The homogenous crowd mixed with the pastel blue shirts makes the arena look like some kind of cult worshipping flopping and and the false idol of short shorts.
LOL, hahahha. I made it just in time to root for the warrior! I got on when baron got the Tech. sweet comeback!
Seeing all those jazz fans in Mormon Blue really pisses me off.. we handed out red shirts at games to just a handful of people.. and only a small percentage of that handful of people wore their shirts.. our crowds and our team basically half-assed the entire thing..
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah -- After watching Utah's 116-112 win over Golden State in Game 1 of the Western Conference semifinals, I can't be the only one who imagined the Mavs slapping their heads and saying, "Why couldn't we do that?" Unlike Dallas, Utah didn't make any radical preemptive lineup adjustments (the only shift being a DNP for backup center Jarron Collins) or uproot its playing style, despite an apparent mismatch in quickness entering the series. Golden State's speed, shooting and ability to force turnovers certainly were factors the entire game. But Utah succeeded in four critical areas in which Dallas failed, and that ultimately was why the Jazz outlasted Golden State on Monday night: They got easy buckets in transition. Much has been made of Utah's willingness to run with Golden State, and this stands in stark contrast to what Dallas did in the previous series. The Jazz piled up 25 fast-break points in Game 1, with point guards Deron Williams and Dee Brown taking advantage when opportunities presented themselves. The Mavs, on the other hand, didn't get more than 14 fast-break points in five of their six games against Golden State, including a measly four in Game 4. Part of this is because the Mavs are just a slower-paced team; although they aren't commonly perceived this way, the Mavs were the league's third-slowest team in terms of pace factor. Meanwhile, Utah is generally perceived as a rock-'em, sock-'em half-court team, but the Jazz play faster than people think -- Utah was in the middle of the pack in pace factor (15th out of 30 teams). So when the Jazz are playing against the league's fastest-paced team in Golden State, we should expect a lot of running. Nonetheless, the Mavs may have been too intent on avoiding a track meet with the Warriors. I mentioned that Dallas had 14 or fewer fast-break points in five of the six games; the exception was Game 2, when it had 28. Of course, that was the Mavs' most impressive game of the series, and their only easy win. Overall, running it back at Golden State appears to be a key to beating them. In four playoff wins, the Warriors gave up only 10.3 fast-break points per game, but in three losses the total more than doubled to 22.3. They limited Golden State's break. Here's the flip side that nobody has talked about -- Golden State had its lowest output of the playoffs in terms of fast-break points on Monday. The Warriors had 19, barely below their league-leading total of 19.2 in the regular season. But in the Dallas series, Golden State ran wild, with at least 22 fast-break points in every game. Interestingly, fast-break points weren't an important indicator of victory for the Warriors in the Dallas series. Their best output came in Games 2 and 5 with 28 points; they lost both times. Nonetheless, one has to think taking away a few easy baskets from the Warriors each night can be the difference between victory and defeat, especially in a game like Monday's that wasn't decided until the final 10 seconds. One has to wonder whether Golden State's reduced total may be partly due to Baron Davis' strained hamstring and head cold, which appeared to limit his willingness to attack in the open court. However, an alternative hypothesis says that all those Utah free throws and inside shots made it harder for the Warriors to get out and run. They controlled the offensive boards. This isn't a big secret, but Utah was much more effective in this area than Dallas was. In part, that's because the Mavs took their best offensive rebounder out of the series before it even started (Erick Dampier barely played). In six games, the Mavericks rebounded 31.9 percent of their missed shots -- a good number, to be sure, since the playoff league average is 26.6 percent, but hardly enough to punish an opponent for playing without a center. But Utah dominated the glass in Game 1 against the Warriors, especially Carlos Boozer. The Jazz yanked down 47.6 percent of their misses, with putbacks becoming an especially important factor in the fourth quarter. "There are certain givens when you play a series, and I don't expect to win the rebound game," said Warriors coach Don Nelson. "But I can't get out-rebounded by [18] rebounds, that's just too much." This advantage may persist the entire series as well. With Golden State fronting Boozer in the post -- denying him the ball via pass -- Boozer has inside position for a rebound when a shot goes up. Of course, that may be one of many adjustments we see in Wednesday's Game 2. "The board is open to Boozer the way that we're playing him, so it's almost pick your own poison," Nelson said. "We're trying to not let him have easy catches and hurt us that way. ... We may have to rethink that, and how we're playing him." They scored points in the paint. Here's another area in which Dallas failed. The Mavericks became mostly jump shooters in the Golden State series, but the Jazz are attacking the Warriors in the area that they possess the greatest size advantage -- inside the paint. The Jazz had 50 points in the paint on Monday, more than the Mavericks mustered in any game in the previous series. Again, the Mavs' best efforts in this area came in their two victories. In Game 2 they scored a series-high 48, and in Game 5 they had 40. In the other four games the Mavs mustered only 30.5 points in the points in the paint per game. So these baskets appear to be another strong indicator of success against the Warriors -- 46 per game in their three playoff losses, just 30.5 in their four wins. The offensive rebounds obviously tie in to this, as the follow shots by Boozer contributed to the points in the paint. But the other factor was Williams' ability to attack the Warriors off the dribble. With Golden State fronting Boozer and at times committing multiple defenders to him, the lanes were open for Williams to get to the rim because the help had no chance to arrive in time. Summing it up: The "easy" factor. Here's an exercise that shows just how important Utah's fast-break and paint points were on Monday. For each playoff game by the Warriors, I added their opponents' totals in these two categories for something that I call "easy" points. Obviously, not all these points are "easy," but this category does capture all the layups, dunks, putbacks and other high percentage opportunities a team gets. Also, I should point out there's some double-counting here -- a basket can count as both fast-break points and points in the paint. That said, what's interesting is that the Warriors' own "easy" points hardly vary by game (see chart). Whether a win or a loss, they reliably end up around the low 60s in this category. In fact, the Warriors' second-best tally, 70 in Game 2 against Dallas, came in their worst game of the playoffs. WARRIORS' OPPONENTS IN PLAYOFFS TEAM/SERIES FB POINTS PTS IN PAINT "EASY" POINTS OUTCOME FOR GS Dallas Gm 1 10 38 48 Win Dallas Gm 2 28 48 76 Loss Dallas Gm 3 13 30 43 Win Dallas Gm 4 4 28 32 Win Dallas Gm 5 14 40 54 Loss Dallas Gm 6 14 26 40 Win Utah Gm 1 25 50 75 Loss WARRIORS IN PLAYOFFS TEAM/SERIES FB POINTS PTS IN PAINT "EASY" POINTS OUTCOME FOR GS Dallas Gm 1 24 40 64 Win Dallas Gm 2 28 42 70 Loss Dallas Gm 3 26 52 78 Win Dallas Gm 4 25 32 57 Win Dallas Gm 5 28 30 58 Loss Dallas Gm 6 22 40 62 Win Utah Gm 1 19 46 65 Loss But for the Warriors' opponents, this has been a massive indicator of success. Twice the Warriors gave up 75 or more "easy" points -- the first time in Game 2 against Dallas, the second on Monday against Utah. The next highest total -- 54 in Game 5 against Dallas -- was also a defeat for Golden State. However, in their four wins against the Mavs, the Warriors didn't give up more than 48. Overall, they've allowed 68.3 "easy" points per game in their losses, but just 40.3 in their wins. So heading into Game 2, the implications for Utah are obvious. It seems Golden State is going to get its points regardless, but the important thing for the Jazz is to answer back by attacking the Warriors' weaknesses. This means continuing to run when the opportunities arise, taking advantage of their opponents' lack of size by crashing the boards and working it inside and piling up at least 60 "easy" points via fast-break or points in the paint. If they do those things, the Jazz have a great shot at taking a 2-0 lead going to Oakland. If not, they'll head into the weekend facing the same fate the Mavs did -- needing to win a game in the Warriors' uncommonly hostile arena to regain home-court advantage. John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. To e-mail him, click here.
I love the heart and intensity... but I don't love the random 3 point shooting/small-ball... basically because of who is supposed to be our franchise player for the next 8 years. Boozer can't do anything against the small defenders... and gets called for offensive fouls. The pu$$ification of the NBA is underway...
Actually, I take back my comment... its not really pu$$ification, but more like the death of the true center position. Unless you have Tim Duncan (who's amazingly versatile), you can't afford to build your team just around a big man today. Even Phoenix will struggle with Amare if they don't have Nash to give him constant wide-open shots/dunks.
