	products recent interviews FastScripts archive about ASAP Sports

Our Clients:

Browse by Sport

Find us on

Subscribe to RSS

Click to go to
Asaptext.com

View our
e-Brochure

NBA FINALS: MAGIC v LAKERS

June 11, 2009

Stan Van Gundy

ORLANDO, FLORIDA: Game Four

Q. You were talking last week just about how the game has sort of changed over the years with the new rules to allow more free flow on the perimeter. Do you think this is a better game now and do you like coaching the game better?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, again, I didn't really coach under the old rules. The rules changed. When I first came into the league as an assistant, though, it was still the old defensive rules where we could lift guys up and you had to stay above the free-throw line and the whole thing. It was a much different game. You had to come all the way to the double-team if you were going to go and all of those things.
As far as whether it's a better game, I mean, I think the game continues to get better. I don't think it's necessarily the rules or not the rules. But my point when I was talking about that is I don't think there's any question it's a tougher game for post players, and that was the point I was making, than it was with the old rules. I would find it hard for any -- I don't think many coaches or players or especially post players would dispute that.

Q. 60 percent of the starters in The Finals this year have no U.S. college basketball experience. Do you find that significant? And what is your opinion of the one-and-done policy?
STAN VAN GUNDY: You know what, we sort of comment on it a lot when we're not just in The Finals but like we'll look out at the start of games and make the point. I mean, it's actually not that rare now that six out of ten guys didn't play in college. So we notice it, we talk about it.
I don't like the one-and-done. First of all, I don't really understand how we get away with that as a league, that we tell a guy out of high school he can't come and play in our league. I don't know how we work that out. The guy should have the right to make a living and to come into our league. And what I really don't like is the way our system is set up. To me, and I know this sounds absolutely ridiculous, but kids should be going to college if at least part of what they want to do is get an education. The way it's set up on the one-and-done, you talk to college coaches, these guys that are one-and-done, they've got to take 12 credit hours their first semester, they have to pass 6. Then they don't even have to attend class in the second semester. To me it's a sham. But I don't want to get going in this press conference on the NCAA because I think that's about the worst organization going, so let's not get going on that one (laughter).

Q. This isn't specific to the Magic and how they play offense, but the three-point shot, do you think there's a stigma still attached to the three-point shot in the sense that some people don't see it as good basketball?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, I do think that there's a significant number of people out there that don't like it, especially when you use it extensively. They think it equates to softness as a team.
And then there's a significant group of people who it just drives them crazy that the mid-range game is disappearing, despite that fact that all you have to do is look at all the numbers and know that about the worst shot your team can get, at least by the league averages, is a mid-range jump shot. The three highest percentage plays in the game by far right now are free throws number one, lay-ups number two and three-point shots number three. So why you would try to build a game around lower percentage plays, I don't know, other than there's some people that just like to watch it, I guess.

Q. Do you feel like you've settled into a guard rotation?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, Rafer playing well and we didn't hit foul trouble. I thought the Pietrus foul trouble in Game 2 disrupted our rotation quite a bit. There's certainly variables in it. I think we were in the rotation the other night, we were playing well, so there was no reason to go to anybody else and nobody was in foul trouble. So you never know what's going to happen on a given night.

Q. What did you expect when you signed Pietrus? And what did you learn about him that you maybe didn't know last July?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, what we had hoped to get is a guy with more size at the two spot who could swing and play three, add to the athleticism of our team, get a guy who could rebound at that position and have the potential to defend at that position with the size and athleticism, and we knew he could make the spot-up three.
I would say that we've gotten exactly what we expected to get with him. The tough part was all the injuries we went through early. But the way he's playing now is I think certainly what Otis expected to get, and me watching film, I agree. I think we knew what we were getting.

Q. Hedo and Rashard, they seem to be somewhat interchangeable players in terms of like their height and their physical makeup, but in terms of athletically and the way that they play defense, what makes you put Rashard on Pau Gasol and Hedo checking at the wing player? What are their defensive dissimilarities?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, Rashard is I think the better post defender. He's the better low-post defender of the two. A lot of times for us he's in this situation, having to play bigger guys. In terms of a playoff series, similar to what we had in Detroit last year with Wallace, McDyess and those guys, where he has to go an entire series against a true power forward. So he's got tough match-ups. But he's a better low-post defender, and Hedo is much more comfortable on the perimeter defending.
So the decision, after watching them just a little while last year, it was actually pretty easy.

Q. I know you're playing the Lakers for two years already and you came in this series off really big wins in Cleveland, but just The Finals opening in LA, was there a we're-in-The-Finals-against-LA thing that you guys had to get over?
STAN VAN GUNDY: I don't really think so. You never know individual guys, but I didn't think so at all. I mean, again, we played so poorly in Game 1, and you know at this level that if you do that in Game 1 and you're a team who hasn't been there before that that's what people are going to say. I mean, again, like I say, and I don't mean to put anybody down, I can write all the stories ahead of time, and then when the result comes you guys just go ahead and file them. So that's the story.
If you're a team that doesn't have Finals experience and you play poorly in Game 1, then you were overwhelmed by the experience. It cannot be that you just played poorly.

Q. The Lakers haven't said so, but their hope was that you could get you in a hole and your shooters would start thinking. You were in the hole, did you have any concerns?
STAN VAN GUNDY: The one thing about our guys that I think I can count on is the fact that they won't think (laughter). I can count on that. That will not be a problem. We are not going to think.
Look, the one thing with our guys, and I am a pain in the ass on a lot of things as a coach, you guys see me on the sideline, and I'm probably too hard on them at times, but I might be the most forgiving guy in the league in terms of shot selection. We play the way we play. I'm not saying I never say anything to guys on a bad shot. It's more for me, though, when they drive the ball. I don't like the shots we're taking at times in this series where we're trying to double-pump, left-handed finish over two seven-footers and we've got people open on the perimeter.
The thing I normally get on them about on perimeter shots is when they pass them up. That drives me crazy, a guy is wide open and doesn't shoot the ball. That's when they'll hear it from me. My thought is especially when you play against the great teams, it's tough to get a good shot. So if you're going to pass up the one we get, you're going to make us get two good shots on the same possession, you're just making it a lot more difficult.
Look, we've had games 5 for 30 from three-point range. That's who we are, and at times it's going to go. I say this from the beginning of the year on: When you're missing those shots, people criticize and write, they settle for too many shots, they need to be more aggressive; when you make them, you talk about how great our ball movement is. That's what it comes down to. We're aware of that and we talk to our team about it.
We play the way we play. We've got to make good decisions. But if what the Lakers are going to take away is stuffing the paint and we end up tonight with 40 three-point shots, that's what we take, and they know we're not going to have a problem with that.
You can say it's wrong. I'm not saying my philosophy is right. I've never won a championship, so I can't say that it's right. But we're going to stick with it, I'll tell you that.

Q. A follow-up to your prior question: You can't plug in what you're going to do tonight but you can write the stories, what's the story tonight?
STAN VAN GUNDY: Well, this one, the Lakers are 6-0 coming off games (losses), so if they come back and win tonight, basically the story is if they win tonight you guys are all going to write the series is over. And if we win it's about our toughness and resilience, and you guys all knew this was going to be a great series all along.

End of FastScripts

ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297