Spurs are learning how to win close games

[dabom]

That was usually a Spurs weakness these past few years. Kawhi has the "it" factor.

[gambit1990]

i love when the team has the "tony sitting on the bench" factor.

[dabom]

i love when the team has the "tony sitting on the bench" factor.

:lmao

[SpursforSix]

i love when the team has the "tony sitting on the bench" factor.It's got to be mentally devastating to the opponent. To see Parker start and then sit for extended time.

Look for other coaches to find ways to allow Tony to score enough to stay in the game. If I was coaching against the Spurs, I'd tell my players to let him get in the lane and make a few layups. Just to keep him in the game so I could exploit him later.

[gambit1990]

If I was coaching against the Spurs, I'd tell my players to let him get in the lane and make a few layups. Just to keep him in the game so I could exploit him later.
one of the better takes i've read on here recently :tu

[spurs10]

Yes winning the close ones feels good. Last night was badass! :toast

[TheDoctor]

One of this year best characteristic; stay focused, determined and close out games under pressure.

[Clipper Nation]

i love when the team has the "tony sitting on the bench" factor.
Just imagine how unstoppable the Spurs would be if they had the "Tony sitting on his couch at home" factor :wow

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, they really showed mettle in that close Golden State game.

Overreacting because we beat a one man team that GS blew out by 30 :lol

Homer and helmet til the end.

[SpursforSix]

Just imagine how unstoppable the Spurs would be if they had the "Tony sitting on his couch at home" factor :wow

Uh...it should be "imagine how unstoppable would the Spurs be if they had traded him while he had some fucking value and he was on someone else's bench". Imagine if the FO would have realized the fucking obvious that he was getting older and 90% of his advantage was predicated in his speed and quickness. I still can't believe that none of those great minds realized it or worse, chose to ignore it. He's getting 15 per year. That's loyalty enough. Have some other sucker pay that.

[DMC]

Easy, just keep WB shy of 10 rebounds for most of the game. He'll cheat off his man all the way to the paint and give you wide open 3's all night until he get his numbers. Then, if it's close, his autistic basketball senses kick in and he makes a few key turnovers and gets denied at the rim a couple times late. He doesn't care, just try to end the game since he got his trip dub, he's set.

[gambit1990]

Overreacting because we beat a one man team that GS blew out by 30 :lol

Homer and helmet til the end.
you've talked shit about patty all season while propping up tony... then after last night's game you have this to say:

Here's my logic (providing all teams are healthy):

Patty starting, getting major minutes: 0% chance to ring.

Tony starting: 1% chance to ring if (big IF, like 1% chance if) he manages to find a gear for a playoff series against the Warriors.
:lmao

[midnightpulp]

you've talked shit about patty all season while propping up tony... then after last night's game you have this to say:

:lmao

I have not talked shit about Patty all season. I've lauded him as the bench's best offensive weapon (prior to Gasol joining the bench) and a great gear changer.

I "talk shit" about your retarded idea to have House start.

[Spurtacular]

Player fan thread.

[BillMc]

Winning close games is cool and all (better than losing them:lol) but rationalizing that they're "leaning how to win close games" is kind of a spin. Point differential is really the best indicator of future success. So, better to blow teams out. Winning or losing close games has a fair degree of chance in it, and doesn't tell you too much either way, while if you blow the team out, its a pretty good sign you're the better team.

[dabom]

Winning close games is cool and all (better than losing them:lol) but rationalizing that they're "leaning how to win close games" is kind of a spin. Point differential is really the best indicator of future success. So, better to blow teams out. Winning or losing close games has a fair degree of chance in it, and doesn't tell you too much either way, while if you blow the team out, its a pretty good sign you're the better team.

Not really Bill. The thunder team last year was fighting close games all the time, and they took the Spurs cookies.

[DPG21920]

Not really Bill. The thunder team last year was fighting close games all the time, and they took the Spurs cookies.

What does one Random example in the face of years of data have to do with anything?

[dabom]

What does one Random example in the face of years of data have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting my initial comment was wrong?

[DPG21920]

Are you suggesting my initial comment was wrong?

Yes. Point differential has long correlated highly with teams that advance in the playoffs. OKC beating SA last year does not mean Bill was wrong.

[dabom]

Yes. Point differential has long correlated highly with teams that advance in the playoffs. OKC beating SA last year does not mean Bill was wrong.

Does it mean I'm wrong?

[DPG21920]

Does it mean I'm wrong?

Yes.

[dabom]

Yes.

That's why you're a dumbass. :lmao

[DPG21920]

That's why you're a dumbass. :lmao

K.

[james evans]

We play like shit with a lead because popovich puts in a bullshit ass lineup and we play harder when we're down. It's like once we get a lead, we either forget how to play or popovich decides to put in guys to spread the minutes around.

[DPG21920]

We play like shit with a lead because popovich puts in a bullshit ass lineup and we play harder when we're down. It's like once we get a lead, we either forget how to play or popovich decides to put in guys to spread the minutes around.

We've all watched Pop for how many years now? You know this is what he does. Pop is all about "buying" rest because it typically pays of at the end of the game and over the course of a season.

For as much griping as everyone does, SA again is near the top of the league in wins AND point differential. So they obviously don't "blow" that many leads. Basketball is a game of runs, SA uses a deep bench (despite the fact they are a great bench, they are subject to bigger up's and down's) and Pop buys rest.

When he gets a 10+ point lead, instead of just going Thibs on them, he uses that buffer to buy his players longer rest. Then the other team goes all out to cut into the lead, then SA gets their main guys in and the lead balloons again to the tune of the 2nd or 3rd best point differential in the league.

[skulls138]

Winning close games is cool and all (better than losing them:lol) but rationalizing that they're "leaning how to win close games" is kind of a spin. Point differential is really the best indicator of future success. So, better to blow teams out. Winning or losing close games has a fair degree of chance in it, and doesn't tell you too much either way, while if you blow the team out, its a pretty good sign you're the better team.I disagree with this. Teams who always blow teams out dont seem to know how to handle when someone figures them out so many times. Some examples are the Warriors not winning the title last year when they looked like the David Blaine of basketball. Or the Patriots losing the Super Bowl after being undefeated the whole season. Or the Seattle Mariners with Ichiro tying most wins in MLB history only to lose, pretty easily, against the Yankees.