I disagree about the lock-down D part of your post (agree with the rest). Pistons showed some of their best lock down D last night in the last 1/2 of the 4Q. In the quarter overall, they outscored Phoenix 37-22, and had a 20-6 run in the last 6 minutes. It doesn't get any better than that. (22 points a quarter is 88 points a game, pretty good against the Suns).

I guess that some people would like to see us play that way the whole game ("the right way"), but I think that if we had tried, they'd have worn us out, and put a hurting on us in the last few minutes. (If I remember last year's game at Phoenix, I believe that we had a 10-pt lead in the 4Q and lost-could be wrong).

I'd like to do a statistical analysis of points given up in the 4Q (maybe only in games that were close after 3Q) last year when we played D on every posession, versus this year, where we've toned it down and focused on O for the first three quarters. Bet we have better D down the stretch this year.

Right On

Although this opinion of not playing all out defense for 4 quarters appears to be growing popularity, I couldn't disagree more. I think these are conditioned athletes that should run hard and play agressive defense the entire game. If they are unable to keep up the intensity then they need to be subbed out for someone who can. The Stones' should never intentionally keep the "D" down a notch. If we can grow a lead early we do nothing but insure more minutes from our bench. Although close games are entertaining to watch, I want us to continue to try to knock the other team out in the first round if we have a shot. I'm all for change of pace to disrupt the "O" but intentionally playing moderate defense for the purpose of conserving energy to me is ludacris.

__________________
Got Jokes?

We never can put lock down D on PHX for any extended period of time. I believe most of it is because they play a different kind of style then anyone else in the league. For example on the fast break instead of their wings going torward the basket they float to the three point line. It is easy to work on in a series, but not for one game in the middle of other games. However, I am a little concerned by the lack of blocked shots lately.

One thing I am glad 2 see is Billups dishing out the ball so well. Also, if we are going to continue to roll, Sheed needs to put up 16-20 a game. Instead of those 6-8 point games.

Also in response of the poster who said they were surprised that Darko did not play any, you most consider who we were playing. Its hard to keep a 7 footer on the floor against PHX unless he is very athletic. I am a HUGE Darko fan but this would be a bad game for him to get some burn. However, Portland is perfect.

I do disagree. I think that we've got the most well-conditioned atheletes in the league, but trying to maintain the all-out D paradigm is a good deal of the reason that we lost last year's title. Guys were just too tired (especially Prince) to finish the season strong. I realize that in theory the bench should have been better developed last year to handle the work-load, but the painful fact is that we just didn't have a lot of really good defensive subs, and if they could play solid D, they brought very little to the O end. Opening it up for three quarters in fact makes it a lot easier to get the Delfino's, Arroyos, etc. into the games (who can hang with other teams on O, and should be able to keep the games close), and keeps the starters fresh to dominate in the fourth. Also, I think that the notion that we can't build big leads without playing smothering D is not correct. 70% of the teams in the league we will kill just based on offensive talent. No need to play 88-80 games against Charlotte and Atlanta. Doesn't serve a purpose.

I think that this All-D all-the-time strategy is also bad for the long-term prospects of the team. In addition to players careers being lengthened by keeping them fresh, more top-quality FAs will want to sign on with Detroit if it is less a grind to play here. It really is a tough thing to find the guys to fit into the system. Some flexibility in the system will only help long-term.

I really fell for this idea watching the Spurs last year. They played some awesome O for most of the game, then were able to crush teams in the final moments, with no apparent downside.

The proof, I think is in the players faces. Instead of the grimmacing cold stares of serial killers they had in years past, they look like they're really having fun. I'm having fun too.

But the Spurs actually held opponents down to less points than the Pistons did last year.

2004-2005 season

Spurs PF - 96.2 PA - 88.4
Stones PF - 93.3 PA - 89.5

So what is this reserved "D" that you are talking about. Seems to me that they made the conscious effort to shut down teams for the entire 48 as well. Statistically, they actually did a better job than we did. The difference was that when San Antonio wanted/needed to score it didnt look as painful as it did for the Pistons. The Spurs actually beat the Suns playing fast break basketball....but coupled with their staggering defense.

Besides, when the Pistons won the championship with their bench two years ago they played in all out full court press defense all the way to a championship. The starters were not playing the gluttony of minutes they did in 2004. Now, I see your arguement if the intent this season is to remain with a shortened rotation, but we are not going to be doing that this year. Flip likes to use his bench and our bench happens to have alot of promise. Because of this we have the luxury once more to try to keep up the intensity for the entire game. Ron Harper spoke about the difference between a champion and a dynasty. He said that dynasty teams show intensity all the time. They are relentless. We need to have that same passion and trust in our bench to keep the intensity up when the starters are getting rest.

__________________
Got Jokes?

The reason the suns scored so much is becuse we didn't take care of the ball, especially in the first 3 quarters and it wasn't because the pistons had bad defense. our defense stepped up when we didn't turn the ball over. I'm almost 100% sure i'm right on this.

A point guard does not have to score a point or get an assist to be doing his job. His job is to control the game. Forget individual plays. Did we turn the ball over a lot? Were we getting good shots? Was the other team getting a lot of fast break points? Did the ball get up the court quickly and did we get into our offensive sets in time for the offense to be effective. The answers were all positive in regards to Arroyo. My negative comments about Evans were from his first half play, not the 2nd half.

I can't catch everything the first time I watch a game,which is why I generally watch each game twice. But while I missed mentioning Evans getting those rebounds, you are forgetting to give credit for Arroyo for being a solid guy bringing the ball up and setting the plays up. Contribution minimal? Who else was going to do his job? Did you expect Billups to play the entire game? Doing a solid job as the point is a big contribution, whether you believe it or not. Just see what happens to teams who don't have a 2nd capable point to come in for their starter. Pretty ugly in many cases. I will leave it up to the next guy to mention as many cases as they wish. Should not take a lot of thought.

During regulation periods of the 3 games the Spurs had with the Suns last year, San Antonio averaged 109 points to the Suns 104 (pretty amazingly close to Detroits 111-104 game last night). The Suns scored an average of 24 points (96 ppg average) per 4th quarter of those games, meaning that they averaged 27 points per quarter the rest of the game (108 ppg average). I don't know if this holds for the rest of the Spurs efforts, but against the Suns, it suggests that they coasted on D until the 4rth quarter, then turned on the D.