GSH
04-23-2010, 02:21 PM
After last year's first round loss, a lot of people (including some Spurs fans) said that "it wouldn't have mattered" if the Spurs roster had included a healthy Manu Ginobili. The Mavericks, they said, were just too much better than the Spurs - Ginobili wouldn't have made any difference. In the first two games of the playoffs, Manu has 49 points, 9 rebounds, 10 assists, and has made 7-13 from the 3-point line. So how much difference would it have made if he had not been on the floor? One thing is certain: it wouldn't have been a "cake walk" for the Mavs.
This year, the Mavericks made "the best trade ever" according to Charles Barkley, and most analysts believe that this Mavs team is better than last year's team, because of it. And yet, the Spurs are tied at 1-1, and are bringing momentum and the home court advantage back to San Antonio. Without a healthy Manu, we could very well be looking at a first round sweep. With Manu on the floor? Almost all the analysts are now hedging their bets. Nobody... absolutely nobody could suggest that "it wouldn't matter" if Ginobili wasn't playing.
While we're on the subject - how important was it to have Tim Duncan on the floor in Game 2? Without him, the Spurs probably wouldn't have withstood the Mavericks 4th quarter comeback. But it's scary to think of how easily it could have gone the other way. Duncan picked up his third foul with 7:38 in the 3rd quarter. Pop left him in the game until Blair subbed in for him at the 6:09 mark. So what if Tim had picked up just one ticky-tack foul in that minute and a half? As it turned out, Blair struggled, and Pop put Duncan back in the game after just a minute of rest. With four fouls, he would have had to keep Duncan on the bench for a longer stretch. If not, he wouldn't have been able to defend as hard, or be as aggressive in the paint. And there's a good chance we would be down 2-0.
People who say that the refs can't/don't affect the outcome of games are just as deluded as the ones who say that a healthy Ginobili wouldn't have mattered last year. It doesn't take a bunch of calls, or some great conspiracy by the league. Some refs may be influenced by the hometown crowd. Some may let a player's reputation affect their calls, or maybe they just favor one style of play over another. But one or two blown calls can change the outcome of a game and a series. The difference between two playoff-caliber teams is usually not great enough to overcome a big disparity in whistles.
It's worth repeating that in Game 1, the Spurs had more field goal attempts AND shot a higher percentage from the field. When a team leads both of those stats, it's rare for them to lose the game. The last time it happened to the Spurs? Last year's playoffs, against the Mavs. (Note: the Spurs also shot a better percentage from the FT line, and the 3P line. It's almost impossible to lose a game when a team leads all four of those stats.) The Spurs have been dominant enough in the past that they could overcome a big discrepancy in whistles. Unless Splitter is a superstar-in-waiting, those days are behind us. Don't be too quick to look at what happened in Game 1 and say "it wouldn't have mattered".
If the whistle count stays close, and no one else gets hurt? Spurs in 6.
This year, the Mavericks made "the best trade ever" according to Charles Barkley, and most analysts believe that this Mavs team is better than last year's team, because of it. And yet, the Spurs are tied at 1-1, and are bringing momentum and the home court advantage back to San Antonio. Without a healthy Manu, we could very well be looking at a first round sweep. With Manu on the floor? Almost all the analysts are now hedging their bets. Nobody... absolutely nobody could suggest that "it wouldn't matter" if Ginobili wasn't playing.
While we're on the subject - how important was it to have Tim Duncan on the floor in Game 2? Without him, the Spurs probably wouldn't have withstood the Mavericks 4th quarter comeback. But it's scary to think of how easily it could have gone the other way. Duncan picked up his third foul with 7:38 in the 3rd quarter. Pop left him in the game until Blair subbed in for him at the 6:09 mark. So what if Tim had picked up just one ticky-tack foul in that minute and a half? As it turned out, Blair struggled, and Pop put Duncan back in the game after just a minute of rest. With four fouls, he would have had to keep Duncan on the bench for a longer stretch. If not, he wouldn't have been able to defend as hard, or be as aggressive in the paint. And there's a good chance we would be down 2-0.
People who say that the refs can't/don't affect the outcome of games are just as deluded as the ones who say that a healthy Ginobili wouldn't have mattered last year. It doesn't take a bunch of calls, or some great conspiracy by the league. Some refs may be influenced by the hometown crowd. Some may let a player's reputation affect their calls, or maybe they just favor one style of play over another. But one or two blown calls can change the outcome of a game and a series. The difference between two playoff-caliber teams is usually not great enough to overcome a big disparity in whistles.
It's worth repeating that in Game 1, the Spurs had more field goal attempts AND shot a higher percentage from the field. When a team leads both of those stats, it's rare for them to lose the game. The last time it happened to the Spurs? Last year's playoffs, against the Mavs. (Note: the Spurs also shot a better percentage from the FT line, and the 3P line. It's almost impossible to lose a game when a team leads all four of those stats.) The Spurs have been dominant enough in the past that they could overcome a big discrepancy in whistles. Unless Splitter is a superstar-in-waiting, those days are behind us. Don't be too quick to look at what happened in Game 1 and say "it wouldn't have mattered".
If the whistle count stays close, and no one else gets hurt? Spurs in 6.