McDonald: Complete game still eluding Spurs

[duncan228]

Complete game still eluding Spurs (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Complete_game_still_eluding_Spurs.html)
Jeff McDonald

Over the past two weeks, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich has learned much about the heart of his team. He has observed in his players a mettle, moxie and competitive streak affected neither by blown leads nor big deficits.

Whether it be the Spurs' response to a squandered 22-point lead against Charlotte, a 20-point second-half deficit at Phoenix or twin third-quarter nightmares against Utah or Indiana, Popovich has catalogued plenty of evidence of his team's resolve and resiliency.

To which he says: Enough already. He gets the point.

“The real bottom line is we're still an inconsistent team, and we have a long way to go,” Popovich said. “We give away quarters, and we have to dig down. It's great to see we have character, and we're going to keep fighting, but that's not going to be good enough against the big boys.”

The Spurs have won five of their past six games but haven't put together a consistent, four-quarter performance over that span. The third quarter seems to be a particularly persistent plague.

In Saturday's victory over Indiana, the Spurs went from 13 points up to 13 down, in part due to a dreadful third quarter in which they were outscored 38-20. They had to rally in the fourth and get a Tim Duncan putback dunk with 4.6 seconds left to eke out a 100-99 victory against a sub-.500 Pacers team playing without leading scorer Danny Granger.

It was a familiar third-quarter refrain for the Spurs, who were outscored 37-19 in that frame in a 104-101 loss at Utah on Dec. 7 and 29-13 against Charlotte on Dec. 11, in a game they wound up winning in a rout anyway.

The third isn't always the Spurs' cursed quarter. In a 116-104 loss at Phoenix last week, their lone defeat since departing Utah, the Spurs were outscored by 15 in the first half, then used a 32-22 third quarter to briefly claw back into contention.

“We're doing a good job of playing well for about 70 percent of the game,” forward Richard Jefferson said. “The other 30 percent is just terrible. We have to keep working on that, and hopefully things will get better.”

That ongoing quest for a complete game resumes tonight at the AT&T Center against the Los Angeles Clippers, a team that has witnessed the Spurs' propensity to go from Jekyll to Hyde to Jekyll again firsthand.

Eight days ago at the Staples Center, the Clippers fell into a 25-point first-half hole against the Spurs, whittled the deficit to seven early in the third, then proceeded to get blown out, 115-90.

The Spurs actually won the third quarter in that game, 22-19, then blew the game apart with a 27-15 fourth.

This, too, is something of a trend. The Spurs have been as good in fourth quarters lately as they have been bad in thirds. Against Indiana, Utah and Charlotte, they followed horrendous third quarters by winning the fourth by an average of 13 points.

Against the Pacers, the Spurs enjoyed a 30-16 advantage in the final frame and needed every point.

“The third quarter, we said we wanted to come out with intensity and come out and try to keep the lead, and we did the exact opposite,” guard Roger Mason Jr. said. “The fourth, we brought the juice. That's really what was missing.”

Whether by missing juice, missed shots or missed defensive assignments, the Spurs realize they can't continue to play with fire this way. Their most recent third-quarter implosion was alarming only because it had happened before.

“It can't keep happening,” Mason said. “We can't keep digging ourselves holes like that.”

The Spurs don't mean to keep proving to their coach how well they can handle adversity. It just sort of keeps working out that way.

[HarlemHeat37]

This really does seem to be the case..there's always something missing in every game..

One game the team plays great D, but it's mixed in with turnovers and a lot of missed shots..the next game the offense is on fire, but we can't play D and miss a bunch of FTs..one game everything is going good except there's a 100 turnovers..

I haven't seen too many games this season where everything was clicking..the potential is there..we see it when the team builds 20-point leads..and then we see the bad side when they quickly blow those leads by turning it over and going through massive droughts..

it doesn't help when some of our best players are struggling though..that's the main reason for the inconsistency..

[DPG21920]

I have made this observation all year to people I discuss the Spurs with. It is very evident and I am still waiting to see the complete game and product. Could still be a while.

[ElNono]

Barring major injuries to our top players, I honestly think we'll get there.
It's very frustrating at times, but the talent is there and as puzzling sometimes Pop can be, whenever he had the talent at hand, he made it work.

[Chieflion]

There is really no such thing as a complete game, though we can dream.

[HarlemHeat37]

I don't think we can get to the level we want the Spurs to get at if Parker doesn't get a good rest TBH..at least IMO..

[Spursmania]

it doesn't help when some of our best players are struggling though..that's the main reason for the inconsistency..


This.

[dbestpro]

So the Spurs are playing good 70% of the time and stink 30% of the time. Let's see, Pop likes to play small ball about 30% of the time. Hmm. I wonder what he could do to fix things.

[Chieflion]

So the Spurs are playing good 70% of the time and stink 30% of the time. Let's see, Pop likes to play small ball about 30% of the time. Hmm. I wonder what he could do to fix things.
I see nothing wrong with small ball. When used right, it is damn effective. The Spurs basically beat the Pacers in the 4th quarter with small ball.

[dbestpro]

How far do you really think the Spurs will get playing small ball. Think Finley will guard Gasol. Yeah, lets put RJ on Nene. You might win a game with the right matchup, but historically we have tanked everytime Pop plays small ball. Oh, and by the way Pop was playing small ball during the infamous 3rd quarter.

[Chieflion]

How far do you really think the Spurs will get playing small ball. Think Finley will guard Gasol. Yeah, lets put RJ on Nene. You might win a game with the right matchup, but historically we have tanked everytime Pop plays small ball. Oh, and by the way Pop was playing small ball during the infamous 3rd quarter.
I said, when used right, which part of that do you not get? Pop was playing small ball for obvious reasons. Dice sucked, can't close out on Murphy's 3 point shot. Blair camps in the paint so much, him following Murphy would be a big lol. Bonner's injury, whether anyone felt happy or sad about it, threw the team's rhythm off. If Murphy did not get his 5th foul in the 4th quarter, the result of the game would have changed. Nothing is wrong with small ball, it only fails when you use it when the opposing team does not have a 3 point shooting 4.

[Mel_13]

So the Spurs are playing good 70% of the time and stink 30% of the time. Let's see, Pop likes to play small ball about 30% of the time. Hmm. I wonder what he could do to fix things.

The actual number is much less than 30%. If you are going to make an argument, at least check that your supporting "facts" approach the truth.


How far do you really think the Spurs will get playing small ball. Think Finley will guard Gasol. Yeah, lets put RJ on Nene. You might win a game with the right matchup, but historically we have tanked everytime Pop plays small ball. Oh, and by the way Pop was playing small ball during the infamous 3rd quarter.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I have to assume you didn't actually watch the game.

In the infamous third quarter, the Spurs played big for the first 10:54, only going small for the last 1:06.

In the fourth quarter, the Spurs played small for all 12 minutes and outscored Indiana 30-16.

[boutons_deux]

I remember preceding years I commented that the Spurs often play only 3 out of 4 quarters. Pick any qtr, it's a pretty sure bet.

[Chieflion]

The actual number is much less than 30%. If you are going to make an argument, at least check that your supporting "facts" approach the truth.



:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I have to assume you didn't actually watch the game.

In the infamous third quarter, the Spurs played big for the first 10:54, only going small for the last 1:06.

In the fourth quarter, the Spurs played small for all 12 minutes and outscored Indiana 30-16.
+1. Really nothing much I can add. Just that small ball does not equate losing. It is just a myth.

[dbestpro]

The actual number is much less than 30%. If you are going to make an argument, at least check that your supporting "facts" approach the truth.



:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

I have to assume you didn't actually watch the game.

In the infamous third quarter, the Spurs played big for the first 10:54, only going small for the last 1:06.

In the fourth quarter, the Spurs played small for all 12 minutes and outscored Indiana 30-16.

You must have been watching a game from 2005.

[dbestpro]

+1. Really nothing much I can add. Just that small ball does not equate losing. It is just a myth.

Subjective opinion. Fact is we cannot play small ball against a team like LA and expect to win. So, I guess you are happy beating the Pacers of the world by 1 point at home. Good for you.

[dbestpro]

I said, when used right, which part of that do you not get? Pop was playing small ball for obvious reasons. Dice sucked, can't close out on Murphy's 3 point shot. Blair camps in the paint so much, him following Murphy would be a big lol. Bonner's injury, whether anyone felt happy or sad about it, threw the team's rhythm off. If Murphy did not get his 5th foul in the 4th quarter, the result of the game would have changed. Nothing is wrong with small ball, it only fails when you use it when the opposing team does not have a 3 point shooting 4.

OK I get it. You obviously have a love for small balls.

[Mel_13]

You must have been watching a game from 2005.

No.

Are you disputing the facts I cited?

The game logs are readily available. Check them yourself.

The Spurs lost the lead against Indiana playing big. They played small the entire 4th quarter and erased a 13 point deficit.

I get that you don't like smallball. There are plenty of actual facts to support the case for playing big. You should use them. The facts of the Indiana provide no support for a critic of smallball. Quite the opposite.

[dbestpro]

No.

Are you disputing the facts I cited?

The game logs are readily available. Check them yourself.

The Spurs lost the lead against Indiana playing big. They played small the entire 4th quarter and erased a 13 point deficit.

I get that you don't like smallball. There are plenty of actual facts to support the case for playing big. You should use them. The facts of the Indiana provide no support for a critic of smallball. Quite the opposite.

You have to quote facts to have someone dispute them. You have made a subjective point of view. I dispute your subjective point of view.

[Indazone]

Sounds like an energy issue to me. Rockets used to blow third quarters too until RA figured out how to use his bench. The third qtr belongs to the Rockets now. You need to put Blair out there for the entire third with Manu, McDyess, Hill and Ginobili.

[Mel_13]

You have to quote facts to have someone dispute them. You have made a subjective point of view. I dispute your subjective point of view.

What is subjective about what I wrote?

I stated that they played big for the first 10:54 of the third quarter, then played small for the rest of the game. They lost a substantial lead while playing big and then overcame a substantial deficit while playing small. Those are facts which can be checked by reference to any of several game logs available online. There's nothing subjective about it.

As opposed to your wild guess that the Spurs have played small for about 30% of the season or that the Spurs played small for the "infamous" 3rd quarter. Those two statements are pure fiction, refutable by reference to official records of the actual games.

[dbestpro]

What is subjective about what I wrote?

I stated that they played big for the first 10:54 of the third quarter, then played small for the rest of the game. They lost a substantial lead while playing big and then overcame a substantial deficit while playing small. Those are facts which can be checked by reference to any of several game logs available online. There's nothing subjective about it.

As opposed to your wild guess that the Spurs have played small for about 30% of the season or that the Spurs played small for the "infamous" 3rd quarter. Those two statements are pure fiction, refutable by reference to official records of the actual games.

You quote a time and provide nothing but your subjective opinion thereafter including issues of what consititutes small ball. Pop for an extended period has Blair as his lone big. That is not small ball but utra small ball. It remains my opinion verses yours. You keep referring to records without any specific data. You want everyone else to do your homework for you. Now, go back to school like a good little boy.

[Mel_13]

You quote a time and provide nothing but your subjective opinion thereafter including issues of what consititutes small ball. Pop for an extended period has Blair as his lone big. That is not small ball but utra small ball. It remains my opinion verses yours. You keep referring to records without any specific data. You want everyone else to do your homework for you. Now, go back to school like a good little boy.

You're ridiculous.

You claimed that the Spurs lost the lead by playing small in the third quarter. They didn't. I provided the exact timeframes when they played small and when they played big. You would refute it if you could.

The data is in the game logs.

For the first 10:54 of the third quarter at least two of Duncan, Dice, and Blair were on the court at all times. Big.

For the last 1:06 of the third quarter, and for the entire fourth quarter, only one of those players was in the game at any point. Small.

The lead was lost playing big and the deficit was overcome playing small.

These are facts, not opinions.

Your claims about 30% smallball and losing the lead by going small in the third quarters are bad guesses, not facts. What evidence do you have to support either of those two baseless claims? I'll wait while you try, once again, to misdirect attention away from your utter failure to substantiate either of those supposed facts.

Perhaps you just don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I'll demonstrate for you.

1. Smallball is bad: OPINION

2. Spurs played small in the third quarter of the Indiana game: ASSERTION of fact which can be proven or disproven by reference to the facts. In this case, the facts prove that the statement was false for 10:54 of a 12 minute quarter.

[Indazone]

However they play, all teams big or small in the third quarter, if indeed where there is such a big plus minus discrepency, needs to dive for balls, rebound big and go strong to the hole.

[Danny.Zhu]

It is really frustrating. I think we are lucky enough this season. No injuries for the Big 4 so far.

[dbestpro]

You're ridiculous.

You claimed that the Spurs lost the lead by playing small in the third quarter. They didn't. I provided the exact timeframes when they played small and when they played big. You would refute it if you could.

The data is in the game logs.

For the first 10:54 of the third quarter at least two of Duncan, Dice, and Blair were on the court at all times. Big.

For the last 1:06 of the third quarter, and for the entire fourth quarter, only one of those players was in the game at any point. Small.

The lead was lost playing big and the deficit was overcome playing small.

These are facts, not opinions.

Your claims about 30% smallball and losing the lead by going small in the third quarters are bad guesses, not facts. What evidence do you have to support either of those two baseless claims? I'll wait while you try, once again, to misdirect attention away from your utter failure to substantiate either of those supposed facts.

Perhaps you just don't understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I'll demonstrate for you.

1. Smallball is bad: OPINION

2. Spurs played small in the third quarter of the Indiana game: ASSERTION of fact which can be proven or disproven by reference to the facts. In this case, the facts prove that the statement was false for 10:54 of a 12 minute quarter.

Okay I got your point. You statistically love small balls.

[Mel_13]

Okay I got your point. You statistically love small balls.


Not at all.

I do, however, like facts.

You have made two assertions in this thread which are factually untrue. If you could prove otherwise, you would have done so already. You can't support either of your assertions with reference to readily available sources, so you deflect and change the subject.

Many on this board have made compelling cases against playing small without resorting to complete fabrications. You are not one of them.

[dbestpro]

You sure are whinny. I still have not seen you provide one verifiable fact. You throw numbers around without any proof and want someone else to waist their time looking up the real facts. show me the link to a recognized source that agrees with you data and I will let it go. Other wise your facts remain as made up as your opinion.

[Mel_13]

You sure are whinny. I still have not seen you provide one verifiable fact. You throw numbers around without any proof and want someone else to waist their time looking up the real facts. show me the link to a recognized source that agrees with you data and I will let it go. Other wise your facts remain as made up as your opinion.

You need links to game logs?:lol

Here's one:

http://www.nba.com/games/20091219/INDSAS/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore

Click on the play-by-play tab and read the entries for the third quarter. You know, the "infamous" one. You'll see that the Spurs played big for the first 10:54 until Jefferson came in for Dice. They stayed small for the rest of the game. The lead disappeared while they were playing big, the deficit disappeared while they playing small. That is not my opinion, it's a verifiable fact.

As for your 30% assertion, you clearly made that up or you would have provided some evidence to the contrary by now. All the data needed to calculate the percentage of small ball this year is available on this page:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2010.html

The real number is much less than 30%.

[dbestpro]

One could argue that 6-6 Blair on the court at any time consititutes small ball particularly with 6-9 McDyess. You get a break even on the first link.

Second link proves nothing in regards to small ball and the times it is used. You can't just try and divide minutes and get a substantial answer. Second link s a failure.

That gives you a score of 25%.

[Mel_13]

One could argue that 6-6 Blair on the court at any time consititutes small ball particularly with 6-9 McDyess. You get a break even on the first link.

Second link proves nothing in regards to small ball and the times it is used. You can't just try and divide minutes and get a substantial answer. Second link s a failure.

That gives you a score of 25%.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

So Blair doesn't count as a big? OK, don't think you'll get much support for that POV.

The second link does indeed provide all the necessary data to compute the number of minutes of small ball. The fact that you don't know how to use the data is not surprising. Care to share what your basis for your 30% number was? Didn't think so.

[Blackjack]

It's not quite Chump and K_B_P, but it sure is entertaining.:lol

[dbestpro]

Yeah, I've been pulling his chain for a while now and he just keeps flushing.

[Mel_13]

Yeah, I've been pulling his chain for a while now and he just keeps flushing.

:lol