Buck Harvey: Duncan's One Flaw?

[Spurzilla]

Buck Harvey: Duncan's one flaw? Why the Spurs live with it

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:13 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News

LINK (http://www.mysanantonio.com/global-includes/components/right/topads.html)

WASHINGTON — Gregg Popovich didn't sit next to Tim Duncan and pat him on the knee. They save that for June.

The Spurs instead brushed this off, and Tony Parker took that a step further. He chose to see the silver-and-black lining after Duncan shot 3 for 18.

"After this one," Parker joked, "maybe Timmy will cut his hair."

That's the way to handle it. But what happened Saturday also reminded everyone that a third ring didn't change Duncan's tortured reality. He's still dependent — perhaps more than any superstar — on officials who allow him to play his game.

And if he doesn't get that?

Then he still struggles to play through it.

That said, Duncan could have been himself Saturday and not changed the outcome. Gilbert Arenas was that good. Antonio Daniels afterward called Arenas the third-best player he's ever played with — after Duncan and David Robinson — and that's saying something. Ray Allen, at best fourth on Daniels' list, would agree.

Daniels would also put Duncan on top of his list, and there have been few signs that this status will change any time soon. Before Duncan suited up for this final game of the road trip, he'd looked as fluid and sharp this season as he ever has.

He also was shooting free throws at a 90 percent clip, which suggests his mind is clearer. And Friday night in Boston he had everything going, including a 3-pointer.

So wasn't Saturday just a blip? "I told him after the game," Nick Van Exel said, "he'll have about one of those every 20 games. So that's about four a year, which gets one out of the way. Games like these keep you human."

But Duncan seems to get more human when the wrong ref walks out. There was one in the crew Saturday, and some in the Spurs' locker room wonder if Duncan let that get to him. The Wizards bodied him without double teams, pinching him with some athletes, and it was clear in the second quarter that Duncan was frustrated.

Then Duncan went inside, missed and felt he'd been fouled. The Wizards started going the other way, and Duncan reached out to grab a jersey, as he often does, to show the refs exactly what a foul is. But Duncan didn't tug hard enough, and play continued.

When Parker came up with a steal, scoring on the other end off Daniels to pull the Spurs within two points, Duncan was still in the middle of the floor wanting to argue.

Afterward Duncan dressed quickly as he talked. "Just a long night," he said. "Those guys played well tonight, give them a lot credit. We compounded it with myself playing very, very badly. It just happens. Balls not bouncing the right way, the whistles not coming."

That was his only mention of the officiating. But even that one sentence would make a few people smile in Boston. The Celtics were the ones who questioned the calls the night before when they tried to defend Duncan.

That's the way it is in this game; someone always has a beef. But there are times when this part of the game begins to affect Duncan and change him, too. The Olympics were an example, as was last June. Then he shot 10 of 27 in the first two games in Detroit and followed with a free-throw meltdown in Game 5.

Saturday showed he can still be bothered, but maybe anyone would have been. Arenas ended the third quarter with a heave that banked in, and the Spurs opened the fourth this way: Duncan missed on a delicate cut, Robert Horry rebounded yet struck the back rim on a dunk attempt and Bruce Bowen rimmed out a three.

Any reason to think that things were going the Spurs' way?

A sequence minutes later confirmed the obvious. Then, with the Spurs still within nine points, Duncan missed inside. He followed by yanking back the rebound with a strong right hand and went up for a point-blank put-back. Only to miss.

Had the ref gotten to him this deeply? Had Duncan, somewhere deep inside, given in to the aggravation?

The Spurs didn't search for answers afterward, and for good reason. They know these things happen and will again, and they know these things have happened before.

Last June, even, on the way to another title.

[Gino2882]

Why? All I have to say is Why right this pathetic article....

EVERY star has a bad game...Refs or not.

[TwoHandJam]

"I told him after the game," Nick Van Exel said, "he'll have about one of those every 20 games. So that's about four a year, which gets one out of the way. Games like these keep you human."

That sums it up pretty well. Couple that with "one of those nights" where a jumpshooting team can't miss and you have what happened to us last night. It's frustrating but I take solace in knowing the Wiz couldn't beat us in a series if their lives depended on it.

[exstatic]

Duncan's problems are, and always have been between his ears. He needs to develop an NFL cornerback's mentality: instant amnesia. When he starts missng anything, he freaks out, and lets it leak into his whole game. Even his FT shooting sucked last night, and that is without any defender or ref.

[boutons]

"He's still dependent — perhaps more than any superstar — on officials who allow him to play his game."

WTF? What kind of game does Tim have that necessitates help from the refs? Buck makes Tim sound like a faker dependent on ref help.

Buck's takes, and Buck, are as weird and fucked up as ever.

Tim did fail badly last night, not in playing badly (happens), but in letting playing badly get to him, get him down, getting that defeated, pathetic, frustrated look. He's super nice guy, totally guileless and transparent, who can't even act tough. Fine with me.

This is a Tim game NOT to forget. He should figure how better to react, to keep playing when the shots and calls are fallin, how to minimize the damage, rather than amplify it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

BTW, all the years past when I criticized Pop for forcing it into Tim on off nights, this game is the type of game I was referring to.

Manu and Tony combined for 51 points, but we had to watch Tim clang 15 shots.

There is absolutely no reason for this team, with this depth, to force the ball into Duncan for 20 shots on the rare instance when he doesn't have it going on.

Bad coaching.

** Disclaimer: I am not saying fire Pop. I am not saying Pop should eat shit and die. I'm just saying, like I have been for 3 years, that this team is good enough to look somewhere else for scoring on nights when Duncan looks human.

[leemajors]

agreed. manu could have taken more than 9 shots.

[Nikos]

I thought Pop should have kept Manu in beyond that 5 minute mark in the 3rd quarter (instead of taking him out those 3 minutes). He was rolling and he never found a ryhthm after that substitution. I don't think Manu really needed a rest either, this was hardly a defensive game, and Manu didn't even force one turnover all night, so it's not like he was using a lot of energy on that end.

As for the NVE comment, I disagree -- Duncan will have one of those games once a year tops. I don't think he has had such a bad game in the last 2-3 seasons, let alone, "once every 20 games". It won't happen again. But you have to give Haywood a lot of credit, when he wasn't fouling Tim he was forcing misses and awkard shots in the paint which really set the tone for the game.

[Suns Fan]

Mouse post this crap all the time , and is called a Troll.
Duck Harvey does it and he's a talented writer :lmao

[Vashner]

Seriously I think it was something they ate that made them lethargic...

[phyzik]

Mouse post this crap all the time , and is called a Troll.
Duck Harvey does it and he's a talented writer :lmao

please quote which posts says this article is by a talented writer. Buck Harvey is as much a freaking moron as mouse is. (joking of course mouse, your not THAT bad :spin )

If your refering to the people agreeing with some of the quotes in the article, I got news for you, even Buck harvey isnt retarded enough to make up quotes to make his article look better. Those quotes where said by players.

[dbreiden83080]

It truly does amaze me that in 8 years, Duncan can have 3 championships, 3 finals mvp's, 2 league mvp's all before the age of 30. Still jackasses like this in the media will come out and question him after one bad game game unbelievable.

[slayermin]

TD played pretty lousy last night. Reminded me of that first game at Seattle last year.

Nov. 7th, 2004 - Sea 113 SA 94

Duncan 35min 17pts 10reb 2asst 4blks 5TO's 4-16fg's

Last Night - Was 110 SA 95

Duncan 34min 11pts 14reb 2asst 0blks 2TO's 3-18fg's

[boutons]

The Sonics/Wiz parallel is interesting.

Didn't the Sonics also play Tim tough and physical, as well as shooting real hot?

Malone played Tim physical in the 03 playoffs, pushed Tim out to the wing and turned him into an ineffective jumpshooter. 4 straight losses.

One of these years, maybe Tim, Pop, and the Spurs will figure out how to counter when Tim is getting man-handled and his finesse game is nullified.

[1Parker1]

Ok, so am I the only crazy one that sees the truth in the article?

I love Tim Duncan, he's without a doubt the best PF in the league and his creditionals speak for themselves. However, Buck is right. Tim DOES let refs get to him a lot more than he should. For all the bitching everyone on the forum did during last Finals in games 1 and 2 that the Pistons were whining too much to the refs instead of playing, Duncan does that often too. I've seen him stand their arguing with the ref over a non-call while the rest of the team is at the other end defending. Sure, Tim was probably fouled 7 out of 10 times for the non-calls, but he does let it get to him a little too much at times. See Game 3, 4, 5 against pistons.

With that said, Duncan usually is very consistent and bounces back from these performances and like NVE said, he doesn't have them that often anyways. He's still the best player in the league :)

[ShoogarBear]

People in the US unfortunately really don't understand the role of the media as a whole, and the sports media in particular.

Their job is to report the truth as they say it, and sometimes to be entertaining. They aren't getting paid to be homers and cheerleaders or the official mouthpieces for the team.

We said a lot worse things about Tim here after the "sad face" game #4 in Detroit last year.

[Marcus Bryant]

This isn't spurs.com. Harvey doesn't write for them either.

[Beerjitsu]

Harvey has always been a bit "out there". The guy's really bright and has written some really good columns over the years, but every once in a while he does come out with a Bizarro-World out-of-left-field take. Hell, he's actually settled down quite a bit since he came to Express News. Anybody remember some of his SA Light stuff? (good lord I'm old). Man there was some TRULY weird shit in those columns.

That being said, I do think he has a point...Tim does seem to let things get into his head and fester on occasion. But I think it's a VERY small chink in his armor.

[Mavs<Spurs]

I watched a game by another person who was considered the leader of his team, having a long night who shot a low percentage from the field. People might have wondered why he "forced up " 35 shots. He had a long night that game 6 of the Finals. His name is Michael Jordan.

You put the ball in the hands of your best player, especially when he is of the caliber that Tim Duncan is, even if he has had a sorry game. In the playoffs, Duncan was injured. Hubie pointed out that his ankles would not heal until they were rested for a summer. Game 6 with the Sonics, Tim should a low percentage, but he got it done. Tim had 2 bad games, 3 and 4, in the Finals, struggled terribly at the end of game 5, being labeled as choking since he only put up 26 points and 19 boards (without which they would not have even been close enough no matter what Horry did), shot 10 for 27 (just over 33 %), but from the middle of the third quarter on, Tim dominated the game, put the team on his back and carried us to victory.

I consider Tim the best player in the world. One night does not change that. You let your best player decide the contest. If he can't get it done that night, you lose. But he will get it done more often than your other players.

[Mavs<Spurs]

I do think that Tim can be affected by hard, physical defense from athletic bigs guarding him if the refs swallow their whistles come hell or high water.
However, he normally works through it and leads the Spurs to victory.

I think that we still have an offense that is inside out. I don't like teams whose offense is backcourt dominated and dependent upon jumpshots. I don't like them because I don't think that this type of offense will win in a 7 game series. I don't remember the last team that won the championship playing that way.

[Mavs<Spurs]

This isn't spurs.com. Harvey doesn't write for them either.

That's fine. It just helps when what he writes has some relationship with reality. Numerous times it doesn't. He will write negatively about Tim and the Spurs, saying things that most basketball analysts (with or without any relationship to the Spurs) believe are untrue.

An analogy (not perfect but reasonable) is if a reporter who covers the Bulls started writing that "Jordan is overrated" and other garbage. What would most other people who cover basketball think? What would (or at least what should) Chicago fans think when a guy in their own town writes criticisms which have no relationship with reality about Jordan and their team, ones which are difficult to defend in any reasonable, rational, logical way.

This is what Harvey does for the town and people of San Antonio, while covering Tim and the Spurs.

We have had some interesting dialogues regarding this very phenomenon.

BTW, the press in Europe feels that its job is to oppose the government whether the government is right or wrong. They selectively pick which topics to cover, which sources to use, how to end the article and what framework to use to "interpret" those facts, connecting together.

Polls consistently show that people who work in the media are nearly uniform in their support for one particular party. Virtually all of them belong to that party and vote for members of that party. The American public as a whole is evenly divided between the two parties. Too bad that members of the mainstream media aren't equally evenly divided.

[E20]

Timmy needs to keep the hair.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

People might have wondered why he "forced up " 35 shots. He had a long night that game 6 of the Finals. His name is Michael Jordan.

Who else was gonna shoot? Cartwright?

Jordan was the Bulls on offense (yeah, I know, Pippen, but the point remains the same...).

Again, Manu and Tony combined for 51. They shot a combined 18-32 (56%) and were 11-11 on their free throws.

Tim was 3-18 (19%), and 5-8 on FTs.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Pop to keep calling plays for Tim on nights like that. None whatsoever.

And like I said, this is the kind of thing that has pissed me off about Pop before. This team has incredible depth, hell Pop even talked about it ad nauseum prior to the season starting.

Why is it then that on a night when your #1 gun is off, and your #2 and #3 are on, do you continue to force it to Duncan?

It's fucking stupid. And spare me "give it to the best player, because that's what you do." That's how you lose games when your best player is off.

The one fault of both Tim and Pop is that on the rare night where TD is glaringly off, they both press. Tim forces up shots even when they're not going in, and gets pissed at the officiating.

Pop thinks "hmm, Tim's playing bad, I think he needs more touches." And the majority of the time, we lose because of it.

Now, if no one else on the team is scoring, fine. I won't argue with that. But when when the other 2/3 of your triumvirate is hitting on all cylinders and stroking the nets to the tune of 60% shooting, give them the friggin' rock. It ain't rocket science.

[dbreiden83080]

I watched a game by another person who was considered the leader of his team, having a long night who shot a low percentage from the field. People might have wondered why he "forced up " 35 shots. He had a long night that game 6 of the Finals. His name is Michael Jordan.

You put the ball in the hands of your best player, especially when he is of the caliber that Tim Duncan is, even if he has had a sorry game. In the playoffs, Duncan was injured. Hubie pointed out that his ankles would not heal until they were rested for a summer. Game 6 with the Sonics, Tim should a low percentage, but he got it done. Tim had 2 bad games, 3 and 4, in the Finals, struggled terribly at the end of game 5, being labeled as choking since he only put up 26 points and 19 boards (without which they would not have even been close enough no matter what Horry did), shot 10 for 27 (just over 33 %), but from the middle of the third quarter on, Tim dominated the game, put the team on his back and carried us to victory.

I consider Tim the best player in the world. One night does not change that. You let your best player decide the contest. If he can't get it done that night, you lose. But he will get it done more often than your other players.


Well said great post, i agree with you 100% anyone who jumps on Tim for a once in a blue moon bad game is just not being a real fan. When you look at Tim Duncan what does he have left to prove in this game. When he was drafted, he needed to prove he was worthy of the #1 pick, he did that. Then he needed to prove he could lead the spurs to a title, he did that 3 times over. Then he needed to prove he was MVP calibur, he did that 2 times over. There were even some jackasses out there that said he needed to prove he can win one without D-Rob and he did that too. This man can retire right now today and in five years in his first year of elgibility, walk right into the hall of fame. I don't care if he has 10 bad games in a row, this man has earned our respect through the years and i will never jump on him for his play.

[boutons]

"jumps on Tim"

I'm not jumping on Tim, but why TF keep going to Tim when he cold as a witch's tit, with his head and attitude screwed up by the reffing?

The guards were doing ALL the scoring, 57%!!! on 3Gs!!!, so why not let the guards keep scoring?

The Spurs front court totally sucked, 17 pts total!!, why ride a dead horse in crunch time? Be flexible, go with the hot hand(s), and crank up the shutdown defense for 3 minutes.

[dbreiden83080]

I am making a general statement, not focusing on one game. There are plenty of people on this board who whenever Tim has a bad game, they are all over him and i feel it is really unfair that is what i'm saying. By the way we lose the game nomatter if Ginobli and parker are taking all the shots, we could not stop Arenas for our lives they dropped 110 on us the D was bad that is why we lost.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

i agree with you 100% anyone who jumps on Tim for a once in a blue moon bad game is just not being a real fan. When you look at Tim Duncan what does he have left to prove in this game

Fucking A, no one is jumping on Tim. We're saying that on the nights he has a bad game, we should be going elsewhere for scoring.

Damn some of you are dense.

[pjjrfan]

Well, in 03, Tim was it, since then however, Tony and especially Manu have asserted themselves as has Bowen and Horry as factors when it comes to scoring. It's not so far fetched to look elsewhere for our offense, they did it last year when they let Manu run the offense in late stages of games against Seattle, Phoenix, and Detroit. I don't see why they couldn't have done it last night. Although as a pt. guard I would have tried to get my big man involved and try to get him some easy looks, something Van Exel did, but he still missed. It was just one of those days that TD has a lot of during the early part of the year but seldom has them once the all-star break comes along.

About the refs, every ref has a different approach to how they call a game, their called the best in the business but too many refs see the game differently, some guys allow the big men to beat each other up, others call every little thing and others like Salvatore listens to the squeaky wheel and gives them the calls. When they allowed the PIstons to mug and hack at Tim the Pistons won, when they got called for it, Tim dominated them. And in reality Tim should dominate every night except for the occasional night like last night, but in some games the refs will let defenders abuse and harass Tim to no end, it's strange that in the first 4 games we got outshot at the FT line by 3 of the 4 teams we played, that shouldn't happen because of the way this team plays, it's inside out game and the penetrations by Manu and Tony you would think the Spurs would lead the league in FT shooting. But I don't think that's the case.

Anyway, I think I understood the article, but with Buck you never know.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Fucking A, no one is jumping on Tim. We're saying that on the nights he has a bad game, we should be going elsewhere for scoring.

Damn some of you are dense.

I happen to think that Doug Collins is a good commentator.
He said exactly the same thing that I wrote. He stated that regardless of how bad a game has gone for your best player, you still put the ball in his hands at the end of the game. I would be willing to be that 90 percent of coaches would agree with.

There are nights where Tim struggled through the game, shooting a low percentage, but still won the game for us at the end. Game 7 of the Finals was one example. Game 6 of the Sonics series was another.

Ginobili and Parker are more effective because of the pressure that Tim Duncan puts on the other team's defense. If you stop going to Duncan, playing differently than your team has for of say the last 8 years and decide to shoot a perimeter jumpshot with 22 second left on the shot clock, the Spurs are probably going to lose. The other team will stop penetration and you will be shooting a contested perimeter shot every time.

If we had followed this philosophy of abandoning Duncan due to a poor shooting night for most of the game, we probably would not be world champs.

We could also follow this to its logical conclusion and not going to Tim the next game either. What is the dividing line where you can still go to Tim in the post (and have him kick it out) ? What exact shooting percentage is too low for the Spurs to keep going to Tim?

In any event, it appears that Pop shares this philosophy.

BTW, Phil Jackson could have gone to Tony Kukoc or Scottie Pippen.
He still went to MJ to win the game even if he had a rare bad shooting night.
Isiah did this even when Jordan was 40 when he was coaching the all star game. Jordan, in overtime made the shot and it would (and should) have been the game winner as it put the East up by 2 with a second on the clock. Only a foul on Kobe taking a last second 3 point shot prevented it from being the game winner. It appears Zeke holds to this philosophy as well.

[E20]

Not trying to diss Harvey or anything, but meaningless article/column.

Most people should know that Timmy has a bad game every 30 and isn't one of Duncans' flaws.

What suprises me is that Timmy starts slow and finishes strong, but right now he's playing pretty well compared to other starting years.

Kobe had a bad night against the Sixers I think he deserves an article like this aswell.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I happen to think that Doug Collins is a good commentator.
He said exactly the same thing that I wrote. He stated that regardless of how bad a game has gone for your best player, you still put the ball in his hands at the end of the game. I would be willing to be that 90 percent of coaches would agree with.

So because some commentator who wasn't even good enough to hang onto a coaching job in the league says something equally as stupid as what you are, your point somehow gains validity?

Damn, I can't believe people are so fucking illogical about this.

Tim Duncan: 3-18.
Manu and Tony: 18-32.

Why the hell do you feel the need to force feed a guy working on a 3 for 18 night when you've got two guys who are scorching the nets at 60%?

What the fuck did we pay Manu and Tony for, if all you want them to do is stay out of Tim's way, no matter how bad a shooting night he's having?

Is anything registering with you?


There are nights where Tim struggled through the game, shooting a low percentage, but still won the game for us at the end. Game 7 of the Finals was one example.

Sorry, we won game 7 because of Robert Fucking Horry. Remember him? Giving the ball to him to shoot when Tim struggled (hey wait a minute, that idea sounds familiar...), as well as Manu (23 points on 8-13 shooting - sound familiar?) kept the Spurs in it to the point that Duncan could finish it out.

Here's an excerpt from the Game 7 recap:



Duncan scored when the Spurs needed it, then turned his teammates into stars...

Thriving off Duncan were Manu Ginobili, who scored 11 of his 23 points in the last 10 minutes, and wily veteran Robert Horry, who scored 15 points off the bench and collected his sixth championship.


If we had followed this philosophy of abandoning Duncan due to a poor shooting night for most of the game, we probably would not be world champs.


You mean like when Horry went ape shit and won us a game at the Palace that we would have otherwise lost? Great point, what were we thinking abandoning Duncan?

So why is it such a travesty to suggest the same on nights when Manu and Tony are feeling it and Duncan's not?

Oh yeah, because some sorry ass talking head agrees with you. Oh, and BTW, we lost last night by 15.

Take 10 of Duncan's misses, take Manu and Tony's shooting percentages last night over those 10 shots (that would come out to 6 buckets), and you've got at worst a 3 point game at the end of things, with a chance for your savior Timmy to win it at the end.

But hey, losing by 15 is cool, as long as Tim gets to shoot 20 times even if he only makes 3, all because Doug "Eminem" Collins said so.

:rolleyes

[Mavs<Spurs]

So because some commentator who wasn't even good enough to hang onto a coaching job in the league says something equally as stupid as what you are, your point somehow gains validity?

I apologize. And you have how much experience as a NBA coach? What do you think? Perhaps just a thought for you to consider there is a reason why you were never ever a coach in the NBA and Collins was, Phil Jackson is, Zeke was and Pop is.

Damn, I can't believe people are so fucking illogical about this.

This is logical? What??? Tell me, if you are so logical (as you claim) what's the dividing line? Is it 50%? Is it 40 %? What is it? Perhaps you are not quite as logically consistent as you might think..

Tim Duncan: 3-18.
Manu and Tony: 18-32.

Why the hell do you feel the need to force feed a guy working on a 3 for 18 night when you've got two guys who are scorching the nets at 60%?

What the fuck did we pay Manu and Tony for, if all you want them to do is stay out of Tim's way, no matter how bad a shooting night he's having?

You clearly did not understand what I wrote.
Let's try again. Run our normal offense which starts with the ball going in to Tim. He attracts attention and then kicks it out to an open shooter. He also opens up the lane for people to get to the rim.

Got that. Let's not abandon our normal offense because our best player has had an off night shooting. Inside out basketball.


Is anything registering with you?



Sorry, we won game 7 because of Robert Fucking Horry. Remember him? Giving the ball to him to shoot when Tim struggled (hey wait a minute, that idea sounds familiar...), as well as Manu (23 points on 8-13 shooting - sound familiar?) kept the Spurs in it to the point that Duncan could finish it out.

You seem very confused. Manu and Tony both said exactly the opposite as you did. As the team was falling further and further out of the game, Tim carried the team. Hubie saw that. Oh, I forgot, the only person whose opinion has any merit is yours. Ginobili kept us going by cheerleading on the bench or did you forget the 2 fouls? Better yet, did you even watch the game?

Here's an excerpt from the Game 7 recap:

What? Did you not watch the game? Are you making this up as you go along?

Tim scored 18 points in the last 18 minutes. He shot about 50 % from the field, but he also forced them to double team him. He, then, got 2 important assists when he kicked the ball out to Bowen and Ginobili. He would have had a third, but Horry missed a wide open 3. Tim led the team in scoring, Ginobili was second. Horry did not win game 7 for us at all. Either you did not watch the game or you are confusing it with another game.

You mean like when Horry went ape shit and won us a game at the Palace that we would have otherwise lost? Great point, what were we thinking abandoning Duncan?

Ah, I see. It was all Horry. It's amazing that you think that Tim had nothing to do with the Spurs winning game 5 despite the fact that Tim had 26 points and 19 rebounds. You see, following your theory, after games 3 and game 4, Pop would have said, " Forget Duncan. Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team like Dallas or Phoenix. " How exactly did he get 24 shots off when we wrote off Duncan? We continued to go to Tim. We did not stop feeding the post. Who got more points, Tim or Robert? Who got more rebounds?

Then, again, since you are so logical, I want to know why logically you are not applying this to the next game as well? Special pleading? Kind of arbitrary.


So why is it such a travesty to suggest the same on nights when Manu and Tony are feeling it and Duncan's not?

Oh yeah, because some sorry ass talking head agrees with you. Oh, and BTW, we lost last night by 15. Right which is unusual. Every once in a while your star will not pull it out for you. Most of the time he will.

Take 10 of Duncan's misses, take Manu and Tony's shooting percentages last night over those 10 shots (that would come out to 6 buckets), and you've got at worst a 3 point game at the end of things, with a chance for your savior Timmy to win it at the end.

You seem to have forgotten about causal relationships. Tim opens up things for everybody else. However, if you tell Tim not to take any shots because you have no confidence in him based upon his shooting this night, then the other team stops responding to Tim.

But hey, losing by 15 is cool, as long as Tim gets to shoot 20 times even if he only makes 3, all because Doug "Eminem" Collins said so.

:rolleyes

No, you are absolutely right. Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team.

You don't have any coaching philosophy at all, do you? Just fly by the seat of your pants. While some people might find that a great idea, others might have problems with this.

Of course, you still have not told me what shooting percentage is too low for us to go to Tim. Then, you have to decide if you are going to tell Tim that he can not take any shots at all. Or is a 6 foot shot okay, but a 6 foot 1 inch shot is too far away because he was shooting 47 %. On the other hand, he could shoot the 6 foot 1 in shot if he were shooting 47.5 %.

Excuse me, but if I were you, I would stick to what I know. Logic is not one of those things.

Try again.

Pop is going to run his normal offense and not try to become Dallas simply because you say so. The man has won 3 titles, but again nobody's opinion except yours matters.

:elephant :elephant

You've been stomped.

[dbreiden83080]

Fucking A, no one is jumping on Tim. We're saying that on the nights he has a bad game, we should be going elsewhere for scoring.

Damn some of you are dense.

my man Tim could not hit the broad side of a barn through 2 1/2 qtrs of game 7 of the finals. If we had gone away from him then we would have lost it, and people would be saying tim's legacy is in the gutter.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Let's become a perimeter jumpshooting team.

Show me where I said that. You can't. Last time I checked Manu and Tony were not just shooting jumpers the other night.


You don't have any coaching philosophy at all, do you?

I need a "coaching philosophy" to be able to argue 60% shooting > 16%? WTF? :lol Do you ride the short bus to school?


Excuse me, but if I were you, I would stick to what I know. Logic is not one of those things.

Try again.

Pop is going to run his normal offense and not try to become Dallas simply because you say so. The man has won 3 titles, but again nobody's opinion except yours matters.


Are you saying it's illogical to go with the guys shooting 60% over the one shooting 16% because you as a poster and Eminem Collins like riding Tim's nuts? Because where I'm sitting from, that's all I see.

Pop's "normal offense", whatever the fuck it is you're referring to when you said that, had allowed Parker and Manu to score 51 on 60% shooting. You're right, we should have stopped doing that :rolleyes



You've been stomped.

Call me when you get done whacking off to your Eminem Collins poster and graduating cum laude with that math degree that led you to believe 60% > 16%



my man Tim could not hit the broad side of a barn through 2 1/2 qtrs of game 7 of the finals. If we had gone away from him then we would have lost it,

You do realize that we did "go away from him", right? Manu's 23 and Horry's 15 are obviously figments of my imagination from that game :spin

Look, I know you two want Tim Duncan to be the father of your children, but come on and enjoy us in the reality where 16% < 60%.

No one is saying scrap the offense. No one is saying bench Tim. No one is saying Tim's legacy is shit for having an off night in November. They are saying that on a night when Tim couldn't hit the broadside of a fucking barn, and he has two teammates making a combined 15 million this year who were shooting 60%, it's okay to give them the rock

Is anything getting through to you two dunces? I typed that last paragraph really slow for you.

[101A]

The Sonics/Wiz parallel is interesting.

Didn't the Sonics also play Tim tough and physical, as well as shooting real hot?

Malone played Tim physical in the 03 playoffs, pushed Tim out to the wing and turned him into an ineffective jumpshooter. 4 straight losses.

One of these years, maybe Tim, Pop, and the Spurs will figure out how to counter when Tim is getting man-handled and his finesse game is nullified.


Sonics last year.

Wizards this year.

A.D.?

[Hook Dem]

"Duncan's One Flaw"? Not even close! His one flaw is when he puts the ball on the floor. If you can't see that, you haven't been watching. Duncan is greater than anyone thinks but he often loses the ball when he puts it on the floor.

[Extra Stout]

It's more important to be consistent in your team's philosophy and approach to the game even if it means losing a road game in November. Establishing an identity and maintaining consistently is more important than winning individual games.

This is Tim Duncan's team. Tim Duncan gets touches even on a bad shooting night. The team must have the discipline to stick with the game plan. If Tim isn't getting touches and drawing in the defense, the other players are going to have a very hard time getting open jump shots anyway. If opposing big men aren't occupied with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are going to have a tough time with their penetration.

This is not rocket science except to Aggies.

If the Spurs bailed on Tim whenever he started shooting poorly, Game 7 of the Finals last year probably would have ended differently and the Pistons would have a new set of cheesy belts.

Discipline pays off.

[conqueso]

...This is Tim Duncan's team. Tim Duncan gets touches even on a bad shooting night. The team must have the discipline to stick with the game plan. If Tim isn't getting touches and drawing in the defense, the other players are going to have a very hard time getting open jump shots anyway. If opposing big men aren't occupied with Duncan, Parker and Ginobili are going to have a tough time with their penetration.

If the Spurs bailed on Tim whenever he started shooting poorly, Game 7 of the Finals last year probably would have ended differently and the Pistons would have a new set of cheesy belts.

You're confusing "touches" and "shots." I might be mis-stating AHF's argument (although I don't think I am), but Duncan should still be getting those touches, but not taking those shots. The team shouldn't completely change their offense since this would be really impractical to do, as you said. When the pass goes from the point to the corner, the corner player still looks to pass into Duncan in the post. The only difference is that Pop should tell Timmy "don't take any more shots tonight because you're obviously going to miss them. Pass the ball out of the double team after you make a move, and then maybe go run the pick-and-roll with Tony." Duncan in fact does this all the time when a guard is having a great game, as he did in Game 7 against Detroit and Game 6 against New Jersey, to name a couple of notable examples. There are just some games when Duncan should be doing this by isn't. @ Washington was a good example of Duncan going away from what has worked a thousand times in the past. As much as I hate to say this, Pop should be doing what Phil Jackson does all the time: find the player with the hot hand and run the same play for them over and over and over and over again. When Pop's "equal opportunity" offense isn't really working because Duncan can't hit shit, he should be calling special situation plays for Tony and Manu. Almost all of the these plays involve Duncan getting touches or being one pass away from the ball (hence drawing the double-team), but they don't involve Duncan taking a ton of shots he's going to miss.

[boutons]

"bailed on Tim"

Hardly what anybody's saying. I'm saying play him for his defense, his RBs, his put back scoring, but stop expecting him to try to shoot as the first option when he's totally ineffective and wasting possessions.

WTF's wrong going with getting Tim to help the hot-hands keep scoring, like Tony, Many, Bruce, Nick vs Wiz, when Tim isn't scoring for shit? If the defense is keyed on Tim effectively, why TF keep running Tim into a brick wall?

As long as we score, who cares who scores?

The discipline vs Wiz seemd to be: no matter how badly Tim is not scoring, we keep forcing him to shoot, while the hot hands stand around. totally stupid.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Tim Duncan gets touches even on a bad shooting night.

Touches <> shots.

This isn't rocket science to Aggies. :rolleyes

[smeagol]

Boutons and AHF agree.

Run for the hills. The World ends tomorrow . . .

By the way, I agree with them. This one is on Pop.

[milkyway21]

i missed that Wizards vs Spurs game.

but after reading some posts i think nobody got the real answer WHY Tim suddenly shot 3-18 from an almost 52%FG in the last 6 spurs games.

it's because he was sleeping:sleep

check this out.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20051113/capt.mci10311130250.spurs_wizards_mci103.jpg

:lol

P.S. get rid of the fro, Tim!

[Extra Stout]

Touches <> shots.

This isn't rocket science to Aggies. :rolleyes

Game 7. Finals.

Should Duncan have stopped shooting that night too?

Owned. Good night.

Go back to animal husbandry, Agro.

[leemajors]

can you not understand what AHF means? when you go away from tim and make some j/s it opens up the middle for him again. you don't go away from him the whole game you just go inside out until the paint is open for td and even tp and manu. you can't clog the lane against the spurs when they are hitting jump shots. what he is saying is to change for a bit to get things going, then change back if the middle is open again. what is bad is when he is having a bad shooting night and continues to only try and get his shot. no one is talking about radically changing the offense.

[Marcus Bryant]

OK, I dug up my RSCI 101 lecture notes last night (F you Copy Corner). In Lecture 5, slide 7 the professor clearly stated that "...when you have the world's best player on your team, you shall pass him the ball often".

[Extra Stout]

what is bad is when he is having a bad shooting night and continues to only try and get his shot. no one is talking about radically changing the offense.

Tim took 18 shots, not 38. How is that only trying to get his shot? How many of those were on attempted putbacks?

How's he supposed to know he's going to miss all night long from point-blank range? This is some of the lamest 20-20 hindsight I've ever seen.

How many times in his career has Tim started like 2-10, but then dominated the rest of the game?

Y'all basically are saying that if Tim goes through a cold stretch, he needs to lose his aggression and defer to everybody else. That's what you're saying. You want the best player in the league to turn into the Caribbean Rasho.

[Marcus Bryant]

So it's ridiculous to want depth for a swingman rotation full of aging vets and its ridiculous to go to TD when you're trying to win a game? um, ok.

Any other gems, 'Hoopsfan'?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Game 7. Finals.

Should Duncan have stopped shooting that night too?

Owned. Good night.

Go back to animal husbandry, Agro.

Hmm, my memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall Horry coming off the bench for 15, Manu dropping in 23, and because of those two efforts we were close enough at the end of the game for Tim to do his thing. Owned. Good night

Contrast this to the Wizards game where Tim kept shooting and we ended up down 15 points at the end, it's a little hard for TD to do his thing.

:lol at Marcus, the guy who thinks that if every one of our swingmen gets hurt we'll somehow win the title with Melvin Sanders at the 2guard.

But I guess I shouldn't expect much from a guy who thinks that Malik Rose, who can't get 10 minutes a game on a 1-6 NY Knicks club, is the greatest bench player of all time and a first ballot HOFer.

[Marcus Bryant]

No Cornbread, you have real depth so you don't have to count on a Melvin Sanders giving you heavy minutes.

As for Rose, nice attempt at the straw man.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And where do you suppose we get this depth at? You've been whining like you're on the rag for the last two months about the 14th and 15th guys at the end of the bench (like Sanders).

Oh wait, if we only had Devin Brown, his 4.0 PPG, and his bad back this would all be better.

Straw man? I was pointing out your infatuation with scrub players. I don't think you're happy unless you can root for a team full of Rudys.

[pache100]

That's fine. It just helps when what he writes has some relationship with reality. Numerous times it doesn't. He will write negatively about Tim and the Spurs, saying things that most basketball analysts (with or without any relationship to the Spurs) believe are untrue...

This is what Harvey does for the town and people of San Antonio, while covering Tim and the Spurs.

I agree. Sometimes his articles are right on target and tend to favor the Spurs. These are the ones that seem the most factual to me (and I'm not saying that just because I'm a homer...it just seems like there are more points to these articles that can be backed up by statistics or verified some other way). Then, at times, when reading a Buck Harvey article, it seems like I am reading the perspective of a hardcore fan of some other team (any other team). Buck Harvey is a hometown newspaper writer. He needs to decide whether he's a Spurs fan or not. If he IS, he needs to state such and write accordingly. If he's NOT, he needs to state such and decide what kind of fan (of which team) he IS and write accordingly. Even though some of his pro-Spurs articles appear to be deep, insightful, and meaningful, the things he says (that make no sense) on the days he appears to be someone else's fan make me suspicious of everything he says. I get tired of his mind games and trying to decide who he is rooting for today.

[Marcus Bryant]

And where do you suppose we get this depth at? You've been whining like you're on the rag for the last two months about the 14th and 15th guys at the end of the bench (like Sanders).


Well, Cornbread, you actually sign guys when they're available in the offseason. Lynch and GRobinson are still available, if the Spurs were really willing to carry some depth this season.



Oh wait, if we only had Devin Brown, his 4.0 PPG, and his bad back this would all be better.


Well, Devin Brown managed to beat out one of the Spurs' current swingmen for a rotation spot last season. Kinda hard to ignore that fact.




Straw man? I was pointing out your infatuation with scrub players. I don't think you're happy unless you can root for a team full of Rudys.

Funny, a team full of solid role players has helped this team win 3 championships.

[Extra Stout]

By the way, so what if Duncan's effectiveness is partially dependent upon getting calls?

Is Manu any different?

Is Shaquille O'Neal any different?

Was Karl Malone?

Was Michael Jordan?

Was there ever a superstar so great that you could bludgeon him half to death the entire game and he'd still get 25 and 10 on 55% shooting?

[Marcus Bryant]

Stop going to Shaq because 'Toine is heating up from beyond the arc.

[Extra Stout]

Hmm, my memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall Horry coming off the bench for 15, Manu dropping in 23, and because of those two efforts we were close enough at the end of the game for Tim to do his thing. Owned. Good night

Yes. Your memory is fuzzy. No, really your memory is a complete fabrication you created to back up your shitty argument.

Tim Duncan did his damage in the latter half of the third and the early part of the fourth quarters. He got the Pistons frontline in foul trouble and opened things up for his teammates (like Manu and Horry) because Detroit had to throw everybody at him.

By the way, Tim Duncan took 27 of the Spurs' 68 shots in that game, or 40%. The other night, Tim took 18 of the team's 83 shots, or 22%. He wasn't even the leading shooter -- Parker had 20 attempts. There is no objective evidence that Duncan was looking for his own shot at the expense of his teammates.

Basically, you have no point. Your arguments are based upon things than happened only in your imaginary little world. Perhaps they make sense there.

[boutons]

"no objective evidence that Duncan was looking for his own shot at the expense of his teammates."

he kept trying to shoot when he was effectively neutralized by his own screwed up head and/or by the defense. He was so upset and out of rythem he couldn't make his FTs at the rate of previous games.

Tim simply wasn't effective, continuing 4-down cost us the game.

Don't pull him, he's valuable as non-scorer, esp when the frontcourt, esp 3G's @ 57%, was scoring great.

[ShoogarBear]

Was there ever a superstar so great that you could bludgeon him half to death the entire game and he'd still get 25 and 10 on 55% shooting?

Nope. That's not the point, though.

My problem with Tim is not so much that he does or doesn't get calls. It's his tendency to withdraw into his little shell of funk and look like he's just completely given up.

Now, I KNOW that's just Tim's way of working through stuff, but he's got to realize that body language has an unsettling effect.

When things didn't go Michael's or Larry's or Magic's way, they just got pissed. They never got that scared,helpless look. Maybe it didn't win them that particular game, but damn, you knew they were going to come back strong the next one.

Sure it's nitpicking, but maybe the lack of that kind of attitude is what cost the Spurs in 04.

[pache100]

When things didn't go Michael's or Larry's or Magic's way, they just got pissed. They never got that scared,helpless look. Maybe it didn't win them that particular game, but damn, you knew they were going to come back strong the next one.

Haven't you ever seen Tim set his jaw, put his head down, run like the dickens, and get that "YOU are NOT going to take this away from me" gleam in his eye? He gets it at officials, other teams, and Mark Cuban. Tim gets pissed, too. Sometimes it's enough and the rest of the team catches it...sometimes not. Sometimes he can do it by himself, whether they are on board or not...sometimes not. But, I have never seen him give up. I have seen the "deer-in-the-headlights" look on Rasho's face; I've seen it on Tony's face; I've seen it on Nazr's face. I have never seen it on Tim's nor Bruce's face. What I see when Tim "goes inside himself" is DETERMINATION. Never fear.

As for "coming back strong in the next one"...I usually pity the fools that have to play the Spurs after a loss, especially a bad loss.

[ShoogarBear]

Haven't you ever seen Tim set his jaw, put his head down, run like the dickens, and get that "YOU are NOT going to take this away from me" gleam in his eye?

Yeah, I've seen it. I didn't say he never gets it.


But, I have never seen him give up. I have seen the "deer-in-the-headlights" look on Rasho's face; I've seen it on Tony's face; I've seen it on Nazr's face. I have never seen it on Tim's nor Bruce's face.

You must not have seen Game 4 of the Finals. And if you remember, Horry completely saved Tim's ass in Game 5.

[boutons]

"Horry completely saved Tim's ass in Game 5."

re-watching game5 on NBATV on the weekend before tipoff week broght this home to me like never before. Tim was painful to watch, I winced several times, even knowing how it ended.

[conqueso]

How's he supposed to know he's going to miss all night long from point-blank range? This is some of the lamest 20-20 hindsight I've ever seen.

It's actually not hindsight. When I play basketball and I'm having an off night, when the shots I know I can usually make just aren't falling and I'm missing two foot layups for some inexplicable reason, I realize it during the course of the game and alter my contribution. I still call for the ball, still make a move, but will no longer shoot unless I'm wide fucking open or it's a cherry-picking layup or something. You can just feel when you're off. Of course you never know you're going to end up exactly 3-18 or whatever, but when you've taken 10 or 11 shots and only made three, it's pretty easy to look inside yourself and say "I don't have it tonight." These are the times that Tim should be passing and facilitating, not trying to force shots.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Basically, you have no point. Your arguments are based upon things than happened only in your imaginary little world.

Imaginary little world? Tim Duncan went 3-18. We lost by 15. Welcome to reality, pal.


How's he supposed to know he's going to miss all night long from point-blank range?

Spoken like a goober who has never played sports in his life, particularly basketball.

If you'd ever played anything other than your playstation, you'd know. As should Tim.

BTW, love the personal attacks. Some people just have to compensate for a weak argument.

[Marcus Bryant]

BTW, love the personal attacks. Some people just have to compensate for a weak argument.

Funny, you often resort to using such attacks.

[milkyway21]

Hmm, my memory is fuzzy, but I seem to recall Horry coming off the bench for 15, Manu dropping in 23, and because of those two efforts we were close enough at the end of the game for Tim to do his thing. is this true?

i thought we were suddenly down 9 pts early in the 3rd, then Duncan after a timeout, controlled the game diving for the ball on the floor, a 3pt play and in no time erased the lead:rolleyes

then Detroit asked for a timeout w/ Spurs leading. It was in that timeout told Manu "be ready because I won't be taking the shots all the time, I might pass the ball back to you".
Then Manu began his spurt, then Bowen made one from the arc(pass from Duncan, too).

and I thought this might be the reason why Duncan earned his Finals MVP.

ohh, maybe i was watching another game:rolleyes.

[Samr]

Duncan may have one bad game in twenty, but Harvey writes about one GOOD article in twenty.

[pache100]

Duncan may have one bad game in twenty, but Harvey writes about one GOOD article in twenty.

Right on the money.

As for backing off on your contributions when you feel you are "having an off-night"...you will never pull out of a slump if you quit trying. The only way to get through it is to play through it. That's what Pop preaches to Tony all the time. If you quit, you just stay down and never come out of it.