With 29 secs left

down 1 point..


Sonics inbounded to Nick Colison, I said in chat that the Spurs should have fouled Collison...who was only 2-4 and is only a 70% FT shooter.

I know the book says that you play good D and you should get the ball back with 4 secs left(turned out to be 2.2)

But my question to you is, if we are the better team, why not extend the game?

Foul Collison, he was shakey at the line last night...if he hits 2, then they have 26 secs to get a 2 or a 3 to tie. If he misses 1 of 2, then you still have 26 secs to get a lot better shot off to tie, then a quick shot like the one they had last night with only 2.2 secs left.

The better team should have more chances to win...extend the game....foul til they miss FTs and try to out score them, which they should be able to do.

The Spurs have shown that they are not good at winning games this year when they have 2-3 secs left on the clock...so why put yourself in that position????

Yeah, I didn't like that call either. Given the discrepancy between the shot clock and game clock, we were going to be put in a tough position in the end if we didn't foul.

if he makes both then you HAVE to make a 3.

and with both of their great 3 point shooters throwing up absolute bricks before that.

Not necessarily... If he makes both, you have 25 seconds or so to play with ... you could go for 2 and foul again.

Sadly though, the strategy should have worked... Tim had a good look at the basket on the last shot.

Yeah, I don't think you could have asked for a better situation. Tim with the ball in his hands with 2.2 seconds... that's something that need to happen more often so he gets more comfortable. I think Tim (and even Sean Elliot was commenting on this) is hesitating too much, letting the defense get set up. It looks sad when trash like Jarome James is getting easy slams, and Tim is having to work for his points.

Now, if Allen had made the shot, I would totally agree we should have fouled Colison :lol

I think TD hurried the shot...he had a half second left to really get 1 ft closer...his shot was 6 inches short, so that little hurry cost them.

So frustrating.

Quote:

---

...if he hits 2, then they have 26 secs to get a 2 or a 3 to tie

---

Correction: They would have 24 seconds left to get a 2 or a 3, and Seattle would get the ball back with two seconds, needing only a point or a regular basket to win. I want the ball in the Spurs hands to decide the game. It didn't work out last night, but it was the right call to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Correction: They would have 24 seconds left to get a 2 or a 3, and Seattle would get the ball back with two seconds, needing only a point or a regular basket to win. I want the ball in the Spurs hands to decide the game. It didn't work out last night, but it was the right call to make.

---

Yeah, the Spurs were hot...they did not score a FG for the last 4 and 1/2 mins.

:)

so you foul them and go for a lower percentage shot.


Makes perfect sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

so you foul them and go for a lower percentage shot.


Makes perfect sense.

---

I do not think Collison would have hit 2 FTs, he was looking like a Spur at the line earlier in the game and the two that he did hit bounced all over the rim before dropping.

At best he hits 1, then we score, play great D, then maybe get ball back with 2-3 secs left to wim, at worst go into OT.

Water under the bridge...it was just an observation...I am not depressed or anything...as I said, I predicted the Spurs to lose 2 games...so no biggie.

A shot with 2.9 seconds left typically IS a low percentage shot. And no room for error.

So are we talking about fouling a guy and potenitally needing a 3 to tie instead of having Bowen shut down Ray Allen and force him into a bad shot, giving the Spurs a chance at a Duncan six footer at the buzzer? Some of you guys are on crack. If there was ever a time that the Spurs played into their strengths and went with the percentages, this was it. Apparently there's no satisfying some people.

And what if the Sonics had hit a 3 with 2.9 seconds left?

Forget about what actually happened... nobody has said they weren't satisfied with the last shot. Nobody's blaming Pop. Nobody's crying about the end of the run. It's a simple discussion about what a coach should usually do in that situation. It worked out this time, but I would still rather foul in that situation in the future. You don't have to agree.

If the coach of the best defensive team in the league, with two first team all defensive players, whose team isn't shooting well, makes a decision to take the outcome of the game out of the hands of his defense and and instead fouls, forcing his team to have to potentially make a three to tie, instead of giving his hall of fame power forward a chance to hit a relatively easy jump hook over Vitaly Potapenko, I don't see how anybody after the fact could say it was wise. Thanks for allowing me to disagree.

Of course you're working under the assumption that Tim Duncan will always have a 6 foot hook over Vitaly Potapenko to win it. Sometimes it will be Manu or Parker driving into a brick wall or Brent Barry forcing a desperation three. Sometimes, Seattle will hit that shot and we'll be screwed.

In the future, I'd rather not take those risks on the chance that maybe we can get a stop AND find a decent shot in under 3 seconds. When the game is tied? Definitely, but not when we're down.

Quote:

---

I do not think Collison would have hit 2 FTs, he was looking like a Spur at the line earlier in the game and the two that he did hit bounced all over the rim before dropping.

---

I didnt think Jerome James would complete a three point play but he made a free throw.

Id rather play to my strengths and let the defense stop them then let them shoot free throws.

The bottom line is as great a player as Duncan is he is not clutch. He never has been and most likely never will be. That was plenty of time to get a good look for Manu or Robert Horry both of whom are far more clutch than Duncan. This was another case of Pop giving it to Duncan and saying "win us the game" because he is our biggest super star.

p.s. to all you guys who are going to cite the shot Duncan made against the Lakers last year, dont bother. One shot in a series we should have won and instead lost isnt clutch.

with 29 secs left i was sound asleep, rubbing up against a little pussy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texbumTHElife

The bottom line is as great a player as Duncan is he is not clutch. He never has been and most likely never will be. That was plenty of time to get a good look for Manu or Robert Horry both of whom are far more clutch than Duncan. This was another case of Pop giving it to Duncan and saying "win us the game" because he is our biggest super star.

---

Interesting take. I recall Duncan making a number of game winning shots, many this year, and the shot over Shaq was pretty damn clutch in my opinion. I'm not sure how the fact that nobody could hit a jump shot in the series makes Duncan a choker.

When nobody on the team is shooting well, Duncan is the most likely to be able to hit a shot cold, and his ability to create his own shot gives him an advantage, especially when there's very little time. I don't recall Horry being any more clutch than anyone else since he's been a Spur. I'd be willing to bet that Barry has hit more big shots at the end of games than Horry has. If neither Duncan nor Manu is shooting well, and there's therefore no hot hand to feed, I don't understand why anyone would think a 22 foot jump shot is better than an 8 foot jump shot.

As goto man, Tim will often be 1) in the low block 2) double coverage. As we see over and over, he's pathologically, excrutiatingly slow in his decision making, giving the defense time to adjust, to sag, to triple. I'm not convinced he's the 1st choice as goto man for last shots. I'd much rather have Tony, Manu, Brent driving and/or to draw a foul than a jumpshot from anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Yeah, I didn't like that call either. Given the discrepancy between the shot clock and game clock, we were going to be put in a tough position in the end if we didn't foul.

---

Lets talk about the discrepancy of the shot clock and the game clock. I was figuring we'd have a minimum of 5 seconds--IF they used all the shot clock without taking a shot.

Instead Allen got off a shot before the 24 seconds was up. The buzzer went off when the ball bounced off the rim into the air. How did the rebound take 3 seconds?

"he's pathologically, excrutiatingly slow in his decision making, giving the defense time to adjust, to sag, to triple. I'm not convinced he's the 1st choice as goto man for last shots."

Do you even watch Spurs games? Duncan can be slow on the block when waiting for the defense to react. We've all seen over and over how adept Tim is at passing out of the DT. Why do you think the entire sonics front line was in foul trouble? They won't double team tim and allow him to beat them with his passing. Tim is one of the more clutch players in the NBA. He missed one, and you forget about his entire career. Get a friggin grip....

You said to foul and extend the game in the chat. I said no you play defense and that is what we did. 2 secs was enough for Duncan to get a pretty good look at the basket he was just short. It was a good shot nothing wrong with the possession so I have no idea what your ranting about.

Quote:

---

Id rather play to my strengths

---

Us scoring with under three seconds left in the game isn't exactly what I'd call a strength.

Jim has a legitimate point here, especially when super scrub Nick Collison had the ball in his hands with about 20 seconds left.

Tim Duncan is very clutch. Remember the shot he hit against the Cavs this year? Or the hook against the pacers last year? How about the countless number of game winners he had in 02-03. Rember game six of the 03 Finals? Remember game five of the 99 Finals? Remember his hook against Shaq in 99 that helped us sweep the Lakers?

So he missed one last night. Give him a break, after all, he did keep us in the game until that point. I mean a guy misses one clutch shot and you forget about his whole frieking career.

btw, I'm calling it now, Tim will have 25+ points and 12+ boards tomorrow.

The Spurs should bench their best players when the game is on the line. Yeah.

Quote:

---

so I have no idea what your ranting about.

---

Where do you get the "ranting"? :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPARKY

The Spurs should bench their best players when the game is on the line. Yeah.

---

Where do you get where anyone said bench the best players?

I swear to god, some of you people act like a bunch of premenstrual women, being so freaking over reactive and over sensitve to any new ideas or possible criticism. Take a Pamprin and chill out...sheesh.

:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Where do you get where anyone said bench the best players?

I swear to god, some of you people act like a bunch of premenstrual women, being so freaking over reactive and over sensitve to any new ideas or possible criticism. Take a Pamprin and chill out...sheesh.

:rolleyes

---

People saying that Duncan isn't clutch or that he's slow to react, or that somehow having Ginobili shooting a jump shot instead of good shot in the paint are definitely new ideas. Whether or not they are good ideas is what the debate is about. I also wouldn't call it "possible criticism", I'd call it second-guessing. There's not a person on the planet that wouldn't think that was a great look if it had gone in. The fact that it didn't go in doesn't change anything other than the final score.

TD was lucky to get that"good look"

The odds of getting good shot with 2.2 secs to work with are slim.

The Spurs are best when they either have a fast break or when they have the full shot clock to work the ball into the post and out of the double team...that is nothing new.

The Spurs have lost a lot more games by 3 or less this year than they have won....if you do not believe that, go look it up.

Yeah, Jim. Vitaly Potapenko was deeing up Duncan all night. How many MVP votes did he get again?

The Spurs are best when they go through their best player, who almost always makes good moves and good decisions, and who does it so consistently that fans take him completely for granted. Their fast break is keyed by their defense, so fouling would have guaranteed the Sonics a chance to set up their defense. Duncan was in the post when he got the inbounds pass, and he spun away from a double team and got his lucky shot off. He must get 10 to 15 lucky shots like that per game. You'd think someone would stop him.

I believe your statistic, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Did you second guess all of the losses?

"Duncan can be slow on the block when waiting for the defense to react"

Low block or wing, he's slow to react. Waiting for the defense to set and adjust, a step here, half a step there, for the sagger to sag, for the double to come, while the other 4 Spurs spectate Tim's immobility. Rather than keeping the ball motion going and defense moving and off-balance, Tim allows the defense to catch up to the ball movement, which dies when it hits Tim.

Sean repeats nearly every game how slow Tim is make a move after catching the ball. In fact, a couple times when Tim did react quickly, Sean pointeed that out, too, to re-inforce the point that Tim is typically slow to react. A couple games ago, he went further, saying fast actions and decisions are the mark of a great player. The decision on what to do should be made before the ball comes, not an excrutiating, clock-wasting 5 seconds after.

"Why do you think the entire sonics front line was in foul trouble?"

Because like TMass, GRobb, Rasho, they're slow, unathletic klutzes, very typical of big men.

As Tim gets older and slower, I hope he figures out some of his weaknessses, for the time when his strengths won't be enough to cover for those weaknesses.

I'll never get down on Tim or anybody for missing a clutch shot. It's just that when the whole fucking universe knows the ball is going to Tim to shoot in the clutch, when the defense is keyed to stopping Tim, I'm looking for some tricky creativity from Pop and Tim to use the rest of the team.

Wow. Where do I start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

Low block or wing, he's slow to react. Waiting for the defense to set and adjust, a step here, half a step there, for the sagger to sag, for the double to come, while the other 4 Spurs spectate Tim's immobility. Rather than keeping the ball motion going and defense moving and off-balance, Tim allows the defense to catch up to the ball movement, which dies when it hits Tim.

---

You have this concept completely backwards as far as I can tell, and here's why. The ball movement STARTS with Timmy. Tim typically isn't standing on the wing taking a pass that's gone around the perimeter to shoot a three pointer before the defense catches up. There's no ball motion when you are standing in the low block with your back to the basket waiting to accept an entry pass. Nobody throws the ball to Tim to stay ahead of the defense. The fact that Duncan sits there with the ball is he's waiting for the help defender to commit. If the guy gets too far away he makes a move, if the guy doubles him hard he throws to the wing, but that only happens if the double-teamer's man is moving. If the other four players are standing around when he has the ball instead of moving to open spots, then there's a problem, but don't blame Duncan for it.

If Duncan faces up, he typically either draws a foul, hits the bank shot or drives around his man. There's no ball movement that precedes this. If someone doubles him the same concept as when his back is to the basket applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

Sean repeats nearly every game how slow Tim is make a move after catching the ball. In fact, a couple times when Tim did react quickly, Sean pointeed that out, too, to re-inforce the point that Tim is typically slow to react. A couple games ago, he went further, saying fast actions and decisions are the mark of a great player. The decision on what to do should be made before the ball comes, not an excrutiating, clock-wasting 5 seconds after.

---

I don't get the local feeds of Spurs games, but Sean Elliott criticising anyone for indecision is laughable. Duncan was exposed a few years ago by reacting too slowly to hard double teams, but I think he worked on it, because he made the everybody pay for doing it the next year. Nobody this year has consistently thrown a hard double at Duncan, probably for that reason. Anybody that decides what they are going to do before it happens instead of reacting to what the defense does is not a great player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

"Why do you think the entire sonics front line was in foul trouble?"

Because like TMass, GRobb, Rasho, they're slow, unathletic klutzes, very typical of big men.

---

No. Very typical of big men that have to defend Duncan. He drew virtually every single foul on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

As Tim gets older and slower, I hope he figures out some of his weaknessses, for the time when his strengths won't be enough to cover for those weaknesses.

---

I can't believe I'm reading that statement. When has Duncan ever been fast and athletic? You are obviously mistaking Duncan for another great Spurs player who relied on his superior athleticism to get by. Duncan's strengths are his timing, his footwork and his decision making. You don't lose those as you get older.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons

I'll never get down on Tim or anybody for missing a clutch shot. It's just that when the whole fucking universe knows the ball is going to Tim to shoot in the clutch, when the defense is keyed to stopping Tim, I'm looking for some tricky creativity from Pop and Tim to use the rest of the team.

---

If the whole fucking universe knew the ball was going to Tim to shoot in the clutch, and the defense was keyed to stopping him, how did he manage to spin away from the two guys who immediately collapsed on him to get such a good shot against single coverage? The above statement makes it sound like you don't think it was a good shot. For that reason it seems like you are getting down on Tim just for missing a clutch shot.

My point is, the Spurs are at their worst with only 2 secs on the shot clock or game clock.

They are a team that needs to play inside - out.

The best chance for SA to win was to foul and then have a whole 20+ secs to work for a good shot.

I know when the ball comes to Tim, things slow down. But, I don't necessarily agree thats a bad thing.

Charles Barkley made a career outta doing the same thing. They would iso him, and he'd slowly back down his guy watching what was happening on the court. He'd wait for the double then pass it, or if the double doesn't come, he'd do his thing.

What Tim does when he has the ball, is why we are such a great halfcourt team.

How many 3 pointers are attributed to Tim cuz he's looking at the entire court while he's doing his thing? I see nothing wrong with the style...if it's done correctly. Tim does it right.

It ain't always perfect...but what is?

If he's comfortable taking his time, looking over the court as the play is developing and making good decisions...thats gonna keep the opposing team off guard. If he made quick moves everytime, people would just sag knowing it, and wouldn't have to keep such a close eye on their men. A lotta great plays come for others while Tim is taking his time. A lot of our plays go through him...and that makes our "team" much better. He makes the right decision more than not.

That doesn't mean Tim shouldn't go quickly every now and then...mix it up. But, I think Sean (god bless his goofy smile) wants him to do it more than I think is good for the team.

To play devils advocate, don't you think the Sonics would have fouled someone within that last 24 seconds, seeing as the Spurs were terrible at the line? Great defensive teams let their defense make the stop, and as everyone knows, the Sonics are not a great defensive team. So they would have fouled someone, and still be in a position to win, based on the Spurs inability to hit a free throw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

My point is, the Spurs are at their worst with only 2 secs on the shot clock or game clock.

They are a team that needs to play inside - out.

The best chance for SA to win was to foul and then have a whole 20+ secs to work for a good shot.

---

I think it's a good point, and it normally it isn't a bad strategy. I'm not sure it's better in the game 3 situation. Let's say the Spurs foul. If I'm Seattle and Collison makes 1 of 2 I foul Ginobili, Parker or Duncan as soon as one of them has the ball. If by some miracle they make both free throws I've still got a possession to win the game or go into overtime. They don't dare foul me or the game is over. If Ridnour makes both I foul and it's a free throw contest for the rest of the game, and barring some freak occurance I win.

I digressed a bit earlier, but my original point is that as well as Bowen played defense in game 3 it would be a shame to take the last possession out of his hands. The Sonics were counting on Ray Allen to get a good shot off and against almost any other team he would have.

Quote:

---

Yeah, Jim. Vitaly Potapenko was deeing up Duncan all night. How many MVP votes did he get again?

---

Well, you definitely have the right handle, obstructed view.

Fuck the MVP votes, Vitaly was doing a very good job in the fourth defending Duncan. I guess you missed Duncan shooting the ball off the side of the backboard on the prior possession.

The perfect play was there - Manu in to Duncan, Manu cuts to the line, Duncan hands it off with a layup. The lane was wide open.

But that requires Duncan do something besides shoot at the end, and we all know that's not in Pop's end of game playbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Well, you definitely have the right handle, obstructed view.

Fuck the MVP votes, Vitaly was doing a very good job in the fourth defending Duncan. I guess you missed Duncan shooting the ball off the side of the backboard on the prior possession.

The perfect play was there - Manu in to Duncan, Manu cuts to the line, Duncan hands it off with a layup. The lane was wide open.

But that requires Duncan do something besides shoot at the end, and we all know that's not in Pop's end of game playbook.

---

Well, Potapenko didn't play in the fourth quarter until James fouled out with a minute and a half to go, so your critique of his defense, when you didn't even know that little factoid, is suspect at best. Potapenko defensed Duncan exactly twice during that time, the shot off the side of the backboard being the first. I would attribute the bad shot to the ridiculous alley oop pass by Manu that was going toward the sideline instead of toward the basket and put Duncan out of position, but since Timmy still took the shot I'll give you that one.

But since you said "apparently you missed it", as though it means something, are you implying that Duncan does that a lot? Are you implying that he would do it twice in a row? Has he ever done that twice in a row? Does he usually come back after a bad shot to take a good one? Are all the shots he makes in a game lucky not to hit the side of the backboard? Is he entitled to a mistake? Robert Horry had a wide open three with 30 seconds to go and barely drew iron; how does he get more benefit of the doubt than Timmy?

And the lane wasn't wide open. Duncan spun to an open spot, which happened to be away from Ginobili, while Daniels screened Manu and Barry's man left him to triple-team Timmy. Potapenko stood there with his hands straight up trying not to shit in his pants. Manu got there after the shot was in the air and was in position for a rebound but not a pass, mainly because he didn't get away clean from AD, but also because of the direction Duncan turned it would have been a tough pass. By the time Manu got to the paint there were four Sonics there. The only guy that was more open than Duncan was is Barry, and I ask again: Would you rather have him take the last shot? I didn't think so.

Another thing to remember. Duncan probably wasn't going to give that ball up to anyone unless they were ridiculously open, because that was his game to win or lose. If nothing else he earned the right to take the last shot.

Duncan has a chronic habit of leaving shots short in games where teams have been extremely physical with him.

This has been particularly evident in games in the past against the Laker, Trailblazers, and even Memphis.

Expecting that trend to change for a guy who isn't even 100% is kinda asking a bit much, don't you think?

Sorry, that was a typo on Vitaly, he did a good job on Duncan the whole night whenever they put his goon ass on Tim.

Quote:

---

Duncan probably wasn't going to give that ball up to anyone unless they were ridiculously open,

---

That's my point, if you screen Manu's man on the inbounds, that lane was absolutely wide open outside of Vitaly and Tim.

Manu cuts into the lane, and like I said, Manu lays it in, game over.

Why didn't Manu just inbound it to himself for a dunk? I don't know.

They should just start Manu at power forward, I guess, because Duncan has such a long history of choking, especially against top-shelf defenders like Potapenko.

Without a crystal ball I don't know how to debate what is against what-ifs, but as a Spurs fan I'm glad someone other than you drew up the play.