losing game one

[td4mvp3]

lots of folks have said the spurs need to lose one to take focus off the streak and see how the team does after a loss. how much would it suck for that first loss to be game one, esp with all the percentages of teams winning series when winning game 1? how likely do you think it is that the spurs lose game one?

[Dex]

Good god, this series can't start fast enough...

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs lost game one of a series in a couple of championship seasons.


And they lost game one of a series in a couple of the non championship seasons.


Kawhi, what do you think?

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/04/07/11/1077851/0/628x471.jpg

[Fireball]

I think ist more important to win game 1 ... lets see how Westbrook hits his midrange shots if OKC does trail in a series ... history proves that winning game 1 is a huge step in the right direction

[CitizenDwayne]

Never bought into all the "they have to lose to keep focus" talk. Why not just keep winning?

[Paranoid Pop]

I think we should lose the first 3 games to really put the winning streak behind us tbh.

[SA210]

Never bought into all the "they have to lose to keep focus" talk. Why not just keep winning?

And all the "fear" and "scared" talk too. wtf

[boutons_deux]

lots of folks have said the spurs need to lose one to take focus off the streak and see how the team does after a loss. how much would it suck for that first loss to be game one, esp with all the percentages of teams winning series when winning game 1? how likely do you think it is that the spurs lose game one?

do you really think it will take losing Game1 @ATT of WCF for the Spurs to regain focus? WTF? When did they lose focus? WTF?

[SnakeBoy]

lots of folks have said the spurs need to lose one to take focus off the streak and see how the team does after a loss.

Can you name some of them?

[SA210]

do you really think it will take losing Game1 @ATT of WCF for the Spurs to regain focus? WTF? When did they lose focus? WTF?

Exactly, wtf are people so damn scared about? Superstitious crap.

[FromWayDowntown]

For all the talk about experience vs. youth in this series, it's curiously true that the guys on Oklahoma City's roster have logged more games at this level than the guys on the Spurs roster.

The Spurs have 6 guys who've played in any conference finals games (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Diaw, Jackson, and Bonner); they've combined to play in 87 conference finals games in their careers -- Duncan (29), Parker (21), Ginobili (21), Diaw (6), Jackson (6), Bonner (4).

The Thunder have 10 guys who've played in any conference finals games, and they've combined to play in 109 conference finals games in their careers -- Fisher (50), Perkins (17), Mohammed (7), Durant (5), Westbrook (5), Harden (5), Ibaka (5), Collison (5), Cook (5), Sefalosha (5).

Even if you added in Finals games, the Spurs (collectively) have 62 Finals games (Duncan (22), Parker (17), Ginobili (17), Jackson (6)) while the Thunder have 57 (Fisher (38), Perkins (12), Mohammed (7)).

[tmtcsc]

The streak is going to end sometime. Fans need to remember that. OKC is too good to get swept IMO. I hope the Losss comes on the road and that we maintain HCA and not have to win on the road.

However, if the Spurs take care of business in Games 1 and 2, I think they can take one on the road. Getting up 3-0 would be ideal.

There's a lot of fear out there concerning the Thunder but:

1. We finished the reg. season with the top record in the West and tied for the best in the league.

2. We beat OKC on their floor already and are 8-2 against them in the last 10 games.

3. We are a more complete "team" with more weapons and a better bench. I'll concede that OKC has better scorers than we do, but that can be managed.

4. We have HCA in this series and we have Championship experience AND the better coach.

5. We've won without playing our best basketball. The Clippers could have easily won at least 2 games but we answered their runs with runs of our own and poise.

In the end, the Spurs will win or they won't. Nothing to worry about.

[td4mvp3]

Can you name some of them?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197599

[Jimcs50]

The streak is going to end sometime .

How about game 4 of regular season next year which will be a back end of a b2b, when Pop rests manu and TD?

[td4mvp3]

do you really think it will take losing Game1 @ATT of WCF for the Spurs to regain focus? WTF? When did they lose focus? WTF?

ok, if you want to go all capital letter upset, at least read the post:


lots of folks have said the spurs need to lose one to take focus off the streak and see how the team does after a loss. how much would it suck for that first loss to be game one, esp with all the percentages of teams winning series when winning game 1? how likely do you think it is that the spurs lose game one?

not regain focus on the series or winning, but take focus off the streak. yeesh.

[Budkin]

Pop is making sure they don't even talk about the streak.

[td4mvp3]

Exactly, wtf are people so damn scared about? Superstitious crap.

what superstitious crap? it gets really old posting stuff and having folks project what they think the thread is about. the number of teams who win the series after winning game one is well established and the notion that such a long streak can be a distraction isn't far fetched while a loss seems inevitable and some have said would be beneficial. the thing i'm wondering is how much would it suck for that loss to be game one and if you think they will drop game one? fairly simple post just for discussion, i don't need all the boo-hooing about how fans are too caught up in whatever or wondering why fans of a team are (gasp) acting like fans of a team.

[td4mvp3]

Pop is making sure they don't even talk about the streak.

which is my point: there's attention to the streak even in that silence, like the kid in a WWII photo desperately looking away from the bodies left on the side of the road. them trying so hard not to discuss it only helps underscore it; them trying to keep it from being a distraction is exactly why some have said a loss would be good so there is no longer any need to worry about not talking about something. my question is, would that thinking still hold if the loss is game one?

[Horse]

Sometimes it's about matchups and for whatever reason we recently matchup very well with the thunder which is why we will win! We'll spread the floor and bring ibaka out of the paint I'm not really concerned with perk I think he's overrated too short for Duncan and won't wanna show on the pick and roll. Mainly theres times when they have players who are no threat to score our whole team can score that's where we'll take them.

[OZWIN]

I think they would love to keep the streak going and possibly sweep their way through the finals...that would be history right there. Not going to happen but they are definitely going to play quite hard...I don't see them losing game one.

[wildbill2u]

lots of folks have said the spurs need to lose one to take focus off the streak and see how the team does after a loss. how much would it suck for that first loss to be game one, esp with all the percentages of teams winning series when winning game 1? how likely do you think it is that the spurs lose game one?

Lots of folks? or just your perception of how many other idiots are out there?

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197599

:lol Wrong series. So by "lot's of people are saying" you meant you.

[SA210]

what superstitious crap? it gets really old posting stuff and having folks project what they think the thread is about. the number of teams who win the series after winning game one is well established and the notion that such a long streak can be a distraction isn't far fetched while a loss seems inevitable and some have said would be beneficial. the thing i'm wondering is how much would it suck for that loss to be game one and if you think they will drop game one? fairly simple post just for discussion, i don't need all the boo-hooing about how fans are too caught up in whatever or wondering why fans of a team are (gasp) acting like fans of a team.

I agree it would really suck if we had a loss and if that loss happened to be game 1 or 2. I have that same concern. But I am NOT of the belief that we NEED a loss to refocus is all i am saying. Keep winning as much as possible.

[Aztecfan03]

the notion that such a long streak can be a distraction isn't far fetched

For this team, it is kinda far-fetched.

[td4mvp3]

:lol Wrong series. So by "lot's of people are saying" you meant you.

ok, emoticon aside, when you scroll through that thread you come across folks talking about how losing a game would be good for the spurs.

skip it, i did it for you

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5896957&postcount=7

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5897051&postcount=17

(pop apparently thinking about the streak distraction) http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5897161&postcount=23

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5899373&postcount=84

[Old School 44]

For all the talk about experience vs. youth in this series, it's curiously true that the guys on Oklahoma City's roster have logged more games at this level than the guys on the Spurs roster.

The Spurs have 6 guys who've played in any conference finals games (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Diaw, Jackson, and Bonner); they've combined to play in 87 conference finals games in their careers -- Duncan (29), Parker (21), Ginobili (21), Diaw (6), Jackson (6), Bonner (4).

The Thunder have 10 guys who've played in any conference finals games, and they've combined to play in 109 conference finals games in their careers -- Fisher (50), Perkins (17), Mohammed (7), Durant (5), Westbrook (5), Harden (5), Ibaka (5), Collison (5), Cook (5), Sefalosha (5).

Even if you added in Finals games, the Spurs (collectively) have 62 Finals games (Duncan (22), Parker (17), Ginobili (17), Jackson (6)) while the Thunder have 57 (Fisher (38), Perkins (12), Mohammed (7)).

I don't know what per game minutes he's logging, but Fisher skews the numbers and IMO he's not significant to their team. Remove him then what do you have? Take it a step further and compare each team's big three Duncan (29), Parker (21) and Ginobili (21) to Durant (5), Westbrook (5) and Harden (5). That's 71 to 15! Duncan by himself nearly doubles their total experience.

[Obstructed_View]

Can you name some of them?

Gregg Popovich for one, unless you don't believe Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy as a source. Also wondering how you missed game 4, since that's when it was discussed.

[DMC]

This talk is really fucking stupid. If the Spurs are not focused, they will lose.

[urunobili]

http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/115/7/e/__Jump_Off_a_Cliff___Emoticon_by_neek_zique.gif

[Nathan Explosion]

The 2001 Lakers didn't lose until Game 1 of the Finals. That's 11 straight games in the playoffs (5 game series 1st round). Didn't stop them.

Fact is this, the Spurs are not only chasing a title, they're chasing history here. This run is one of the greatest in history, but the team knows that it means nothing unless they win the title. That's their focus. If the team stays on this tear, they're in competition with some of the greatest teams ever.


On Saturday, they eviscerated the Clippers by scoring 24 straight points in the third quarter, bringing back memories of the '86 Celtics dropping 25 straight against the Hawks in the Eastern Conference Semifinals. The biggest difference: The Spurs did it on the road. The biggest similarity: Everything else.2

2.The Spurs started taking off about six weeks ago, thanks to Kawhi Leonard's continued improvement and R.C. Buford's savvy acquisitions of Boris Diaw and Stephen Jackson. Suddenly they had 10 legitimate guys, giving them something in common with absolutely nobody right now. Also helping: Popovich (the best coach alive), Parker (playing out of his mind), Ginobili (healthy again) and Duncan (who magically transformed from the old Duncan into the Old Duncan). Everything just sort of snowballed. If you're keeping track, the Best Team Ever (the '86 Celtics) won 11 of their first 12 playoff games before the Finals, eight by double digits (two by 25-plus). The Second Best Team Ever (the '87 Lakers) won 11 of their first 12, seven by double digits (four by 25-plus). The Third Best Team Ever (the '96 Bulls) won 11 of their first 12, six by double digits (three by 25-plus). And the 2012 Spurs? They won their first eight, six by double digits (one by 25-plus).

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7960136/the-playoff-eclipse-chronicles

OKC seemed relieved to beat the Lakers, with Durant even talking about how happy they were, while the Spurs just kept downplaying how good they were playing, saying that they accomplished nothing.

That shows focus on the Spurs part.

[silverblk mystix]

I think that there is a pretty decent chance that the Spurs lose one of the first two. There is also a small chance that they drop the first two.

It doesn't scare me at all. I think the Spurs have just as good a chance of bouncing back from a loss or two and winning in OKC.

I think the Spurs win the series but I am already prepared as a fan to see the streak end and the Spurs responding appropriately.

[dmon35]

i like how some people think they know whats best for the players....get the fuck outta here.. what kinda stupid shit is that?....lose game one?...stupid man....the players are CLEARLY not focused on the winning streak...

[Roger Freemason Jr.]

Spurs are not losing a game until the first game in OKC. Then they will adjust, and take the second game in OKC. Then finish it here in SA.

[td4mvp3]

i like how some people think they know whats best for the players....get the fuck outta here.. what kinda stupid shit is that?....lose game one?...stupid man....the players are CLEARLY not focused on the winning streak...

JESUS FREAKING CRIPES, ENOUGH ALREADY! if you're reply starts with the idea that i'm saying the spurs are losing focus on something, you've missed the freaking point. the ONLY thing i mention in regards to focus is that folks have said that losing a game would help take any focus away from the streak, WHICH POP HAS SAID WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

i'm not saying they should lose game one to end that streak focus, i'm not saying the spurs are beating teams so badly that they're losing focus on the task at hand, i'm not saying they're losing focus on anything.

the streak thing has been brought up by the media to the point that, according to some poster, the team doesn't even talk about it. my only reason in bringing it up is that it was the basis for a reason why losing a game would be seen as beneficial. to counter that idea, i wondered if that same idea (losing to end any focus on the streak) would remain as beneficial if that game were the first one given all the historical importance of winning a game one.

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

This talk about the Spurs losing a game because they need a wake-up call (if that's the logic being implied) doesn't make sense. As long as you're winning, why would you need a wake-up call?

[td4mvp3]

This talk about the Spurs losing a game because they need a wake-up call (if that's the logic being implied)

it's not being applied (i think you meant applied, though as i look at it, implied might work just as well in this context).

[TDomination]

Tbh, the best thing that happened to the spurs was going down 24 to the clips in game 3 and having a close game in game 4.

Thats adversity and they got through it. This was their "wake-up call". Spurs don't need to lose to have a wake-up call.

If they lose, it will have nothing to do with their winning streak and everything to do with thunder just playing better for that game.

[Keepin' it real]

I commented in the "tanking game 4 vs. the Clips" thread. I forget exactly what I said and don't care to look it up, but the point was that unless the Spurs go 16-0 in the playoffs, the timing of their first loss will be important. It's more ideal to lose game 4 on the road when you're up 3-0 than to lose game 1 or 2 at home.

Plus, we've yet to see how this San Antonio Spurs team will respond to the adversity of losing a game in the playoffs. Maybe inexperienced players like Kawhi and Green will regress, leading to a poor performance in the following game, leading to another loss, and so on.

I agree with what someone else said awhile ago, that the 24-point comeback game was in some ways as good as a loss because the team faced big adversity on the road and overcame impressively.

Let's hope for similar results when (if) the Spurs lose a game.

[Hoops Czar]

ok, emoticon aside, when you scroll through that thread you come across folks talking about how losing a game would be good for the spurs.

skip it, i did it for you

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5896957&postcount=7

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5897051&postcount=17

(pop apparently thinking about the streak distraction) http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5897161&postcount=23

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5899373&postcount=84

Those quotes were for losing game 4, already up 3-0 against the Clippers. You don't throw a game against an opponent who can flat out beat you. that's ignorant.

[TDMVPDPOY]

thinkn of losing game1, watta fag

[td4mvp3]

Fact is this, the Spurs are not only chasing a title, they're chasing history here. This run is one of the greatest in history, but the team knows that it means nothing unless they win the title. That's their focus.

let me try it this way: if the spurs really are focused on chasing history, then they are, by default, actually focused on the streak (if the streak goes, so too does their bid at history). that the players would be focused on chasing history seems like the problem to pop, based on his feelings about thinking losing a game would be beneficial. so my question remains, would losing a game be as beneficial if that game was game one?