Grades: Spurs @ Lakers - Apr. 17

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mugen

Good. Don't forget to put on your helmet when you leave the house today.

---

Nice job avoiding the argument and jumping straight to personal insults.

Just so I have this straight....

Splitter picks up his 2nd foul in the first quarter, but is not immediately substituted because he is Duncan's backup and Pop is worried about his foul trouble.

Edit: He starts the 2nd quarter with his 2 fouls (foul trouble)

He has 3 fouls at the half.

He doesn't start the 3rd because he has 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He doesn't play at all in the 3rd because he has 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He starts the 4th and plays the first 3:26 and goes back to the bench with 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He re-enters the game in garbage time with his 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He picks up this 4th foul with :26 left (foul trouble).

Got it. It all makes sense now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Splitter got "benched" because he had three fouls. Splitter, even though he was starting, was still Duncan's backup. Pop didn't want him picking up a fourth and then having to play Duncan the entire third quarter.

If Splitter wasn't in foul trouble, he would have started the second half.

---

Splitter picked up his 2nd foul in the 1st quarter. That is foul trouble. 2 fouls in the 1st quarter.

But Pop started him in the 2nd quarter. Was he not aware of this? Was he not worried about "foul trouble" in the first half, only the 2nd half? This argument makes no sense.

Edit: And Duncan played the entire 3rd quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

Nice job avoiding the argument and jumping straight to personal insults.

Just so I have this straight....

Splitter picks up his 2nd foul in the first quarter, but is not immediately substituted because he is Duncan's backup and Pop is worried about his foul trouble.

He has 3 fouls at the half.

He doesn't start the 3rd because he has 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He doesn't play at all in the 3rd because he has 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He starts the 4th and plays the first 3:26 and goes back to the bench with 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He re-enters the game in garbage time with his 3 fouls (foul trouble).

He picks up this 4th foul with :26 left (foul trouble).

Got it. It all makes sense now.

---

I was trying to explain to you Pop's thinking on starting the 2nd half with Diaw based on how Pop has approached similar situations in the past (which timvp provided examples of). You either didn't understand or didn't accept it because it didn't fit in with your anti-Tiago stance that you've had for 2 seasons now.

There's really not much more anybody else can do for you. So just move along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

Splitter picked up his 2nd foul in the 1st quarter. That is foul trouble. 2 fouls in the 1st quarter.

But Pop started him in the 2nd quarter. Was he not aware of this? Was he not worried about "foul trouble" in the first half, only the 2nd half? This argument makes no sense.

---

I'm not arguing whether or not it makes sense. I've just said that's how Pop coaches. If you haven't noticed him alter his second half starting lineup due to foul trouble, you haven't been following along too closely over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I'm not arguing whether or not it makes sense. I've just said that's how Pop coaches. If you haven't noticed him alter his second half starting lineup due to foul trouble, you haven't been following along too closely over the years.

---

Please point out specifically what I am misunderstanding.

You said:

Quote:

---

Splitter got "benched" because he had three fouls. Splitter, even though he was starting, was still Duncan's backup. Pop didn't want him picking up a fourth and then having to play Duncan the entire third quarter.

---

Duncan played the entire 3rd quarter and Splitter didn't see the floor.

Moreover, Splitter picked up his 2nd foul towards the end of the first quarter, was not taken out of the game, and started the 2nd quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

Duncan played the entire 3rd quarter and Splitter didn't see the floor.

---

I doubt Pop planned on Duncan playing the whole quarter going into the second half. IMO, it appeared as if Pop was going for the knockout punch at the end of the third to allow the Big 3 to rest in the fourth.

Again, changing a second half starting lineup is commonplace for Pop and especially commonplace when one of the players has three fouls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

Moreover, Splitter picked up his 2nd foul towards the end of the first quarter, was not taken out of the game

---

He got his second foul with 15 seconds left in the quarter and the Spurs didn't play another defensive possession. Pop doesn't take out players for foul trouble when they are only going to play one offensive play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

and started the 2nd quarter.

---

Since when does Pop bench players in the second quarter for having two fouls.




I don't understand what you are questioning. Are you arguing that Pop never changes his second half starting lineup due to foul trouble? Are you arguing that Pop's management of foul trouble doesn't make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mugen

I was trying to explain to you Pop's thinking on starting the 2nd half with Diaw based on how Pop has approached similar situations in the past (which timvp provided examples of). You either didn't understand or didn't accept it because it didn't fit in with your anti-Tiago stance that you've had for 2 seasons now.

There's really not much more anybody else can do for you. So just move along.

---

I have no anti-Tiago bias at all. You have presupposed that based on fantasy.

Where we disagree is that you think he should be starting or playing more minutes. I think he is a great role player and that Pop uses him appropriately in his rotations. That's a fair disagreement, I don't know why you always have to resort to personal insults, tbh.

Where we also disagree is that I think last night, Pop benched him to start the 2nd half because he didn't like what he saw in the first and preferred Diaw next to Duncan. Whereas you seemingly think that it was "foul trouble" despite all of the evidence to the contrary I have presented to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I doubt Pop planned on Duncan playing the whole quarter going into the second half. IMO, it appeared as if Pop was going for the knockout punch at the end of the third to allow the Big 3 to rest in the fourth.

Again, changing a second half starting lineup is commonplace for Pop and especially commonplace when one of the players has three fouls.

He got his second foul with 15 seconds left in the quarter and the Spurs didn't play another defensive possession. Pop doesn't take out players for foul trouble when they are only going to play one offensive play.

Since when does Pop bench players in the second quarter for having two fouls.




I don't understand what you are questioning. Are you arguing that Pop never changes his second half starting lineup due to foul trouble? Are you arguing that Pop's management of foul trouble doesn't make sense?

---

I'm arguing that your simplistic view of "foul trouble" for Splitter not starting the 2nd half is inaccurate based on simple facts. I think Pop didn't like what he saw with TD and Splitter on the floor at the same time in the first half and chose to start Diaw in the 3rd.

This isn't mental gymnastics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

If you haven't noticed him alter his second half starting lineup due to foul trouble, you haven't been following along too closely over the years.

---

And really LJ, you can stop with the subtle deprecation. You were wrong about what Pop would do going into the game last night and I was right.

And I'll do you one better with another prediction: Diaw starts on Friday against the Lakers and Splitter goes back to his role as Duncan backup. And we win.

^Alright, you think Pop benched Splitter in the second half because he was upset the Spurs were only up by 16 points or whatever it was. I think Pop benched Splitter to give him more flexibility and not be forced to go with TD the entire third quarter if Splitter picked up a quick fourth foul, a strategy he has used many times in the past.

You are free to believe what you want. Only Pop knows the real answer and we all know he ain't talking.


Edit: As for your other post, I just repeated what Elliott stated. I had no idea what Pop was going to do (though I did say I thought Pop would be a coward to rest the Big 3). Elliott usually knows so that's why I deferred to him. Besides, in the broadcast, Kerr (IIRC) said that Pop was initially going to forfeit the Lakers game but changed his mind after the Warriors game was easier than expected.

But, yeah, looks like you were right that the Big 3 would play. Congrats. Please pickup your cookie at the front desk. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

I have no anti-Tiago bias at all. You have presupposed that based on fantasy.

Where we disagree is that you think he should be starting or playing more minutes. I think he is a great role player and that Pop uses him appropriately in his rotations. That's a fair disagreement, I don't know why you always have to resort to personal insults, tbh.

Where we also disagree is that I think last night, Pop benched him to start the 2nd half because he didn't like what he saw in the first and preferred Diaw next to Duncan. Whereas you seemingly think that it was "foul trouble" despite all of the evidence to the contrary I have presented to you.

---

Okay, no more personal insults. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

From a purely basketball perspective, I think you're a horrible poster with bad takes. You can feel the same towards me, that's fine. But to say you don't have a anti-tiago bias is just silly, and not worth debating IMO.

As i've said many times, I don't mind Tiago not starting. But limiting him strictly to Tim's backup is a huge disservice to the team's championship aspirations.

Okay i understand your opinion regarding the change at halftime. The evidence you pointed out was specific to the game itself where as timvp and I were referring to how Pop has coached in a similar situation over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I do find it quite interesting that there is no mention of the fact that Splitter got benched to start the 2nd half in place of Diaw. Pop almost always starts the same 5 in the 2nd half, despite their effectiveness in the first (see Blair, D all season). The kid-gloves treatment of needing time to "build chemistry" and the "season 90% over" comments are a bit annoying when a guy who has been with the team for less than a month seems to have no problem integrating and playing with the starters, yet when one with a season and a half of corporate knowledge has trouble, it leads to "irritation" with the coach because he "wasted so much of the season not building chemistry". These guys are paid big money to be ready anytime anywhere to go out and perform. But whatever, I understand you have to appease your most vocal audience here (Pop haters) even if they represent a tiny minority of Spurs fans globally.

---

Don't point out how many fouls Splitter had to start the third quarter, because that will fuck up your argument too.

EDIT: Already stated, and it didn't change your mind. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

And I'll do you one better with another prediction: Diaw starts on Friday against the Lakers and Splitter goes back to his role as Duncan backup. And we win.

---

He very well could start Diaw on Friday and I'd be perfectly fine with it. Move along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

Turnovers tend to happen when you have several new players trying to learn on the fly and also the idiot coach taking his nice sweet time to figure out the best rotations.

---

Another stupid take. Do you work hard to be a dumbass, or does it come natural for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

Please pickup your cookie at the front desk. Thank you.

---

1 cookie is all I get for trying to calm down Spursnation from a collective meltdown before one of the biggest games of the season? :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

1 cookie is all I get for trying to calm down Spursnation from a collective meltdown before one of the biggest games of the season? :depressed

---

I marvel at your level of stupidity. It must have taken you at least 70-80 years to accomplish this level of plain stupidity.

You are 70 or 80ish in age right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splitman4evah

1 cookie is all I get for trying to calm down Spursnation from a collective meltdown before one of the biggest games of the season? :depressed

---

We can throw in an A1 Thick and Hearty Burger combo with onion rings and a diet coke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

We can throw in an A1 Thick and Hearty Burger combo with onion rings and a diet coke.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

We can throw in an A1 Thick and Hearty Burger combo with onion rings and a diet coke.

---

Please send me the voucher, though supersized and with a Dr. Pepper. I'll forward it on to DJB to make sure he doesn't see the floor the rest of the season.

If TD-Splitter isn't that great offensively I think the solution is to start Manu. He makes any offense better.

Last year, it was after a demoralizing loss to the Lakers that the Spurs train went off the rails. This year, they suffered a very similar loss to the Lakers, at nearly the same point in the season. The difference is that this Spurs team came back with a huge win in their next game, and then gave the Lakers a little hair of the dog by handing them their own demoralizing loss. This is not last year's Spurs.


Stephen Jackson

There was A LOT of hard-core wrestling going on, in and around the paint. Stephen Jackson did the thing the Spurs need from him the most, which is to be a tough sonofabitch. He didn't give an inch, and he didn't lose his cool. He just out-scratched, and out-clawed whoever he was on.

One thing I think is worth mentioning - if Jax does get his 3P shot going by playoff time, this team is going to be very tough to beat. And we all know he could get it going.


Gary Neal
Late in the first quarter, Bynum and Ebanks went on a tear of Alley-Oops, dunks, and layups. Then to start the second quarter, Barnes nailed a 3 to give the Lakers a 31-29 lead. I'll admit I was thinking, "Oh, hell, here they come." Then Neal scored bam-bam-bam, and the Spurs were back up 35-31. With some guys, it's not just how many points they score, but when and how they score them. Horry used to be like that. Neal has done it too often for it to be a fluke.

The night before, Golden State had gotten the lead down to "just" 16 in the third quarter. That might not seem close, but the Spurs offense was flatlined, and if the lead dwindled much more, Pop would have been forced to put one or more of the Big 3 back in the game. That's when Neal nailed a 3-pointer, drove and kicked to Green for a 3, drove and kicked to Bonner for a 3, and then made a jumper of his own. Suddenly the lead was 27, and the Big 3 were safe taking the remainder of the night off, and resting up for the Lakers. Unsung hero.

If you were watching the TNT broadcast, you could see Pop say something to Splitter as he left the floor with his 3rd foul (I think). I couldn't exactly make it out but I did make out "...fuck up..." I don't think he was calling Splitter a fuck up, but he didn't look pleased.

Did anyone else see this or make out what he said?

Disgruntled Spurstalkers will claim Pop yelled, "I knew I f*cked up by starting you ... never again!"

Was this your highest grade average of the season?

The Spurs were just shooting some shots...just beating a team they were supposed to beat...no surprises there... :toast