Question about 2004 loss...

[greens]

I became a big fan of the Spurs in 2004-2005 season...Lately, I keep hearing people talk about the .4 loss to Lakers in 2004...I checked the data about that playoff series. And even after the .4 loss, the Spurs still had a chance to win. The series was 3-2 in Lakers favor. So then why does everyone talk about the .4 being the biggest loss/the one that hurt the most, when the Spurs still could have won two more games? They could have tied the series to 3-3 and had a Game 7. This year, the Spurs were able to to go from 1-3 to tie it at 3-3 and almost won Game 7. When I originally heard about the .4, I thought that happened during an elimination game...Like it was 3-3, and then the .4 won the series in that game...But now that I looked and saw that it was in Game 5 that it happened, why would this be the loss that hurt the most other than the fact that it was .4 seconds-lucky shot by Fish...The Spurs should have come back in Game 6 and been even more aggressive and playing with more passion knowing that Game 5 should have been theirs...and that a lucky shot took it away from them. Instead, they gave up? What happened?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It was a morale crusher.

[Kori Ellis]

And it was .4 not .04.

[timvp]

.4 was nothing compared to 21.1 or whatever this year :pctoss

[thispego]

parker hedo horry, to name a few were all blowing ass but duncan busted a crazy sideways fade shot to take the lead and, what seemed like, the game.

then 2 long commercial breaks later, thinking that the .4 seconds left was just a technicality they had to play out so we could take it back to SA and close out the series...
well obvisouly you know what happened after that

[J.T.]

Lakers were a damn good team that year. They were favorites going into it. Tony played hot, kinda like the way he played this season, in the first 2 games but after that the Lakers denied him the lane and contained him better. It was a really defensive, low scoring series if I recall correctly.

.4 was a heartbreaking loss. Tough to get over that and play a game a day afterward.

[snowboarder]

it was a killer

i still remember the day...

[thispego]

it was nausea inducing

[Trainwreck2100]

I became a big fan of the Spurs in 2004-2005 season...Lately, I keep hearing people talk about the .04 loss to Lakers in 2004...I checked the data about that playoff series. And even after the .04 loss, the Spurs still had a chance to win. The series was 3-2 in Lakers favor. So then why does everyone talk about the .04 being the biggest loss/the one that hurt the most, when the Spurs still could have won two more games? They could have tied the series to 3-3 and had a Game 7. This year, the Spurs were able to to go from 1-3 to tie it at 3-3 and almost won Game 7. When I originally heard about the .04, I thought that happened during an elimination game...Like it was 3-3, and then the .04 won the series in that game...But now that I looked and saw that it was in Game 5 that it happened, why would this be the loss that hurt the most other than the fact that it was .04 seconds-lucky shot by Fish...The Spurs should have come back in Game 6 and been even more aggressive and playing with more passion knowing that Game 5 should have been theirs...and that a lucky shot took it away from them. Instead, they gave up? What happened?


I don't care who the fuck you are, you don't get up from that. Plus all the Spus not named Duncan couldn't do shit

[FromWayDowntown]

Because .4 wasn't just about losing a game. It was about losing a 3rd game in a row, but doing it in absolutely morale-crushing fashion and then having to go on the road to get Game 6. When the Spurs lost Game 4 against Dallas, they had a good opportunity to get themselves back into the series because they had Game 5 at home and could reasonably expect to win that game to force Game 6 and go into that game with some momentum. In 2004, they had no momentum at all going into Game 6 in LA and they played like it.

[dknights411]

.4 was nothing compared to 21.1 or whatever this year :pctoss

I disagree. We had the .4 game and litterally lost it in a split second on a fluke shot. The game ended after Fisher's shot. That's it. No more. Dirk's +1 wasn't the end of the game, and the Spurs still had overtime to bounce back. The Spurs didn't have that opportunity in '04. So to me, .4 was more devestating.

Man, if it wasn't for those two strokes of dumb luck, we might have had a four-peat. Oh well, no use crying over sour grapes, as I always say. :)

[whottt]

The Spurs, to a man except for Manu, laid down and bent over for Lakers after .4....And Popovich was the one leading the laydown...read his comments after the loss. Watch his body language in game 6.

It was a pretty sickening day in Spurs history and one I'd much rather forget than .4.



And any other questions you have about the 2004 Spurs losing likely begin with an H and end with an O.

[Nikos]

Devin Brown stepped up the most relative to his normal contributions. Manu played well statistically, just wasn't quite as good as he turned out to be in 04-05.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

And it was .4 not .04.
Thank you! I see .04 all the time and it drives me nuts.

If Fisher got that shot off in 4 hundredths of a second I would've been even angrier. :pctoss

[SA Gunslinger]

Eddie F. Rush was not going to let us win game six. Also, TP's jumper was even worse in 2004.

[greens]

I disagree. We had the .4 game and litterally lost it in a split second on a fluke shot. The game ended after Fisher's shot. That's it. No more. Dirk's +1 wasn't the end of the game, and the Spurs still had overtime to bounce back. The Spurs didn't have that opportunity in '04. So to me, .4 was more devestating.

Man, if it wasn't for those two strokes of dumb luck, we might have had a four-peat. Oh well, no use crying over sour grapes, as I always say. :)

Yeah, even after Manu made that foul on Dirk...We still have 21 seconds to make the winning shot and win this series...Timmy missed the put back...But we still then had a whole 5 minutes to win...plus as I recall, most of the Mavs players who were guarding Timmy were in foul trouble...And we were playing at home...See, that's why I don't think it's all on Manu's foul...We had so many opportunities after it but we blew them...

Sorry about the .04...I meant to write .4...So I guess it was more of a mental loss rather than a physical one...I guess the Spurs came a long way from 2004...They are now more mentally tough, a lot more...

[SPARKY]

.4 sucked because the Spurs were clearly jobbed on that one. 21.1 sucked more because it was rather preventable.

[adidas11]

Very interesting. It's fun remembering the events of .4

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

The Spurs, to a man except for Manu, laid down and bent over for Lakers after .4....And Popovich was the one leading the laydown...read his comments after the loss. Watch his body language in game 6.

It was a pretty sickening day in Spurs history and one I'd much rather forget than .4.



And any other questions you have about the 2004 Spurs losing likely begin with an H and end with an O.
I remember that crazy game 5 result. It was all a matter of the pendulum. Game 6 was still ready to be played and I was all excited to see the throw back punch of the Spurs with two Laker fans that Saturday. Then all of a sudden they just laid down and died before the 4th quarter began. The only time my Laker buddies were impressed with the Spurs was when Manu was doing his crazy acrobatics to try and keep the Spurs within striking distance. To no avail. A lot of Spurs fans in retrospect talk like the Lakers were invincible and that they were too much to overcome. But it was all mental. Spurs had the youth and the ability to take out the Lakers if they didn't pussy it up after the demoralizing loss. The 1-3 Deficit overcoming, forcing game 7, 2006 Spurs have grown a lot more Heart. Tim's "I didn't want to look back and say I didn't give enough" quote probably grew from swallowing that 2004 series.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

.4 sucked because the Spurs were clearly jobbed on that one. 21.1 sucked more because it was rather preventable.
I don't mind this year's loss anymore now that 2 weeks have passed. Tim ran out of gas. Mavs were a great team. Outcome could have been decided with a quarter. We made our run in the 4th quarter. They made theirs in overtime. Ball bounced their way.

I was more upset with the Spurs giving up in 04 when there was a WHOLE other game to be played and they actually lost cuz of the 0.4 outcome and later actually considering "appealing" the shot clock's outcome. This year's series loss came down to an elimination game and physical mistakes. The other series was all mental. It was pathetic. 2005 Spurs redeemed such pathetic efforts. 2006 again displayed great character. No pansy ass defeats this year. Played as a team and died as a team.

Same can't be said bout the Pistons defeat.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Devin Brown stepped up the most relative to his normal contributions. Manu played well statistically, just wasn't quite as good as he turned out to be in 04-05.
Pop didn't start Manu cuz he didn't trust him yet. Him playing on the bench the whole time probably made a difference.

[J.T.]

.4 was semi-vindicated by the fact that the Lakers got their collective asses handed to them by the Pistons in a very humiliating fashion in the Finals. But .4 was probably one of the most terrible days ever for Spurs fans. Game 7 against Dallas was as bad if not worse. Next year we'll come out with a chip on our shoulder and sweep their primadonna asses in the most one-sided ass kicking the NBA has ever seen, with a combined victory margin of 100 points. Just like the 2005 crown after .4, the 2007 crown is OURS.

[ShoogarBear]

Actually game 6 wasn't a laydown like everyone seems to be trying to make it out to be in retrospect. The Spurs actually had a lead mi-waythrough the third quarter. But nobody had any real expectations that they would pull it out.



And any other questions you have about the 2004 Spurs losing likely begin with an H and end with an O.
0-5 in his last game as a Spur. :smokin People want this guy back, why?

[FromWayDowntown]

Pop didn't start Manu cuz he didn't trust him yet. Him playing on the bench the whole time probably made a difference.

That's a load of crap. Manu was a starter for a significant part of the 2003-04 season. Hedo Turkoglu had to start for a period when Manu was injured, though, and played better than he had off the bench. Pop kept Manu coming off the bench because Manu played better off the bench than Hedo did, so he maximized his roster -- in some sense -- by altering that rotation.

It had nothing to do with a lack of trust or a lack of confidence in Manu.

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually game 6 wasn't a laydown like everyone seems to be trying to make it out to be in retrospect. The Spurs actually had a lead mi-waythrough the third quarter. But nobody had any real expectations that they would pull it out.

Box -- Game 6, 2004 West Semis (http://www.nba.com/games/20040515/SASLAL/boxscore.html)

It was a whole lot about shooting 30% from the floor for the game, 3-24 from behind the arc, and getting killed at the free throw line.

It's clear that the Spurs fought and fought and fought, but they played like a team that knew its best chance had passed -- it was quite clear they were demoralized and missing 60 shots certainly didn't help them regain confidence to fence with LA in a 4th quarter of a put-away game at Staples.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Box -- Game 6, 2004 West Semis (http://www.nba.com/games/20040515/SASLAL/boxscore.html)

It was a whole lot about shooting 30% from the floor for the game, 3-24 from behind the arc, and getting killed at the free throw line.

It's clear that the Spurs fought and fought and fought, but they played like a team that knew its best chance had passed -- it was quite clear they were demoralized and missing 60 shots certainly didn't help them regain confidence to fence with LA in a 4th quarter of a put-away game at Staples.
Oh whatever...a lot of them gave up before the 4th quarter even started. That's when a lot of fans and viewers saw they admitted defeat. Spurs played a lot shittier against Dallas in the first half of game 7 then they did against the Lakers. And the Margin of victory was only 12.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

That's a load of crap. Manu was a starter for a significant part of the 2003-04 season. Hedo Turkoglu had to start for a period when Manu was injured, though, and played better than he had off the bench. Pop kept Manu coming off the bench because Manu played better off the bench than Hedo did, so he maximized his roster -- in some sense -- by altering that rotation.

It had nothing to do with a lack of trust or a lack of confidence in Manu.
Hedo was not a fucking starter, and for playoffs wtf was Pop thinking? He's a shooter at best, and a poor Man's Peja at that. Except for the 0-5 FG's in an elimination game, he's just like Peja, but everyone missed especially beyond the arc, so whatever. Pop's even mentioned how his trust in Manu has grown compared to the past. And in retrospect, Pop wasnt sold on Manu's wild game til after his olympics run. If anything he looked hesitant.

IF POP PAID ATTENTION to why they beat the Lakers in 03' It was not only cuz of a young team to compliment them, it was partly cuz they didn't expect to deal with the Parker-Ginobili penetration. Phil Jackson commented about Manu's game. He wasn't as good then as he is now, but starting him in those games against the Lakers would have made a difference. Any initial pressure on the Lakers from a Ginobili spark in the crucial later games would have affected the Lakers mindset. Instead of the Lakers setting the tone to take control.

[FromWayDowntown]

Hedo was not a fucking starter, and for playoffs wtf was Pop thinking?

I'm taking this at face value -- Hedo started 44 games that year for the Spurs and started every game that he played in after January 31, 2004. Manu only started 38 games that year and didn't start after January 31, 2004. That switch took place, reportedly, to maximize the Spurs roster.

Here (http://www.woai.com/spurs/story.aspx?content_id=3DC9D573-B1C2-4250-B237-6AFDECBBDD28), for example, is a column Kori wrote in February of 2004 that detailed that situation a bit. I'm sure I could find others if you needed convincing. It had nothing to do with a lack of confidence in Manu -- it had everything to do with trying to get something useful out of Turkoglu.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

I'm taking this at face value -- Hedo started 44 games that year for the Spurs and started every game that he played in after January 31, 2004. Manu only started 38 games that year and didn't start after January 31, 2004. That switch took place, reportedly, to maximize the Spurs roster.

Here (http://www.woai.com/spurs/story.aspx?content_id=3DC9D573-B1C2-4250-B237-6AFDECBBDD28), for example, is a column Kori wrote in February of 2004 that detailed that situation a bit. I'm sure I could find others if you needed convincing. It had nothing to do with a lack of confidence in Manu -- it had everything to do with trying to get something useful out of Turkoglu.
Ok you have a point with Pop trying to get Turkoglu some confidence or whatever in the regular season more than not trusting Manu. Hedo's points in that series was an abysmal performance. 0, 9, 4, 16, 8, 0, while Ginobili 11, 15, 17, 21, 8 16. Pop made no adjustments in the playoff series against the Lakers after they figured out how to stop Tony Parker when Manu was clearly the better guard than Hedo in that situation. I don't care bout Turkoglu thing, it did no good starting him in the postseason. Pop's tactics proved to be a mistake don't you think. Look at Barry. He did nothing when Pop moved him to starter for a little while. I don't really get the spark off the bench thing with Manu. It wasn't really effective in the grand scheme of things after his injuries healed up. It had little effect on the outcome of the games when he tried it again in the Dallas series really.

[mcornelio]

you ever had something in the bag, won a game by some amazing tim duncan shit and then all of a sudden, after you have turned off your t.v. game over spurs win .4 imposible... but then u just get a feeling so u turn it back on and bam heres derek fisher making his shot in .12 but the clock was not started fucking shit... fuckers need to stop bringing this up, still pisses me off

[RonMexico]

parker hedo horry, to name a few were all blowing ass but duncan busted a crazy sideways fade shot to take the lead and, what seemed like, the game.

then 2 long commercial breaks later, thinking that the .4 seconds left was just a technicality they had to play out so we could take it back to SA and close out the series...
well obvisouly you know what happened after that

Actually, game 5 was in SA, so you had to go back to LA and close out Game 6... the thing that makes it most significant I think was that the Spurs had a 2-0 lead and then it crumble and lost 4 straight...

[Darrin]

I became a big fan of the Spurs in 2004-2005 season...Lately, I keep hearing people talk about the .4 loss to Lakers in 2004...I checked the data about that playoff series. And even after the .4 loss, the Spurs still had a chance to win. The series was 3-2 in Lakers favor. So then why does everyone talk about the .4 being the biggest loss/the one that hurt the most, when the Spurs still could have won two more games? They could have tied the series to 3-3 and had a Game 7. This year, the Spurs were able to to go from 1-3 to tie it at 3-3 and almost won Game 7. When I originally heard about the .4, I thought that happened during an elimination game...Like it was 3-3, and then the .4 won the series in that game...But now that I looked and saw that it was in Game 5 that it happened, why would this be the loss that hurt the most other than the fact that it was .4 seconds-lucky shot by Fish...The Spurs should have come back in Game 6 and been even more aggressive and playing with more passion knowing that Game 5 should have been theirs...and that a lucky shot took it away from them. Instead, they gave up? What happened?

When did Bird steal Isiah's pass? In Game 5 that gave the Celtics a 3-2 series advantage.
When did the Lakers' come back from 26 points down on a Robert Horry three? In a Game 4 that tied the series at 2-2.
When did San Antonio get a game-winner from Robert Horry in overtime? In a Game 5 that gave them a 3-2 series lead.

Consider what would happen if those shots don't go in? The Kings hold on for a 3-1 series lead where they blowout the Lakers on their homecourt. The Pistons put the Celtics on the verge of elimination by winning in a building they are convinced is cursed for them - Boston Garden. The Pistons climb out of a 2-0 hole to put the Spurs on the verge of elimination.

In each case, the swing of emotion goes from elation to disappointment in the time it takes to snap your fingers. It didn't happen over a quarter or 3 games in a series. Those things are explained away by bad refs, bad personnel, and the better team asserting itself. But when the victory is there to be had, when all the preparation and gameplan and talent is out the window, and all that is left is luck...those things in combination with the swing of emotion are very bitter or very sweet. When you consider all the work, the prepartion, the money - from the ball boys to the coaching staff, an the players - to have all of that be for really nothing, a wasted opportunity at a Championship, those things are haunting.

Seven years ago, the Pistons celebrated the Bad Boys first Championship in 1989. At the pre-game ceremony, with as many players in attendance as possible, owner Bill Davidson told the crowd a story. He was in the Pistons' locker room during game six of the 1988 NBA Finals. The Pistons had stolen game one in the Great Western Forum, dropped games two and three, and won 4 and 5 to put the Pistons on the brink of eliminating the Los Angeles Lakers on their homecourt. Isiah Thomas had sprained his ankle in quarter number 3 of game 6, and he scored 13 of his 25 points in that 12-minute span hobbling on one foot. His thought process being that if they end the series that night, he can get treatment in the morning and for the rest of the summer.

With 27 seconds left to play, and the Lakers on their final possession trailing Detroit by one, CBS and David Stern, the press, they were all gathered in the visitors locker room. Davidson said he was practicing what he was going to say on television when he heard a whistle on Bill Laimbeer. With the 14 seconds on the clock, champagne on ice, the Larry O'Brien trophy in the locker room, he watched Kareem Abdul-Jabbar nail two free throws for a one-point lead, and Joe Dumars miss a runner down the lane to give the Lakers a slim victory, and to tie the series 3-3.

As everyone was rustling up their equipment and the O'Brien trophy was taken out of the locker room, he thought to himself "On my tombstone, it will say: that was the closest he ever got to a Championship. I want to thank all these men behind me for not making that true."

To this day, people who didn't watch that game say "shadow foul" and they don't need to be told the circumstance, or hear the story, and no one will argue it was legitimate. As Jack McCloskey said: "Robbed connotates a 'criminal offense.' The referee that made the call at the end of the game wasn't a criminal. He made a mistake and it cost us a Championship. I will say that it took a long time for that referee to look me in the eyes."

When great things are possible, great things are lost. When hopes are dashed, when a season worth of work is undone in one moment, people remember it.

Just think back to game 5 of the 2004 Western Semis - Tim Duncan makes that shot. He pulls up, crashes to the ground and with four tenths of a second on the clock, the Spurs are one victory away from the Western Conference Finals, and a legitimate chance to repeat as NBA Champions. They are one win away from erasing all the talk about how poorly they played in games 3 and 4. One win away from putting the presumed Champions out of their misery for the second year in a row.

And that anticpation, all that excitment, all of it is lost in four tenths of a second. Then get your teammates together and talk about winning games 6 and 7.

[JET_31]

i can't really talk from experience, as the mavs have never had that kind of heartbreak, but i can imagine how that would really really suck.

[Darrin]

i can't really talk from experience, as the mavs have never had that kind of heartbreak, but i can imagine how that would really really suck.

As the expression goes, the night is young. Hope that this year's team doesn't give you experience - instead you get to taste the sweetness of those types of moments. I really want to see Stackhouse and Dirk (for all the soft talk) get their rings.