Terry Stotts: "It’s hard out there for a pimp"

by Ian Cameron on Apr 25, 2006 3:25 PM CDT Comment 11 comments

Stotts has resorted to pelvic thrusts in order to get his point across. In our never-ending quest to find something remotely controversial about this series, we now bring you Terry Stotts' delusional ramblings. It seems that Stotts has taken issue with the foul disparity in game one of Pistons v. Bucks. When asked if his team was being "treated like an 8th seed," Stotts told Chris Sheridan of ESPN's Daily Dime:

"Yeah, that's about how I saw it," Stotts said. "Them and San Antonio are probably the two most physical teams in the league, yet both of them go to the foul line more than anyone else."

Thankfully, A. Sherrod Blakely is on the case. On his blog today, Blakely pulls back the veil on the Bucks' less-than-credible conspiracy theory.

Here's a little factoid I'm assuming the Bucks totally glossed over since the Game 1 loss.

They came into this series averaging 23.2 personal fouls per game. On Sunday, they committed 25 - and that total includes two intentional fouls against Ben Wallace. In other words, they essentially fouled at the same clip they did during the regular season.

Detroit averaged 18.5 fouls committed per game this season. On Sunday, they were called for 17. That too is pretty close to what they did during the season.

Blakely also touches on Milwaukee's one-dimensional, perimeter style of play. I personally feel that this style directly correllates to their lack of free throws. How exactly do the Bucks plan to draw fouls and earn points at the charity stripe if the majority of their shots are from the perimeter? The Big Canuck, Jamaal Magloire, led the team in free throw attempts during Game 1 not because he took the most shots, but because he was one of the few players consistently in the lane.

A 34-10 advantage in foul shot attempts looks noteworthy; but when you realize that the foul disparity was only 25-17, you can quickly surmise that the Pistons were just more aggressive, and thus drawing more shooting fouls.

Were you wondering what the pimp reference was for? [Yeah, so the title of this post is only loosely related to the content. Did you really expect me to just wait around until an opportunity to squeeze in a "pimp" reference arose? But if you really want me to tie in the whole "pimp" theme, check out this photo of Stotts back in the day. Now that, my friends, is pimpness personified.]

Bucks not crying foul, yet [ESPN]
Update from Pistons practice... [MLive]

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That’s hilarious. Hack-a-Ben and then complain that the Pistons got too many FT attempts.

You have to give Stotts style points for creativity.

by TheMicrowave on Apr 25, 2006 5:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

My personal favorite is whenever T.J. Ford takes a dump in a game and then Stotts says afterwards:

“We just weren’t very successful at creating good shots tonight for whatever reason”

A 40 year old veteran coach scared of a 95 pound mediocre point guard; classic. We need to bring in Paul Silas to teach these guys to beat somebody up FOR REAL.

by Sam on Apr 25, 2006 6:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

More complaining from Stotts and Redd today:

“It’s hard, as much as Rip was holding and grabbing,” Milwaukee coach Terry Stotts said Tuesday.

…

Milwaukee’s first-year coach insisted he was not trying to send a message to the officials before Game 2 on Wednesday.

“But I did think that Michael was being held and grabbed a lot,” Stotts said. “I’m just stating what I saw.”

…

“Grabbing, holding, crowding, everything,” Redd said when asked what Detroit did to slow him down. “So their focus is on me. It’s no secret.”

…

The Pistons’ response:

What kind of adjustments does Detroit anticipate the Bucks making?

“I don’t have the slightest (idea), but they better come up with something,” Rasheed Wallace said.

by Ian Cameron on Apr 25, 2006 6:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

By the way, the above quotes were from here.

by Ian Cameron on Apr 25, 2006 6:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i’m not impressed with the pistons play. i think wallace is only tough vs the bucs big men .wait till they are matched vs. shag of miami or varejao of the cavs.
the real test will come soon.don’t be too full of yourselves

by coach on Apr 25, 2006 6:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

coach: Is Sideshow Varejao supposed to be tough? That’s news. And haven’t the Pistons ended Shaq’s season the past two years?

by Matt Watson on Apr 25, 2006 7:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Coach—I’ll fully and freely admit to being extremely confident about the Pistons chances in the Eastern Conference, but the Pistons’ performance against those same teams that you mention suggests that I have every right to be. It may come off as overconfidence, but it is grounded in fact.

by Ian Cameron on Apr 25, 2006 8:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Did Stotts win an Oscar or join Three 6 Mafia? That’s funny.

by Fadel on Apr 25, 2006 9:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

What kind of adjustments does Detroit anticipate the Bucks making?

"I don’t have the slightest (idea), but they better come up with something," Rasheed Wallace said.

Classic Sheeeeed!!!

by aRChPoPoY on Apr 25, 2006 10:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No shit! The Bucks need to shut the hell up and play some ball. God, they’re embarrasing themselves with that whining! Anyway, they need to play a tough, competitive game first before any perceived foul disparity is even meaningful. Right now they sound like kamikaze pilots complaining about the condition of their parachutes.

Typical fuckin’ Bucks.

Ty at Bucks Diary

by Ty on Apr 25, 2006 11:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Dang Ty – how do you really feel??

I think the key in the series for the Bucks isn’t Redd (no way the Pistons shut him down that far tonight) but rather Ford doing something with that speed of his. He’s getting brutalized by Billups and needs to make him work if the Bucks are to have any chance.

…and Coach, while Shaq is certainly a test, the only “test” Sideshow Varejao poses is "Can you look at this guy without laughing.

by farlane on Apr 26, 2006 6:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs