reaction after Eddie House hit the three to stretch the Celtics' lead to 11 late in the fourth. Watching Eddie scream and jump around after a big bucket is always enjoyable enough. But two of the first three guys off the bench to greet him were Bill Walker, who hadn't played in the game, and Sam Cassell, who wore street clothes and hasn't played a second this season. The head slaps, the chest bumps, the ear-to-ear grin on every face: just one more part of the chemistry that has made this team such a joy to watch over the last year and a half.
- With the exception of his time on the floor with Rondo in the fourth quarter, most of House's night was spent as de facto point guard rather than playing off the ball, where he has been particularly effective of late. Didn't understand that or the DNP for Gabe Pruitt.
- I'll cosign Jeff's sentiment from the game recap: Rodney Stuckey is the real deal. He is only going to get better and better.
- Score another 2-for-2 night for the Rondo-KG lob play. The first time, KG drew a foul on Rasheed Wallace, a success despite the lack of a basket on the play. The second resulted in a Garnett dunk to stretch the lead to nine with 2:19 to play.
- Speaking of Garnett, credit him for playing a great game overall. At some point last night that it has become surprisingly easy to unwittingly take KG for granted from time to time. He has been his usual solid self throughout this streak, and on an ugly offensive night for both teams, he came up big last night: 22 points on 10-for-17 shooting, including 10 points in the fourth quarter. KG looked good both on his mid-range jumper and in the post. He grabbed nine boards and played excellent defense on Rasheed Wallace all night, frustrating the Pistons' big man into a 5-for-16 game from the field. Wonderful performance for the Ticket.
0 recs |
49 comments
|
Comments
Ray-Less as well
Though Ray was out there, he didn’t have his shot last night. It was a game in which the score did not reflect the mood or theme of the game. To me the Cs were in control throughout, and I never felt as though the game was in jeopardy. I did question Doc’s rotations, but I’ve done that since he got here, win or lose. The Cs have their strut back, and that’s the bottom line.
by amenhotep04 on Jan 31, 2009 1:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
great point to make steve
I like Doc testing the waters and letting the guys play without Pierce. If Pierce were ever out for an extended period, it’s good to see what we can do if we’re ever in trouble down the line. (Anyone a Jose Gonzalez fan? No? Alright, I’ll stop being a music geek…)
by Slick on Jan 31, 2009 1:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Stuckey is the real deal, but is it just me or is he a good scorer, and not that great of a Point Guard? He certainly can and probably will grow into it, but to me it seems like they have 3 scoring shooting guards, none of whom are great point guards…they clearly miss Billups in my eyes.
It was weird to see Pierce miss most of the 4th, I founf myself questioning it at the time, but it worked out well.
The Eddie/TA/leon/BBD/Pierce lineup is very questionable as well and showed we actually do Miss Scals, him sitting at the 3 point line is better than Leon/BBD clogging the paint at the same time….and anythings better than a eddie/ta backcourt
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 31, 2009 1:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think Stuckey is an out-and-out point guard offensively, but his defense at the position has been very impressive. I’d keep him there for his defense.
by Who on Jan 31, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True
But im a believer that trading billups was just a stupid move, stuckey could be one of the best 6th men in the league, and if chauncey stayed healthy, they’re legit contenders…now they have a young guy running the show who looks to score first pass second, and thats just not what this team needs is another scorer, they need a distributor to get it to all the other great players on the team…while he has all that potential and could grow into a better true point…hes hurting the team right now….and as legit as he is is how non-legit Amir Johnson is
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 31, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
Stuckey’s not hurting the team, he’s one of their best players and they have a winning record. I do agree the team needs a better distributor and it wasn’t a great deal. But is Stuckey really hurting the team? May wanna think that out a bit more.
by Slick on Jan 31, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dont blame him, but obviously the organaztion traded billups because of stuckey and right now they have no distributor and a roster full of great scorers.
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 1, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they traded Billups
to improve their long-term financial situation, and that’s been done no matter what happens this season.
I’ll buy that they were more willing to move Billups because they see Stuckey as their guy for the future. But that’s just the point – the trade was made with an eye for down the road. Stuckey is in his second season and only likely to keep getting better. He’s already shown his share of flashes of brilliance.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Feb 1, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats fine, but with a healthy billups and stuckey as a 6th man they are legit contenders this year
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 1, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No dispute here,
but I think it’s fair to say that they still would have been inferior to the Celtics, Cavs and Lakers at the absolute least – and possibly Orlando as well in the East, especially when one considers the improvement of Jameer Nelson. That in mind, I don’t have a problem with the idea of making a move to help down the road and that also brings in a highly talented player who culd help this team be a threat in the present if all falls into place. No doubt it’s less likely with AI than with Billups that the Pistons are a serious contender, but the guy has shown that he can be a difference-maker in his own right. It’s not as though the Pistons tossed in the towel on ‘08-’09 (though they have clearly taken a step back in the present), and they’re going to be in better long-term shape.
It’s going to be a while before I feel ready to fully assess Joe Dumars’ move here.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Feb 1, 2009 2:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce was at the scorer's table with 6 minutes to go
I don’t think we can read too much into last night. Doc was ready to put Pierce back in, but there was never a stoppage in play until later in the 4th.
I also didn’t have any problem with Perk’s flagrant. It was a good foul in that situation and hardly ‘idiotic’. Sometimes you gotta put a stop to things and Perk did what was needed. This team really needs an enforcer. I’d rather it be someone other than Perk, but Perk filled in where needed last night.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jan 31, 2009 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Perk's Flagrant was a Spark
From the Herald:
Looking back on the Perkins play, Pierce said, "I think it was something that really sparked our ballclub, especially seeing Perk come out of the game. We were able to kind of feed off of it."
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jan 31, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I dont see where hes getting at with “not being the time or place for it” …if that wasnt the time or place for it…when is? the pistons were trying to bully us around, get physical, get away with whatever they could, perk laid the hammer down and there momentum died
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 31, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I thought I made clear above
this happened in the fourth quarter, six minutes to play, two-possession game – two free throws and possession to the other team, enough to cost the Celtics their lead if Detroit capitalizes on that opportunity.
I’d say just about any other time would be better. Perhaps in a blowout one way or the other, perhaps earlier in a game to “set a tone” if that’s what you believe it did (although the points still count just as much if he hits the free throws, you’ve got more time to make that part up). Perhaps the next time the teams meet. But not when you’re getting yourself ejected and allowing the other team those opportunities at that juncture of a close game.
The Celtics going on to win was great. But the fact that they got extremely fortunate that a) Maxiell shoved back and b) he missed the two free throws doesn’t justify a dumb play.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What-ifs? the way it played out, was in the celtics advantage, and PP said himself they rallied around it…the pistons were making a run at the time and being overly-physical with the celtics, until Perk did what he did..what would be the point in doing it in a blowout? what kind of message is that? agree to disagree
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 31, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree to disagree indeed, TAR,
although I’m not quite sure what you mean about the Pistons’ making a run. The Celtics’ led by six at the start of the fourth quarter, never led by more than eight in the fourth quarter prior to the flagrant (and that was for all of 28 seconds, from 11:36 to 11:08), and the Pistons hadn’t scored in 2:02 when the foul occurred with the Celtics up five. I’m not seeing the run.
That said, as you pointed out, we’ve simply got different viewpoints on this overall, and those may not be reconciled. Fair enough.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that we can be accussed of being a little thin at the wing and i like that Doc has recognized that ray can play there. he has done this recently with the Rondo, house, ray, scal baby lineup too. I don’t recall ray playing the three at all until the past month. Another case of doc reacting with changes after an injury this time, ta’s. i am not criticizing doc. i am not in his shoes. KC jones who had one two titles as a coach couldn’t figure out to have DJ on magic so what can you say? Anyway, ray as an option at the 3 is great.
by wahz on Jan 31, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Timing Is Everything
The message that needed to be sent to Maxiell could only be properly sent in the 4th quarter with 6 minutes left in a 2 possession game. Up to that point in the 4th quarter, Maxiell was just abusing us, pushing people around, using his heft to do whatever he wanted in the paint. Perk’s foul was the perfect retort, “hey Maxiell, you’re not going to get away with that.” And you know what? It worked. Maxiell did squat the rest of the game. For instance, on the very next play, Baby went right around Maxiell for a layup and then later went right through him to get the offensive rebound which led to House’s big 3. Sometimes, you need to fight back in the moment of battle, not at some undetermined, more advantageous point in the future. To say Perk’s foul was a dumb play shows a complete misunderstanding of the physicality of basketball. If somebody’s pushing you around, you have to push back or they’ll own you the rest of the game. It’s that simple.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jan 31, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A misunderstanding of the physicality of basketball?
There are ways to push back that don’t involve ending up having a guy in a headlock and doing something that will clearly get you ejected and has a very good chance to hurt the team simply based on the legal consequences of the foul in the game.
There is something to be said for being physical, but there is also a line. Perk crossed it.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. Clearly a flagrant 2, and clearly justified an ejection at a key time in the game. Terrible time for a foul like that, when he could have just wrapped the Detroit thug up.
However, I don’t really mind the message it sends that the club will retaliate if bullied.
It’s a bit like a coach getting a T. Some freak out about that, but there are times when you have to get your ballclub’s attention, not to mention the officials.
I’ve gotten a bunch, and I can honestly say there are only two I’ve ever regretted.
by CoachBo on Jan 31, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is NEVER a good time for that
You could see it on Doc’s face… “What the hell? Did you really just do that?!” There is never a good time to commit an obvious Flagrant 2, give 2 shots and the ball to the opposing team and get kicked out of the game. Perk regretted what he did (which was just a reflex upon finding Maxiell’s head in his arm), Doc regretted it, the whole team regretted it. The fact that things worked out was, as has been pointed out, just luck. Of course it was a stupid thing to do… but in Perk’s defense, it’s not like he planned it or even thought about it before it happened.
by DRJ1 on Jan 31, 2009 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And also..
…it’s unsportsmanlike, violent and dangerous. How could you possibly think that was the right thing to do? Puhlease. None of the Cs thinks so, you can be sure. And… did Maxiell throw anybody to the ground in a hammerlock? Did he commit a flagrant? He played tough… no excuse to get violent on him.
All that notwithstanding, Perk did not plan this out… it was reflex. Even Perk did not think it was right, as evidenced by the fact that he did not retaliate at all when pushed back, and accepted his rejection quietly.
by DRJ1 on Jan 31, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Somebody Pushes You, You Push Back
If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the physicality of basketball. Maxiell was pushing everyone around out there and the officials were letting it go and the fact that he was getting away with it just gave Maxiell more energy. It needed to end. Could it have ended without a Flagrant 2? Sure, but you can’t pick the manner in which you push back. The important thing is pushing back, letting the other person know you’re going to stand up to what they’re bringing. That’s what Perk did. It wasn’t stupid, it was what was needed at that point in the game. It might have just WON the game for all we know.
And I seriously doubt anyone on the Cs regretted anything. Paul even called it a spark. And there was nothing ‘unsportsmanlike, violent or dangerous’ about it. Maxiell’s head just got in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perk wasn’t even looking and there was no intent to harm.
I didn’t realize there were so many softies on this board :) Seriously, physicality is an important part of the game. Basketball is, among other things, about imposing your will on somebody else. It’s very simple actually: if somebody pushes you, you push them back. You don’t push them back next week, or when it doesn’t matter, you push them back the very next time you can. If you don’t, they own you the rest of the night.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jan 31, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So that's how it is?
Every time somebody plays hard against us, we hammerlock him to the floor. This argument is silly. The NBA correctly put a stop to this kind of behavior years ago. Just remember, he could have broken his neck. Would you be happy then too?
by DRJ1 on Jan 31, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did he break his neck?
Thats irrelevant
by TheAncientRivalry on Jan 31, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And That's Why You'll Never Understand
Maxiell wasn’t just ‘playing hard.’ He was pushing people around. In the context of a sport, either you push back or you get owned. That’s how sports works. Judging from your response, you’d rather give up and get owned. The problem is, you’re mistaking your life values for basketball values. That kind of Gandhi-esque response has its place in the world, but it’s completely out of place on the basketball court. That’s what we’re talking about. Sure, you could be a nice guy and let Maxiell walk all over you and quietly wonder to yourself, “why aren’t the refs calling anything?” That’s an honorable ethic off-the-court and a good, Christian way to live your life, but on the court, in the game of basketball or any other game, it just makes you a loser.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jan 31, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, there's a middle ground between playing physical basketball
and what you’ve suggested.
But if your preference is to continue to accuse any who doesn’t share your sentiment of “misunderstanding the physicality of basketball” or tossing the “softy” label around, that’s up to you.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a dirty play, but not a particularly dangerous one.
In sports, you never know when or how someone is going to get hurt. Personally though, I’ve never seen someone break their neck that way. Maxiell had just as much of a chance of being seriously injured during the regular game as he did by Perk’s throw down. Perk deserved the ejection, but I still love Perk and love the enforcer role that he plays. I’ve seen much worse than this before, and I think you’re making it seem as if Perk went some place that no one else has ever gone. These types of plays are fairly common in the league, especially when you’re dealing with passionate players who sometimes lose their heads by mistake like Perk.
Would you rather see a player care a little too much, or a player not care at all? I’ll take a player like Perk any day over guys who aren’t giving it their all.
by Toine43 on Jan 31, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When Pierce came to the scorer’s table, Eddie hit the three. My take at the time was that Doc thought Eddie was going to go on a run, so therefore, no need to bring in Paul at that point.
by amenhotep04 on Jan 31, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce was about to check back in when Baby got the rebound and hit House for the catch and shoot 3. House has been the hot hand the last week. Pierce turned back to Doc to see if he still wanted to make the move or ride the hot hand. The Pistons called time, and Doc decided to leave this squad on the floor a bit longer.
This happened last week in Orlando too. Perkins was getting ready to check back in. There was no stoppage of play while he was at the scorers table and Baby was playing out of his mind. So Perk turned to Doc and asked him if he was sure that he wanted to pull Baby.
by kingtutts on Jan 31, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce aalso
got some great dribble penetration for a couple of great lay ups at crunch time. He seemed fresh just when we needed him to be.
by The Real Large James 2 on Jan 31, 2009 5:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good Observation Steve
And having the success with that unit just goes to show you how much better the bench guys can be if they are out on the floor with mostly starters. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the Perk thing though. I know it was a dirty play, and it was in the 4th quarter, but I like having a guy like that on team, as long as he doesn’t prevent the other players from focusing on winning. In fact, it seemed to pump the guys up a bit, if what Pierce said is true.
A brief non sequitur:
I’ll cosign Jeff’s sentiment from the game recap
Ever since Mark Jackson said “cosign” twice last night, I’ve seen that word it feels like 10 times. Weird how that always seems to happen.
by Toine43 on Jan 31, 2009 7:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good to hear from you, T43
I should clarify that none of my commentary is meant to suggest that I don’t want a guy like Perk on the team. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by Perk and pleased with his development for much of his season, and it’s great to have a big body with some toughness on the floor in addition to a guy who has been playing effective basketball for a lot of the year. But I registered my frustration with the constant techs early in the year, and I have a real problem with what happened last night. Great that the Celtics rallied well from it, but as I’ve mentioned on a couple of occasions, part of that was simply out of their control. Getting two missed FTs and a freebie opportunity for Ray Allen are hardly parts of the program that I can imagine Perk had in his design. I don’t think the fact that his teammates both played well without him and were a bit fortuitous is a defense for Perk’s action in this case.
As I’ve suggested above, it remains my contention that this isn’t a case of “be pushed around all night or commit a flagrant two.” I think there’s a middle ground for hard physical basketball there.
Funny thought about the “cosign” phrase. I thought the same after I wrote it – that it felt like Jackson said it a million times last night. Let’s hope this isn’t a sign that I’m turning into him…
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right Before Perk's Takedown
Just before the Perk foul, Maxiell pushed Eddie House, who had him boxed out, out of bounds and a foul should have been called then, but it wasn’t. Then Perk did his flagrant 2. I don’t think Perk tried to hurt the guy, he just doesn’t do that. I also think he was making a point and I also think the foul wasn’t as hard as it may have seemed. There needs to be room for emotion in the game. When the year started the refs were supposed to allow for that. If they did some of Perk’s early technicals wouldn’t have been called. I don’t like fights in basketball, but I like the way things were done back in the ’70’s and ‘80s. I don’t know how far back you go Steve, but if you do remember the Bird and Parish hits on Laimbeer who really deserved it. They weren’t thrown out of the game. Laimbeer was a dirty player and he was hardly ever thrown out. There was also the take down of a player (whose name and team I can’t think of now) by Dave Cowens. A little guy, the kind Tommie dislikes with a passion, kept crashing into Cowens when he was on offense and falling down and Cowens was called for several fouls. After one of these Cowens went down to the other end of the court, picked the guy up, and threw him to the floor. He then went to an official and said: “now THAT’s a foul”.
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for mentioning it
perk deserved to get kicked out and i think he was too obvious with his foul, by a lot. but i don’t regret he did it.
by wahz on Jan 31, 2009 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Andrew Bynum hurts his knee just now...
not sure how long he will be out yet… I know what all the celtics fans are thinking right now I am not going to say it here … if he is out for the rest of the season the lakers may not even get past a healthy spurs team in the west….
anyhow i think the biggest challenge remains lebron “the crab” james
by hiro on Jan 31, 2009 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good Win
These are the type of wins that shows what a team is made of. The blowouts tell us nothing. It was probably a combo of the Celtics not playing at their best and Detroit playing some good defense. This was a playoff type of game in a hostile arena and we kept our poise, made the plays we had to, made the free throws when we had to, etc. Also, Eddie has been criticized for not making clutch shots, only making the three’s in blowouts. I thought his three near the end of the game put it away for us.
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 9:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
absolutely a huge shot by Eddie
Thanks for bringing that part of it up, TrueGreen – we have heard that criticism about him more than a bit.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And
We shouldn’t forget about the terrific defense Ray Allen played on both Iverson and the masked CT guy (too late for the grey cells to function).
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rick Hamilton
He’s probably rich too. And if the above want to talk about borderline dirty players we should talk about the way this guy plays. He’s as cute as Reggie Miller was and never gets called for it. He’s the reason why Ray Allen plays with that sleeve.
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I was reading your post, TG,
I was thinking of mentioning that last part…and then I saw that you’d said it already. :-D
I didn’t know that until I read Peter May’s book – one of the more interesting details to come out of that literature. Did you pick it up from there as well, or did I miss Ray talking about that at some point during last year’s playoffs or since? I’ve always been wondering if I missed it or if it really was a well-reported piece of information by May when he wrote “Top of the World.”
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If You're Talking About Ray Allen's Sleeve
I heard Ray talk about it in an interview this year. Don’t remember where, but it could have been from Holley’s new show where a fan asks a player a question.
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I should have clarified, but that's what I was asking about
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I think the comment in the May book was something about Rip “living up to his nickname,” that he had his hands on him and was literally scratching and clawing into his arm all the time. The sleeve was supposed to prevent the effect on Ray’s skin and to make it harder for Rip to get any traction on him, if I recall correctly.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ripper
Ray said Hamilton keeps his finger nails long and was constantly scratching his shooting arm while grabbing him while he was moving without the ball (no fouls called, of course). Mike Newlin—-the cells are functioning again. From the post above: Right Before Perk’s Takedown
There was also the take down of a player (whose name and team I can’t think of now) by Dave Cowens. A little guy, the kind Tommie dislikes with a passion, kept crashing into Cowens when he was on offense and falling down and Cowens was called for several fouls. After one of these Cowens went down to the other end of the court, picked the guy up, and threw him to the floor. He then went to an official and said: "now THAT’s a foul".
Do you remember this one?
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've heard that story a bunch, and I've always found it an interesting one
I think Bill Simmons has retold it a bit in his columns as well, because I think that’s where I had first heard it was Newlin. Am I right in thinking he was with the Rockets then? I’ll have to look that up.
That said, as you mention TrueGreen, the climate of the game was different then (though I think Cowens did get thrown out for that one). The “justice system,” so to speak, is different now than it was then, and I don’t necessarily think it’s always fair to hold players to the standards that those of past eras faced. When the system and consequences are different, the players need to be different. I’ve got no problem with those who say they prefer the game the way it once was, but I don’t think that excuses all of those actions that have resulted in punishment in the game today.
Also, my apologies for not responding to your “Right Before Perk’s Takedown” above, TG – I think I missed it initially by accident when I was tabbing through new comments. Not intentional by any means, and thanks for the anecdote.
-sw
Manuel Aristides Ramirez is the greatest hitter I've ever seen.
by Steve Weinman on Jan 31, 2009 10:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Newlin Did Play For Houston
I’ve got no problem with those who say they prefer the game the way it once was, but I don’t think that excuses all of those actions that have resulted in punishment in the game today.
I sort of agree with this. I don’t like fights and I don’t like dirty play. I really don’t think what Perk did was that bad. There was another play earlier where, maybe Hamilton, took down BBD with an arm across his neck. I think he got a flagrant 1 and I think Glen hit both free throws. To me that play was much worse and I thought Hamilton (if he was the guy) should have been tossed. The problem, as I see it, is that the refs show no discretion in their action. In the Bynum incident, which was very much worse than what Perk did, Bynum didn’t get tossed. Also, I think I mentioned somewhere that the refs are supposed to, but haven’t been allowing for emotion when they call some of their techs. Some of the refs will make a mistake, admit it and change something if they can. Some don’t (the Portland 6 player on the floor play). That decision to allow it could easily have been overturned. I think the league has just gone overboard in making rules and then enforcing some, but not others. I thought hand-checking was outlawed. You never see it called. The officiating is not as good as it once was. With expansion and the addition of a ref (3 a game) the pool of good officials has been diluted. To me they should go back to 2 refs and get rid of the bad ones. Rant is over for tonite.
by TrueGreen on Jan 31, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was listening when this happened. newlin was at the baseline and cowens ran through him and then truned to the ref. he didn’t throw him, he plowed through him. Johnny most was alwasy bitching about newlins flops and i don’t recall what he was saying but he was wild and he was communicating that dave had bowled newlin over and into the seats.
by wahz on Jan 31, 2009 11:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 



























