Today, we all witnessed something special: we watched a coach other than Don Nelson actively attempt to lose a game.
After choosing to deactivate LeBron and Anthony Parker, Coldstone ended the suspense of an until-then competitive contest between the Cavs’ reserves and the Magic by holding both Mo and Jamison out for the entire fourth quarter.
To that point, both guys had been playing very well. Mo had a 19 point, 9 assist, 50% 3P performance going through 28 minutes. Jamison had 19 points and 6 rebounds in 29 minutes, even shooting 75% FT, which, as we all know, is unheard of since the trade.
Orlando seemed to have no good answer for either of them. Mo clearly believed that he could drive on Jameer Nelson the entire day, and nothing Stan Van Gundy tried against Jamison seemed to have much of an effect—and there was definitely some experimentation involved.
However, with the game very much still up for grabs, Coldstone started the fourth with both men on the bench. The deep reserves took the lead a few minutes into the quarter, but were unable to hold it. Coldstone never brought Mo or Jamison back into the game to try to steal the victory, either. Instead, the Magic were able to barely outplay the reserves and walk away with a shaky 6 point win.
I have incredibly mixed feelings about how this went down.
Like Brian Windhorst, it doesn’t feel right to me to actively hold back almost everything in order to win. Non-competition doesn’t mesh with my personality. It’s not as if the choice was about playing LeBron versus not playing LeBron. It was about putting in guys who, to that point, had played an entirely reasonable number of minutes, were playing well, and could potentially have helped tip the scales in a season series against a hated rival.
However, I also recognize that this is a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation for Coldstone. If he puts in Mo and Jamison, and one of them gets hurt, he gets killed for putting starters out in the final minutes of a meaningless game. (Let’s not forget that this almost happened to Jamison against the Bulls Thursday.) If he keeps them out and the Cavs lose (as they did), he gets grilled for intentionally holding back.
The proponents of this second school would also argue, I think, that the Cavs missed a chance to deal a psychological blow to the Magic. Had they taken this game with Bron, Shaq, and even AP sitting, then maybe the Magic really would’ve felt like they’re in trouble when the Cavs come back at them at full force in the Conference Finals (assuming that match-up ultimately happens).
I don’t want to completely throw out that school of thought, especially since I just wrote a post based on a similar idea last week. But I think there’s a major difference that we have to recognize.
Think about it this way: the Magic, playing in a game that had meaning (in that it could allow them to potentially overtake the Lakers for the overall #2 seed), playing their starters full minutes, getting a monster performance from Da-wight (22 points, 13 reb, 6 blk), had to fight like hell to barely overcome a Cavs team with no LeBron (the best player in the league), no Shaq (the primary player brought in to contain Da-wight Howard), and when it came down to it, no Antawn Jamison (the player they haven’t been able to figure out how to defend), and no Mo Williams (the player who was killing them for 3 quarters despite his epic struggles against them last season). The Magic still only put up 98 points and got practically nothing (6 points on 3-10 FG) from Vince Carter, the guy they brought in to replace Hedo Turkoglu, whom the Cavs were never able to figure out.
This is one where the players interviewed post-game say things like, “We struggled out there today, but all that matters was that we got a win.” That’s the right thing to say, sure. But there’s no way that after it’s said, the player walks back into the locker room feeling good about the potential of seeing the opposing team again at full-strength on a big stage. In that sense, if there was psychological damage to be done in this game, my guess is that it happened regardless of the actual outcome.
In fact, I would actually go one step further. Say Coldstone puts Jamison and Mo back in the game in the second half of the 4th. They run their best offense. They give maximum effort. They show they care about winning…but they lose anyway. Sure, LeBron and Shaq are still on the bench. But that’s a win that the Magic can potentially use to their advantage down the road. They can say, “OK, they weren’t at full force, but we still took their best shot and were able to withstand it.”
In this way, the Celtics game on Easter is a good example. Sure, the Cavs were without Shaq and Andy, but they went as hard as they could to roar back from a 20+ point deficit and nearly take the game. But they fell short. Did that register with Boston as a sobering moment? No, it registered as a well-deserved opportunity to talk shit, pound their chests, to convince themselves that they could beat the Cavs. And I guarantee that they’ll carry that attitude into their next match-up with the Cavs in the post-season, if it happens.
Instead, the Magic have to go back to Orlando thinking, “Crap, they weren’t at full force to begin with, they played the end of their bench in the 4th, basically ran around like a JV team, didn’t even foul to try to extend the game…and we won by two possessions. This is not good.”
To use a basketball analogy, I would equate Coldstone’s strategy to “pulling the chair” on a post player trying to back down a defender. The offensive player readies himself to go up against maximum resistance, finds none, and is immediately thrown off his game. It’s like sucking the oxygen out of a room where there’s a fire.
So while it goes against my own nature to not compete as hard as possible, I ultimately think Coldstone made the right decision. I recognize that’s a controversial opinion, but as usual, we’re not here to cooperate.
-T.
(view comments)
