Angst at 40-12

[Rummpd]

Looking at the posts last 10-14 days:

All is negative in Spurs land these days and it goes beyond injuries and moves of other teams that tend to be over-blown in importance (Mourning at this stage is not a R. Wallace before that is brought up).

Lets all be realistic we have a 40 and 12 team that is very da*# good. We are rooting for a team that has lost 1 friggin game at home all friggin year (how spoiled is that?) and has relatively few road games left this year after a probable win tonight in its quest for the top seed.

One other reality is who could of honestly thought we would (for all practical purposes catch the Suns with still about 30 games to go for both teams?

Stay optimistic - why the real reason is that Manu and Parker are both proving to better than last year. At different times both Manu and Parker have been absolutely the best player on the court in big games. How often until this year could you say that about anyone other than Tim in his era.

Ok, Duncan he has been struggling some, but all is relative, still near top in blocks, rebounds and any measure of effectiveness statistically during time on floor. Most importantly, it is my strong belief that Duncan will be there again strong by the end of the season.

Plus unlike last year's glaring weakness = we have a darn good reserve PG, and at least two other fairly reliable scorers off the bench in Brown and Barry. We still have one of the best shut down men in the game "Pirrahna Bowen".

We have Horry, Rose, Massenburg and yes we even have Rasho who is better than all but a handful of centers in the game, at least defensively.

Finally, we have the coach that we all sometime diss, Pop, yet the NBA players rated him number uno.

Again, lets stay positive - if the Spurs shake things up so be it, but if not, this team is more than primed as is to contend and still win the championship, this year, next year and beyond.

MadDoc

[bigzak25]

very nice positive post Doc.

it's championship or bust, we hold the team to a higher standard than most fans in the nba do with theirs these days...but it's natural for fans to bch/moan about the perceived weakest links.

Pop will get the guys rested. i'm just praying for health, and our Spurs will be there in the end. :smokin

[GoSpurs21]

whining is 2nd biggest past time in SA, slightly behind driving through low water crossings during flash floods

[FilSpursFan]

They are 34-18 at this point in 2003-'04 and 36-16 in 2003-'03. So there's nothing to worry about..

[exstatic]

Now it's all about angst at 41-12. :lol

[travis2]

whining is 2nd biggest past time in SA, slightly behind driving through low water crossings during flash floods
:lmao

[boutons]

"36-16 in 2003-'03"

That season is the measure I use to measure last year's and this year's Spurs, since there's enough common players to make the measurement reasonable.

Looking only at the overall record is not sufficient, it's actually pretty dumb, but ignorance is bliss, just ask the Plant-in-Chief-of-the-US.

The 04 and 05 teams are not nearly as tough on the road as the 03 Spurs. And if you look at road records after 1 Jan and against top teams, you see just how tough and dominant the 03 Spurs were vs the 04 and 05 Spurs.

btw, in 03, it was at the all-star break where Manu's ankle, badly sprained in the 02 Worlds, allowed him to start being Manu. "the rest is history". If was also at the ASB, where the 04 Pistons pickedup Rasheed, which the consensus has put the Pistons over the top.

Pointing out such (inconveniant) facts is not whining. Whining is bitching about "talent", "no second star", "Pop/RC/small-market sucks", "Rasho/Brent/Devin/Tony sucks" which you NEVER see me doing.

So, yes, I have real angst at 41-12. These Spurs aren't very tough where toughness is most tested, on the road.

Suns continue to play consistently well, and Pistons have begun playing Championship ball again. The Rockets are gelling, scoring, and playing very well.


So what could be 41 -1 2 angst be based on? This:

Road Record after 1 Jan against Playoff Teams
============================================

Jan
Sun 2 @ Sacramento L 81 - 86
Sat 15 @ Houston L 67 - 73
Fri 21 @ Phoenix W 128 - 123
Sun 23 @ Sacramento W 103 - 73
Mon 31 @ Seattle W 103 - 84

Feb
Thu 3 @ L.A. Lakers W 103 - 91
Wed 9 @ Washington L 87 - 95
Sun 13 @ Miami L 92 - 96
============================================

Spurs 4 - 4, a MUCH more important measurement than 41 - 12.

Road Games remaining against Playoff Teams
=================================
Feb
Mon 28 @ Cleveland

Mar
Wed 9 @ Phoenix (2nd of B2B)
Sun 20 @ Detroit (Tim doesn't like afternoon games)
Wed 23 @ Indiana (playoffs? but they usually play us tough)

Apr
Thu 7 @ Dallas (2nd of B2B)
Mon 18 @ Memphis
============================================

Spurs best possible road record agasint playoff teams: 10 - 4

So what's your prediction?

Will these Spurs toughen up on the road as indication of playoff readiness?

[td4mvp21]

Well there is a variety of things that could happen.

1. The Spurs of the past two years got it going on the road in the latter part of the season. They beat the best of the best on the road like Dallas, Lakers, Sacramento,etc. That could happen this year and that is a good sign that we will be ready for the playoffs. Our current road record isnt bad but its not great. We do need to be more consistent.
2. We could continue to struggle on the road and end up with just an average road record. This does worry me a little, but the Pistons of last year ended the season with a 23-18 road record. Not awful, but definitely not great. In the playoffs, they went 6-4 and still won the championship.

So no matter what our road record is, we shouldn't list that as a definite problem in the playoffs.

[boutons]

"Pistons of last year ended the season with a 23-18 road record"

Stop looking at overall (road) record, but only the road record:
1) after 1 Jan,
2) against playoff teams.

In the case of the 04 Pistons, the Pistons team and season was significantly impacted by the arrival of Rasheed at the ASB, as was the 03 Spurs with the 100% health of Manu at ASB.

Now come back with the Pistons 04 road record in those constraints.

[exstatic]

Oh, please. You rip the Spurs when their long distance shooting isn't on. Seattle deserves the SAME treatment, not your excuses.

[Solid D]

You can get yourself in trouble comparing this team too much with the last Spurs' Championship team (2002-03). David Robinson was on that team.

This team has it's own look and feel. Much better passing and movement. Not as good defensively as in 2002-03, especially when they go "small".

The Spurs have the luxury of finishing the remaining 29 games with 17 at SBC Center and 12 on the road. Unless one or more of the Big Three has to sit due to injury, 60 Wins + is the easy projection.

I agree that Spurs fans should relax a bit and enjoy watching the growth of the team. Securing home court advantage should be important considering they are 24-1 at home. It will not be easy as several West teams could get hot and do the Spurs in.

It's not "igorance" to be a little more grounded emotionally...particularly when it comes to the Spurs and not trying to drive through high-water crossings. :hat (hilarious comment GoSpurs21 )

[DuncanMVP]

we better go 30-0

[boutons]

"You rip the Spurs when their long distance shooting isn't on."

oh please, get your fucking info straight, as you struggle to understand what my observations are.

I complain about the Spurs when they shoot around, or under 40%, (league worst is 41% (Hornets)), vs Spurs avg of 47%. The Sonics shot a very solid 49%, equalling Heat's league best, and above their own FG% avg, and did solidly in all stats but 3G. So there's nothing to complain about the quality of Sonics game in the GS loss.

I never complain about a Spurs loss if the Spurs game quality were where the Sonics was vs GS. Which is why I didn't complain about the Spurs loss @POR, since it was a "good" loss, the Spurs played a very solid game, and it took a season-best, extraordinary effort from POR, and esp Miles' 17 4th qtr pts, to beat the Spurs.

[Ballcox]

I love this team, just like I love every Spurs team I've watched since I began following the Spurs. I've enjoyed watching them carve our their own identity as a team (still a work in progress). I've enjoyed wathcing guys like Manu and Parker really step their games up and complement Duncan even more. Hell, I've even enjoyed watching Rasho throw up those ugly ass hook shots he has! What I want to see the rest of the way is for Duncan to step his game up and lead this team on a 29 game run that puts us as the #1 seed in the West, to me that opens the door to the championship. I don't want to go into the WCF with the Suns as the #1 seed, that worries me.

respect the 'fro :fro

[BigVee]

Let's see, in the playoffs, split on the road and win at home? Sounds like a championship to me.

[td4mvp21]

You can get yourself in trouble comparing this team too much with the last Spurs' Championship team (2002-03). David Robinson was on that team.

This team has it's own look and feel. Much better passing and movement. Not as good defensively as in 2002-03, especially when they go "small".


Exactly. I know its really easy to compare those teams, and I do it all the time, but we do need to realize that this team is different from most Spurs teams in the last several years. We may stay good on the road and get better, or we may not. And Boutons, I was using the Pistons as an example that you dont have to have a great road record to win the championship.

[TwoHandJam]

Our road record after January is a good indicator to look at but I think the root variable in our playoff fate starts and ends with Tim Duncan.

It's no secret that Tim hasn't been healthy for much of the year and that's a huge concern. On the flip side, the team has matured and they've managed to put together the best start in franchise history with Tim averaging career lows. Bottom line, if Tim can get healthy and return to form for the playoffs, I really like our chances. If he continues playing at the current level, our title chances are considerably diminished.

[Solid D]

Spurs averages in:
Season...Asst..Opp Asst..Diff...TOs
2004-05 22.6 ... 16.4 .. +6.2 13.6
2003-04 20.4 ... 17.3 .. +3.1 14.7
2002-03 20.0 ... 19.0 .. +1.0 15.8
2001-02 20.0 ... 18.8 .. +1.2 14.4
2000-01 21.7 ... 19.7 .. +2.0 14.0
1999-00 22.2 ... 20.3 .. +1.9 15.0
1998-99 22.0 ... 18.8 .. +3.2 15.2

Current Season
Championship Season

[TwoHandJam]

Spurs averages in:
Season...Asst..Opp Asst..Diff...TOs
2004-05 22.6 ... 16.4 .. +6.2 13.6
2003-04 20.4 ... 17.3 .. +3.1 14.7
2002-03 20.0 ... 19.0 .. +1.0 15.8
2001-02 20.0 ... 18.8 .. +1.2 14.4
2000-01 21.7 ... 19.7 .. +2.0 14.0
1999-00 22.2 ... 20.3 .. +1.9 15.0
1998-99 22.0 ... 18.8 .. +3.2 15.2

Current Season
Championship Season
Solid, the numbers you present are a good indicator of how great these current Spurs are but again, it's all about the competition. The figures in both '01 and '04 are very respectable yet we lost to better Laker teams during those years.

Boutons makes a valid point when speaking of road records against playoff teams. You have to beat the best to be the best. Averages consider all teams including the mediocre and the bottom feeders and can be misleading.

[boutons]

"You can get yourself in trouble comparing this team too much with the last Spurs' Championship team (2002-03)"

I'm in no trouble, thanks for your concern. :)

I'm not comparing the two Spurs teams directly. I'm measuring each team, as a "black box" (not team style, not player-to-player, etc), in terms of its results as a team in the season against its playoff competition.

The 03 Spurs were 7-5 on the playoff road.

The 04 Pistons were 6 - 4 on the playoff road.

The 04 Spurs, up 2-0 in the series, then went 0-3 on the road vs Lakers.

I am not claiming that my metric "road record after 1 Jan against playoff teams" is in any way infallible, but it's a hell of a lot more meaningful than overall record (ie, Nov/Dec is meaningless, non-playoff teams is meaningless), and is a useful way to look at the season results as indication of playoff expectations. It's just not very probable that a team that has mediocre season record on the road against playoff teams will suddenly turn it on and take the Title, which requires the champs to win probably 7 - 10 playoff games on the road, out of a total 16 playoff wins for the title.

eg, I used to pound on Poohcer last spring about the Top3 EC teams, DET, NJ, IND, going a perfect 0 - 12 on the road against the top4 WC teams. But DET + Rasheed ended up winning it all.

[Solid D]

Yes, TwoHandJam, the Spurs defense had varying degrees of effectiveness over the years, also. I chose the Asst. Opp. Asst. Differential and Turnovers categories because those are areas that make this Spurs team distinctive to other Spurs teams. The Differential number shows that against all present-day competition, they are stellar.

I just cannot tell you how important that TO number is and it seems to be getting lower as the season progresses. When they don't focus on 1 hub of the offense, the TOs go down, plus this is a truly great passing ballclub.

[wildbill2u]

whining is 2nd biggest past time in SA, slightly behind driving through low water crossings during flash floods

Heard around here: The sky is falling. Trade everyone. Duncan is dogging it. Fire Pop. Bring in five superstars to fix the obvious failings of this team.

Did I miss anything? Idiots! :pctoss

[TwoHandJam]

eg, I used to pound on Poohcer last spring about the Top3 EC teams, DET, NJ, IND, going a perfect 0 - 12 on the road against the top4 WC teams. But DET + Rasheed ended up winning it all.That anomaly can be mostly attributed to 2 things:

1) Karl "Laker glue" Malone went down.

2) Series was officiated in such a way that a lot less handchecking and reaching in was allowed to the Lakers when they tried to pack the paint. The Lakers were really blindsided by this since the refs allowed them to be very physical with our guards for the remainder of the series yet in the Detroit series, a foul was called almost every time a Piston drove the lane.

[boutons]

Forget about overall stats. They have the same problem as overall record. They include inflated numbers for the Spurs vs non-playoff teams, where the overall numbers get padded up.

Run the same stats, but only for Spurs games vs playoff teams.

[Solid D]

Forget about overall stats. They have the same problem as overall record. They include inflated numbers for the Spurs vs non-playoff teams, where the overall numbers get padded up.

Run the same stats, but only for Spurs games vs playoff teams.

Perhaps later, unless you have time, but why the discounting of non-playoff teams? Isn't the Spurs performance against "non-playoff" slugs an area of major heartburn and consternation for you? I realize you are trying to make a playoff point here, but why the de-emphasis on record and also-rans, after all your other posts? Just curious.

[Rummpd]

Also for naysayesrs,

Spurs have a very good record vs some probable playoff bound teams. If I am off a game so be it but look at the trend:

Miami 1 and 1
Suns 2 and 0
Sonics 1 and 2
Mavs 3 and 0
Kings 3 and 1
Wiz 1 and 1
Pacers 1 and 0
Pistons 1 and 0
Rockets 0 and 2 (only due to a friggin miracle is this one 0 and 2)
Lakers 2 and 0



16 and 7 Pretty darn good and if you focus on top seeds out West very impressive at 8 and 3. Plus there is no team that they may face that they have already lost a season series too! One has to have realistic expectations for teams!

[boutons]

"Isn't the Spurs performance against "non-playoff" slugs an area of major heartburn and consternation for you?"

Yes, you've been paying attention, others don't. :)

But forget about that perspective because "Spurs losing to shitty teams" is a different issue. We won't see those teams in the playoffs.

A different perspective:

1) Spurs record and stats vs playoff teams, and

2) Spurs record and stats vs playoff teams on the road

[boutons]

"Spurs have a very good record vs some probable playoff bound teams"

Too vague. Use where the WC/EC seedings today:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=2005&group=conference&column=gamesBehind&order=null&seasontype=2

and then tighten it further be removing EC teams that are below EC 1-4 seed today. (eg, we won't see IND, PHI, BOS, CHI, ORL in the Finals).

so, from teams WC 1-8, and EC 1-4, what is our record, on the road? And since Nov/Dec are meaningless, only look at "on the road after 1 Jan".

We know the Spurs are best home team, so all the W's at @SBC are meaningless for this analysis. Spurs (and other teams) are SUPPOSED to win @SBC, and they have.

The whole point of winning the Finals is that you HAVE to win on the road to be champs (ask the 04 Spurs).

So the question becomes :

"What is the Spurs stats and record:
1. against WC 1-8 teams plus
2. against EC 1-4 teams and
3. after Jan1 and
4 on the road ?"

Put all those selection criteria together, then you have a metric the "might" show, removing all the "soft" data, what the the hard-core competitivity of the Spurs (or any other contender).

[td4mvp21]

2) Series was officiated in such a way that a lot less handchecking and reaching in was allowed to the Lakers when they tried to pack the paint. The Lakers were really blindsided by this since the refs allowed them to be very physical with our guards for the remainder of the series yet in the Detroit series, a foul was called almost every time a Piston drove the lane.

Well the Lakers were getting a taste of their own medicine. They got away with that stuff for years. Winning in L.A was VERY hard to do because of the phantom calls and all that favoritism from the refs. Shaq still gets those calls just look at the Heat. I remember watching a game where this one team was called for ridiculous stuff and the Heat got away with everything. The Lakers definitely got a taste of their own medicine from those refs, and could they handle it? NOPE. :nope

As for our record against playoff teams, it is good. Our western conference record (24-8) is the best out of the league. Yes, seven out of those 8 losses are on the road, but, if its meant for us to win it all, we will win those road games in the playoffs. Good teams do get it done at home, however. And if we get HCA for all or most of the playoffs, we will most likely be in pretty good shape.

[boutons]

"Good teams do get it done at home, however."

Well, duh, you don't qualify as a good team if can't win at home.

However, Champions get it done on the road.

[td4mvp21]

Yes, they do. But they arent gonna win every important road game during the season.

[FromWayDowntown]

So the question becomes :

"What is the Spurs stats and record:
1. against WC 1-8 teams plus
2. against EC 1-4 teams and
3. after Jan1 and
4 on the road ?"

Put all those selection criteria together, then you have a metric the "might" show, removing all the "soft" data, what the the hard-core competitivity of the Spurs (or any other contender).

Just for grins:

For the 2004-05 season, current through last night, here are the aggregate standings, given your criteria and including only the 12 teams you count (I've taken the liberty of assuming that by seeds 1-4, you actually mean records 1-4 in the EC, since Boston is technically #3, but doesn't have the 3rd best record):

PNX 2-3 (.400)
SAS 4-4 (.500)
SEA 4-1 (.800)
DAL 2-1 (.667)
SAC 1-2 (.333)
HOU 1-3 (.250)
MEM 2-1 (.667)
LAL 0-5 (.000)
MIA 0-3 (.000)
DET 1-0 (1.000)
CLE 0-4 (.000)
WAS 1-4 (.200)

By the way, I also looked at some past champions using your metric:

2003-04 DET 2-5
2002-03 SAS 9-4
2001-02 LAL 6-9
2000-01 LAL 5-5
1999-00 LAL 7-4

With the exception of the stellar play the Spurs exhibited in 2002-03, it sure doesn't look like a champion needs to do much more than play about .500 or so on the road against playoff quality teams -- that or there is no real conclusion that one can draw from the data.

I guess "Champions win on the road [some of the time at least]."

[BigVee]

The 1987 or 88 lakers lost EVERY road game in the WC semis and finals. Lost all three to the Jazz on the road and all three to the Mavericks on the road. However the won all four at home and advanced to the finals v Detroit...winning one in Detroit and 3 at home to capture the title. By the way, they were a pretty decent team.

[boutons]

"With the exception of the stellar play the Spurs exhibited in 2002-03, it sure doesn't look like a champion needs to do much more than play about .500 or so on the road against playoff quality teams -- that or there is no real conclusion that one can draw from the data."

I never said it was an infallible stat, just that it could be more meaningful than overall record.

Plucking out champions which bad playoff road records is OK, but one would have to look at 20 or 30 years to see if they are exceptions to the rule, or if there even is a rule.

It's interesting that at this point, the EC teams are at the bottom of the list, and the WC teams are at the top.

With the EC #1 Heat at 0-5 (how can you have any serious confidence with a record like that?), you can see why the Heat were explosively happy to beat Spurs last Sunday. It showed the Heat that they could beat the best, at least @MIA. HUGE shot of confidence to the Heat.

[FromWayDowntown]

Plucking out champions which bad playoff road records is OK, but one would have to look at 20 or 30 years to see if they are exceptions to the rule, or if there even is a rule.

Your question had me honestly curious, so I found an answer. Now that we have an answer, you don't think its all that big a deal? Come on.

You act as though I just went through and found a few examples to support a contrary argument. I didn't. I pointed to the last 5 NBA champions. If your point is that NBA champions have to, or at least should, dominate good competition on the road, it would seem to me that such an argument necessarily implies a concern for THIS ERA. The data shows that IN THIS ERA, contrary to your position, NBA champions don't necessarily dominate good teams on the road after January 1.

Now, if you want to talk about a trend, here are the HOME records (under the same circumstances proposed in your earlier metric-- after 1/1, against top 8 WC, top 4 EC) of the past 5 NBA champions:

2003-04 DET 7-2
2002-03 SAS 9-2
2001-02 LAL 10-1
2000-01 LAL 8-2
1999-00 LAL 10-2

Hmmm. No real trend there. :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

It's interesting that at this point, the EC teams are at the bottom of the list, and the WC teams are at the top.

The teams in my earlier list are in order 1-8 of the West teams, then 1-4 of the East. If you put them in order by winning percentage, the list looks like this:

DET 1-0 (1.000)
SEA 4-1 (.800)
DAL 2-1 (.667)
MEM 2-1 (.667)
SAS 4-4 (.500)
PNX 2-3 (.400)
SAC 1-2 (.333)
HOU 1-3 (.250)
WAS 1-4 (.200)
MIA 0-3 (.000)
CLE 0-4 (.000)
LAL 0-5 (.000)

[boutons]

I saw the DET had played only one game, so they're disqualified for "not enough data"

So take off DET, and my point is valid.

[FromWayDowntown]

I saw the DET had played only one game, so they're disqualified for "not enough data"

So take off DET, and my point is valid.

and somehow the 3 games that Dallas, Sacramento, and Memphis have played are worlds more data.

Look, I understand your point, but I'm genuinely amused by how readily you change the criteria to suit your argument.

Since you started moaning about the Spurs "poor play" about a month ago or so, and tried to put some empirical data to it, you've: (1) changed the definition of a "good team;" (2) changed over what periods we should look to see how the Spurs have played against this varying group of good teams; and now (3) resisted the statistical history behind the very thing that you trumpet as a hallmark of champions. What is it?

[boutons]

(1) changed the definition of a "good team;"

people complained about my "too subjective" selection, so I went with numerical WC1-8 and EC1-4

"(2) changed over what periods we should look to see how the Spurs have played against this varying group of good teams;"

well, yes of course. When I started this approach, all I had was records of Nov through early Jan. Now we've got all of JAN and most of Feb, so Nov/Dec is discarded as meaningless since the "real" season is the second half leading up to the playoffs, when dangerous teams gell (eg HOU, DET) who were struggling badly in Nov/Dec.

"and now (3) resisted the statistical history behind the very thing that you trumpet as a hallmark of champions."

How have I resisted anything? People cherry-picking champions as exceptions to say they disprove the proposed generality is BS. That's why one would have to look back 20 or 30 years, but that's complicated by the changes in the playoff format, league expansion, etc.

I perfectl happy with your list. Let's look again later.

Your list is exactly the teams we have to be worried about in the WC, and the only one I think makes any sense in the EC, the Pistons.

[Rummpd]

As a epidemiologist, teacher of statistics in courses, and public health doctor examing the last 5 years of data = DEFINITE TREND, BOUTONS PREDICTED ANALYSIS DOES NOT HOLD WATER (but nice try it was a creative arguement).

Nice work above, the fact is that by this trend, Spurs in fine shape.

I will bet also if you look at teams with the dominance Spurs showing at home and point differential = most will be champions!!!

Home records do matter more I would expect than road, one must take care of that first to get the core wins.

Finally, is there one team this year that truly could raise their game arguebly like the Lakers of last year were feared to do - I don't think so, these playoffs will be a battle and teams like the Spurs and Pistons will be right there at the end, the only potential confounder is a lights out shooting streak by the Mavs or Sonics in my view.

Most probable team to get upset first round in my view = Suns! Watch closely they are not as dominant recently and as the game slows in playoff adios.

[FromWayDowntown]

People cherry-picking champions as exceptions to say they disprove the proposed generality is BS. That's why one would have to look back 20 or 30 years, but that's complicated by the changes in the playoff format, league expansion, etc.

Again, how exactly is going with the last 5 champions "cherry-picking" anything. It's looking at the most recent data available. It's objective, historical data run through your very own criteria.

That the results tend to disagree with your theory provides no meaningful basis for questioning the validity of those results.

I'd gladly engage you over the long haul, too -- you'll obviously have to change the criteria used to undertake the analysis before, say, 1999 (since true Western dominance has been with us only really since 1999). There are other questions, though. If you want to go back more than 20 years, when only 6 teams or fewer made the playoffs in each conference, how would you decide which teams to count? Also, you have made no small point of your disdain for the current state of Eastern Conference basketball, but how do you apply that kind of wholly subjective criteria to other years -- do you not count the bottom 4 in the West between, say, 1988 and 1993? Until you can give me clear criteria that comport with your subjective definition of "good teams," I can't do much to give you any answers.

[boutons]

"could raise their game arguebly like the Lakers of last year"

I don't think the Lakers "raised their game" vs Spurs. They simply, belatedly shutdown the paint (Tim and Tony), which I do give them credit for executing, since not all teams could do it, and the Spurs collapsed, team and coaches, totally unpredictably, riding a 17-game win streak at the point of collapse. ie, it was more the Spurs failure rather the the Lakers "raising" anything the Spurs couldn't beat had they maintained the win streak excellence, and they couldn't beat the Lakers @Staples.

[Solid D]

"could raise their game arguebly like the Lakers of last year"

I don't think the Lakers "raised their game" vs Spurs. They simply, belatedly shutdown the paint (Tim and Tony), which I do give them credit for executing, since not all teams could do it, and the Spurs collapsed, team and coaches, totally unpredictably due to riding a 17-game win streak at the point of collapse. ie, it was more the Spurs failure rather the the Lakers "raising" anything the Spurs couldn't beat had they maintained the win streak excellence, and they couldn't beat the Lakers @Staples.

They changed their strategy and played more physical defense and played with more effort than in the 1st two games. Whatever you want to call it, boutons. Give them some credit for coming back hard at the Spurs with a sense of urgency. The Spurs were averaging 43 ppg in the paint in the 1st two games and they averaged 26 ppg in the last four games. It takes effort to play strong D and contest shots. Give the Lakers credit.

[boutons]

I give LAL as little credit as possible, but they did execute the "no paint" very well, esp in the face of SA's total non-response.

And as I said Sunday, it's very worrisome that Heat killed the Spurs in the paint, 48 - 34, not exactly the same as LA tactic, but is a bad indicator about the vulnerability of these Spurs to anybody who really defends the paint well.

[Solid D]

That's why you have to have guys that can move, pass, and most importantly - hit shots.

[Rummpd]

The Heat now with Shaq and Mourning may always slightly dominate in paint, that is why our strategy should begin and end with stopping Wade and Jones, shut them down give Shaq his points = win.

It was Wade that won game. Also, the differential was increased by the fact Duncan was hurt, Rose did not play, Rasho was cold etc.

Also, how are points in the paint calculated Tim got a lot of FTS from being clobbered ni paint and would have scored?

[boutons]

"got a lot of FTS from being clobbered ni paint and would have scored"

Exactly the same situation for Shaq. He got 16 pts on FGs (Heat had 48 paint points, so SA's paint defense was horrendous) and then 11/19 FTs.

btw, Mourning is not on the NBA player roster. When is he supposed to sign with Heat? It is sure he feels healthy enough to play through the toughest part of the season and playoffs?

[Rummpd]

You make fair points, but the truth is that the Heat game is the only game that the Spurs have layed an effort egg vs. the true top seeds in awhile and Duncan was hurting.

Who knows the impact of Mourning, or if the Pistons will knock them out.