The Fool's Gold of Yesterday's Blowout

112-91 seems like a trouncing, but there's a good reason L.J. (TimVP) remains adamant that the Lakers are the worst match-up for us in the West, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

The Lakers for the most part executed their defensive game plan perfectly against the Spurs in the half court. The Spurs just beat it with an anomaly performance.

7-of-18 (38.9%) from 3 is fairly normal by Spurs standards, but by my count, the Spurs shot, and made, an extraordinary number of long-2s, defined as jumpers between 15-22 feet.

They were 19-of-28 last night (67.9%), which is an INSANE percentage. First off, if a defense gets the opponent to shoot 28 long twos, they're feeling wonderful about themselves, because it means they're keeping the opponent away from the paint, the free throw line and from more the more efficient three-point shot. But the average team shoots 40-47% from long two. To shoot at the clip the Spurs did is just something you tip your hat to and shrug your shoulders at, if you're Mike Brown.

Parker, specifically, was out of his mind, shooting 10-13 (76.9%) from 15-feet and beyond, and one of those three misses was from downtown, which as we all know is not his shot.

Duncan, meanwhile, was 5-7 (71.4%), which is obviously a great night for him since he shoots so many of those flat jumpers we cringe at.

Friends, we can't expect a night like that against the Lakers again any time soon. Instead of our usual 50-something points in the paint, we had to settle for 30-something because of the length of Bynum and Gasol. We got our fair share of lay-ups, but even most of those came on the fast break due to Lakers turnovers. Getting only 11 FTA attempts and having to count on canning 26 jump shots is no way to have sustained success against LA or anyone else.

To me, the real positives from the win, besides (or rather because of) Pop's eureka moment of giving Blair a DNP-CD, were at the defensive end. Forcing the Lakers into 19 turnovers, limiting them to only eight offensive rebounds (Bonner!), allowing less than 50% FG despite their relatively low number of 3-point attempts (2-of-10) and keeping them off the line as well (11-of-11, yikes) were all far more significant accomplishments than anything Parker or Duncan did on offense.

But yeah, all in all, I'd be thrilled if the Spurs maintained HCA and the Lakers held on that 3 seed.

Lakers suck. One and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

112-91 seems like a trouncing, but there's a good reason L.J. (TimVP) remains adamant that the Lakers are the worst match-up for us in the West, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

The Lakers for the most part executed their defensive game plan perfectly against the Spurs in the half court. The Spurs just beat it with an anomaly performance.

7-of-18 (38.9%) from 3 is fairly normal by Spurs standards, but by my count, the Spurs shot, and made, an extraordinary number of long-2s, defined as jumpers between 15-22 feet.

They were 19-of-28 last night (67.9%), which is an INSANE percentage. First off, if a defense gets the opponent to shoot 28 long twos, they're feeling wonderful about themselves, because it means they're keeping the opponent away from the paint, the free throw line and from more the more efficient three-point shot. But the average team shoots 40-47% from long two. To shoot at the clip the Spurs did is just something you tip your hat to and shrug your shoulders at, if you're Mike Brown.

Parker, specifically, was out of his mind, shooting 10-13 (76.9%) from 15-feet and beyond, and one of those three misses was from downtown, which as we all know is not his shot.

Duncan, meanwhile, was 5-7 (71.4%), which is obviously a great night for him since he shoots so many of those flat jumpers we cringe at.

Friends, we can't expect a night like that against the Lakers again any time soon. Instead of our usual 50-something points in the paint, we had to settle for 30-something because of the length of Bynum and Gasol. We got our fair share of lay-ups, but even most of those came on the fast break due to Lakers turnovers. Getting only 11 FTA attempts and having to count on canning 26 jump shots is no way to have sustained success against LA or anyone else.

To me, the real positives from the win, besides (or rather because of) Pop's eureka moment of giving Blair a DNP-CD, were at the defensive end. Forcing the Lakers into 19 turnovers, limiting them to only eight offensive rebounds (Bonner!), allowing less than 50% FG despite their relatively low number of 3-point attempts (2-of-10) and keeping them off the line as well (11-of-11, yikes) were all far more significant accomplishments than anything Parker or Duncan did on offense.

But yeah, all in all, I'd be thrilled if the Spurs maintained HCA and the Lakers held on that 3 seed.

---

Every game is an anomaly. The Spurs beat good teams by having better offense. That's not an anomaly to a team with the best record in the West. The anomaly was when the Lakers trounced the Spurs at home because the Spurs shot poorly and gave up 30 rebounds to Bynum, and only recorded 1 offensive board.

I can show you plenty games where a better offense destroys a lesser one. We did it last year to the Heat before they did it to us the next time we met. The Suns used to trounce the fuck out of teams by 25 points.

So it's not an anomaly as much as it is our good movement, good shooting and energy all happening at the same time. I think much of that is because we played on consecutive nights, the rhythm is there for the team and they just kept it going. Long layovers have them coming out rusty and giving up huge leads in the 1st half quite often.

That said, they are a different team with Kobe, and unless he gets his stroke going right away, expect them to suffer a bit when he returns as he has a few off nights in a row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Every game is an anomaly. The Spurs beat good teams by having better offense. That's not an anomaly to a team with the best record in the West. The anomaly was when the Lakers trounced the Spurs at home because the Spurs shot poorly and gave up 30 rebounds to Bynum, and only recorded 1 offensive board.

I can show you plenty games where a better offense destroys a lesser one. We did it last year to the Heat before they did it to us the next time we met. The Suns used to trounce the fuck out of teams by 25 points.

So it's not an anomaly as much as it is our good movement, good shooting and energy all happening at the same time. I think much of that is because we played on consecutive nights, the rhythm is there for the team and they just kept it going. Long layovers have them coming out rusty and giving up huge leads in the 1st half quite often.

That said, they are a different team with Kobe, and unless he gets his stroke going right away, expect them to suffer a bit when he returns as he has a few off nights in a row.

---

It doesn't matter if it's in an empty gym, shooting 70% from long twos is not something that happens often. If you've been paying attention, the focus of every good defense in the league, including the Spurs for the past 15 years, is to force opponents into taking long twos.

Efficient basketball is shooting lay-ups, FTs, threes and taking care of the ball. The Spurs do all of these things, more or less, and that's why they're one of the best offenses in the league.

Inefficient basketball is shooting long twos, not getting to the line and turning it over a bunch.

What the Spurs did last night, offensively was the basketball equivalent of getting 4-for-4 performances from 8th and 9th hitters who hit .230. It's great for that game, but not sustainable.

What a kiss ass

Coming in after one of the best wins of the year and posting about fools gold is...well...borderline faggy, but I'm in a good mood so you get a pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurs4real

What a kiss ass

---

:lol

Funny you say that...because I was just thinking about how he's trying way to hard to impress LJ.

How many of those long 2's were contested and open? That certainly makes a difference in the percentage. Good NBA players can hit 75+% of unguarded long 2's. The reason the league on average shoots lower is because of contested 2's. An unguarded long 2 can be an efficient shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

It doesn't matter if it's in an empty gym, shooting 70% from long twos is not something that happens often. If you've been paying attention, the focus of every good defense in the league, including the Spurs for the past 15 years, is to force opponents into taking long twos.

---

We didn't need 70% to win. We won by 20+. Tony attacked the rim relentlessly as did Manu, Tim and the rest.

You take those mid range shots when they are offered.

Quote:

---

Efficient basketball is shooting lay-ups, FTs, threes and taking care of the ball. The Spurs do all of these things, more or less, and that's why they're one of the best offenses in the league.

Inefficient basketball is shooting long twos, not getting to the line and turning it over a bunch.

---

You don't get to the line when no one is near you on the break.Spurs had 44 points in the paint. That's 10 more than we had against the Warriors. The Lakers had only 4 more with that huge front court they have. You cannot blame that on long range shooting.

Quote:

---

What the Spurs did last night, offensively was the basketball equivalent of getting 4-for-4 performances from 8th and 9th hitters who hit .230. It's great for that game, but not sustainable.

---

Wrong. The Spurs got separation not by shooting jump shots, but by converting turnovers into fast break points. After that, sure we shot the ball well and kept the lead, but you take what the opponent gives you.

wake up.

both teams are very evenly matched. A series will go 6 or 7 games, but I like Spurs chances.

better role players
better coach
home court
their best player has the brainpower of an ipod nano

There were so many long 2s where Tony was wide open with Blake or Sessions trying to go under the screen and getting tied up, not able to even get a hand up. That's by design, and when he hits his first couple and starts rolling he's unstoppable. Even if we only shoot 40%, the game still would have been competitive, on the road against one of the "best" teams in the league (I don't really believe that but it seems to be consensus)

Going under the screen and relying on your big man to help you tends to leave open lots of long 2's and 3's, if players are willing to be patient, dribble to the open spot and nail it.

While I agree it seems flukish, I also think part of the fluke is directly linked to the Lakers' defensive gameplan. It's a lot less flukish than 30 rebounds, let's just say that. :lol

This was as iron pyrite-like as the Lakers stomping us.

What say lets find a new saying for Fool's Gold. Its so very tired. And my creation above is so very bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therealtruth

How many of those long 2's were contested and open? That certainly makes a difference in the percentage. Good NBA players can hit 75+% of unguarded long 2's. The reason the league on average shoots lower is because of contested 2's. An unguarded long 2 can be an efficient shot.

---

Everyone in the NBA goes under the screen on Tony Parker. Believe it or not, but he doesn't shoot 75% from long twos. Neither does Duncan, who pretty much doesn't get covered outside of 12 feet. If they could shoot like they did last night, we'd never lose a game.

Btw, I'm not saying beating the Lakers was fool's gold, I'm just saying the margin is deceptive. I do think the two teams are evenly matched, for the most part, with different strengths and weaknesses.

I'm just saying I feel a whole lot more confident playing just about anybody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

Everyone in the NBA goes under the screen on Tony Parker. Believe it or not, but he doesn't shoot 75% from long twos. Neither does Duncan, who pretty much doesn't get covered outside of 12 feet. If they could shoot like they did last night, we'd never lose a game.

---

If metta scores 26 and Bynum boards 30 lakers never lose a game either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

We didn't need 70% to win. We won by 20+. Tony attacked the rim relentlessly as did Manu, Tim and the rest.

---

I wouldn't say he attacked it relentlessly. 13 of his 20 FGA were beyond 15 feet and he had 1 FTA. Really, of the three Ginobili was probably the only one who had more lay-up attempts than usual for him, which was probably related to him shooting the worst from outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You take those mid range shots when they are offered.

---

They sure took (and missed) a whole mess of them in SA against these guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You don't get to the line when no one is near you on the break.Spurs had 44 points in the paint. That's 10 more than we had against the Warriors. The Lakers had only 4 more with that huge front court they have. You cannot blame that on long range shooting.

---

The Spurs had like a billion FTA against the Warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Wrong. The Spurs got separation not by shooting jump shots, but by converting turnovers into fast break points. After that, sure we shot the ball well and kept the lead, but you take what the opponent gives you.

---

That's my point: The Lakers give us less than what anyone else gives us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

If metta scores 26 and Bynum boards 30 lakers never lose a game either

---

bingo. Both blowouts are pretty fluky.

As you might guess, I agree with roycrikside :lol

Parker's shooting from 16-to-23 feet isn't something that the Spurs can depend on to win a championship. Last night was an example of how when Parker's shot is on, the Spurs are pretty much unbeatable.

I didn't want to post this because I didn't want to be the Debbie Downer but in his previous ten games, Parker was 9-for-32 on shots from 16-to-23 feet. Last night, Parker was 9-for-11 on those shots. Obviously, going from 28% to 82% is going to make a difference.

The Lakers remain an extremely difficult matchup. The Spurs would basically have to shoot even better than usual to beat them in a series. It's not impossible but I would honestly give the Lakers an edge in a series just because good inside teams usually beat good perimeter teams.

That said, Andrew Bynum's 30 rebounds last game were obviously a fluke. Sure, he should out-rebound a Blair frontline ... but 30 required a lot of luck.

In the grand scheme of things, last night didn't change my opinion of the Lakers being the team the Spurs should try to avoid most in the West. However, the heart, determination and precision the Spurs illustrated made me believe in this team even more overall.

As long as the Spurs can avoid the Lakers and avoid injuries, I like their chances of coming out of the West.

I didn't think there were that many fluky shots out there. Sure, we might not shoot 70% and blow them out every game, but a more pedestrian 55% would've won the game too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I didn't think there were that many fluky shots out there. Sure, we might not shoot 70% and blow them out every game, but a more pedestrian 55% would've won the game too.

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

They sure took (and missed) a whole mess of them in SA against these guys.

---

That was another uncharacteristic fluke though. I think there's a middle ground somewhere in between.

The Lakers I saw last night is a lot closer to the Lakers I've seen all season long. Giving the other team every chance at Staples, MWP terrible from downtown, their bench giving them next to nothing outside of Barnes. Bynum disinterested at times.

They've been like that every other game all season long. That's how you lose games at home to Utah, Houston, etc, needing game winners against NJ... and end up with a road record under .500 despite being #3 in the West.

Not to mention that Phoenix dropped 125 on them just a week ago. This Lakers team is vulnerable, and their defense is pretty shaky. Lakerfan themselves have a good laugh when you mention Mike Brown's "defensive specialist" acumen.

when Parker penetrates as easily as he did last night he is going to get open uncontested jumpers. If he hits them, the other team is in trouble. There is nothing about those open shots that were difficult for him. Ahh a few were tough but the majority he got space and perfect sight.

If Parker gets beat up and has a slow footed night, he shoots contested jumpers.

Only team I'm worried about facing in the West is Memphis tbh. Partially because I still remember last year, but they have a deep talented team and more mentally tough than the Lakers/OKC imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That was another uncharacteristic fluke though. I think there's a middle ground somewhere in between.

The Lakers I saw last night is a lot closer to the Lakers I've seen all season long. Giving the other team every chance at Staples, MWP terrible from downtown, their bench giving them next to nothing outside of Barnes. Bynum disinterested at times.

They've been like that every other game all season long. That's how you lose games at home to Utah, Houston, etc, needing game winners against NJ... and end up with a road record under .500 despite being #3 in the West.

Not to mention that Phoenix dropped 125 on them just a week ago. This Lakers team is vulnerable, and their defense is pretty shaky. Lakerfan themselves have a good laugh when you mention Mike Brown's "defensive specialist" acumen.

---

All valid points. I'm not saying the Lakers are favorites to win the title by any means. They're just a tough match-up for us, unfortunately. Also, I think partly their up-and-down play has to be attributed to their age. If any teams out there are plainly less interested in results and more worried about just surviving the regular season in one piece, it's the Lakers and the Mavs, two teams who are actually older than the Spurs, even if the national media won't mention it. The Lakers were pretty much the same way the couple years with PhilJax and even the Shaq-Kobe teams would coast for weeks at a time. They've always been a "light-switch" team.

But when Bynum and the rest of the team is focused and they're on their game, they're gonna be a tough nut to crack. One would assume they'll try their best in the playoffs, although I suppose with Bynum you never know.

For the record, the Spurs shoot 38.7% (6.3-for-16.2) from 16-to-23 feet this season. The first game against the Lakers, they were 18.8% (3-for-16). Yesterday, the Spurs were 68% (17-for-25). So, yeah, the truth will be somewhere in the middle. If we're being honest, probably closer to the first game than the second game. The second game set season-highs for makes, attempts and percentage at that range.

The Thunder are by far the best team in the league at shooting from 16-to-23 feet. That's one of the main reasons why I think they could beat the Lakers in 5 or 6 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

For the record, the Spurs shoot 38.7% (6.3-for-16.2) from 16-to-23 feet this season. The first game against the Lakers, they were 18.8% (3-for-16). Yesterday, the Spurs were 68% (17-for-25). So, yeah, the truth will be somewhere in the middle. If we're being honest, probably closer to the first game than the second game. The second game set season-highs for makes, attempts and percentage at that range.

The Thunder are by far the best team in the league at shooting from 16-to-23 feet. That's one of the main reasons why I think they could beat the Lakers in 5 or 6 games.

---

yup.

It's no more of a fool's gold win than the Lakers outrebounding them 60-33 and Bynum corralling 30 rebounds.

One thing that people here seldom credit is that Kobe is (still) a hell of a defender. Even if he's not stroking it the best when he returns, he will still make a difference in the game(s).

Bottom line, the Lakers are strong where the Spurs are weak - in the middle. If the Spurs are hitting shots from mid-range and from the 3P line, they probably win. If not, they probably lose.

In the first game, the Spurs were cold and the Lakers were knocking down everything. In the second game the Spurs were hitting shots, and it didn't matter much what the Lakers did. But the second game was far from a fool's gold win. The Lakers are stinging, after that loss. If the Spurs beat them in the last regular season game, I wouldn't mind meeting them as much in the post-season.

Agreed, but fool's gold win or no, FTL!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

I wouldn't say he attacked it relentlessly. 13 of his 20 FGA were beyond 15 feet and he had 1 FTA. Really, of the three Ginobili was probably the only one who had more lay-up attempts than usual for him, which was probably related to him shooting the worst from outside.

---

Parker cannot call fouls. Many of his shots were not even contested.

Quote:

---

They sure took (and missed) a whole mess of them in SA against these guys.

---

Which is an anomaly for a team that routinely scores over 100 a game.

Quote:

---

The Spurs had like a billion FTA against the Warriors.

---

But fewer points in the paint, which means either the Lakers weren't defending the paint well or the refs weren't calling fouls. Either has nothing to with the play of SA.

Quote:

---

That's my point: The Lakers give us less than what anyone else gives us.

---

The Lakers are a tough out. I don't think anyone here thinks they are the Bobcats. However, the anomaly was as much the Lakers' play as the Spurs.

Also, consider that once Kobe returns, their offense starts to run through him and he will put up a lot of shots that often become long rebounds.

Weren't not as outmatched as we appeared a few games ago against the Lakers.

Good thread.

The two games were totally abnormal, I think the two teams are close, if the spurs play Friday game at full strength we will have a good indication of where we stand in particular if Kobe is playing.

On a 7 games serie, I like spurs chance but it would be a tough and engaged serie with a lot of tears and cries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

All valid points. I'm not saying the Lakers are favorites to win the title by any means. They're just a tough match-up for us, unfortunately. Also, I think partly their up-and-down play has to be attributed to their age. If any teams out there are plainly less interested in results and more worried about just surviving the regular season in one piece, it's the Lakers and the Mavs, two teams who are actually older than the Spurs, even if the national media won't mention it. The Lakers were pretty much the same way the couple years with PhilJax and even the Shaq-Kobe teams would coast for weeks at a time. They've always been a "light-switch" team.

But when Bynum and the rest of the team is focused and they're on their game, they're gonna be a tough nut to crack. One would assume they'll try their best in the playoffs, although I suppose with Bynum you never know.

---

I think they're extremely reliant on their oldies playing well, because their younger talent (Blake, Barnes, Murphy, McRoberts, Sessions even Bynum to a degree) have been between wildly inconsistent to absolutely dismal performance-wise.

When Kobe doesn't shoot too well, and it has happened plenty this season, they've a really slim margin. I think Mike Brown figured this out a while ago, and it's the reason he shut down Kobe for a while.

When Kobe plays though, they have a different set of problems. Artest turning into a spot up shooter is one (and he's shooting 29% from downtown this season). Their bigs not getting enough touches is another one.

Bynum is also a guy that I noticed will start to lose interest in hustling out there if he's not getting involved enough on offense.

Among Spurs fans on this site there's always a black lining instead of silver.

Carpe Diem, Dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

One thing that people here seldom credit is that Kobe is (still) a hell of a defender.

---

Completely disagree.

When OP makes a "fools gold" thread after an opponent anomaly, that will at least allow him to appear more objective.

I can understand what the OP is trying to say. The defensive gameplan of the Lakers was to pack in the paint, the same as the first meeting this season. It just so happened that the Spurs made them pay dearly for executing that gameplan.

I do disagree that this was a fools gold win. Here is why.

The Lakers know that they HAVE to contest the Spurs shots because now they know that not just Parker, but every player on the Spurs roster outside of Blair/Splitter can hit those jumpshots at a very high clip should they be left uncontested. Every time the Lakers stepped out to contest the jumper, it led to much better attempts at the rim and wide open 3 ball attempts after penetration. The Lakers defense fell apart when they were forced to move.

Knowing that the Spurs score most of their points on jumpers (according to 82games.com) can the Lakers really afford to gamble on the Spurs just missing shots? The Lakers strength is also their biggest weakness. They are SLOW! The Spurs can just run circles around them as they had just proved. Even if the Spurs as a team shot the jumpshot their season average, they would have still won the game by a healthy margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Completely disagree.

---

Pretty overrated. It's a bad joke how he makes first defensive team.

The OP & timvp are right, well, not really a fool's gold, but this is not a representative of a "real" battle beetween the two teams. The Lakers, while flawed and not as dominant nowadays, are still a tough, tough match up for our size challenged team.

you'll note the thread was titled "The Fool's Gold of Yesterday's Blowout" NOT "The Fool's Gold of Yesterday's Win."

We're damn good. We're not "beat LA by 20 pts on the road" good, no more than they're "beat SA by 20 pts on the road" good. The truth is in between. The way the Spurs played yesterday, they probably would've beaten the '96 Bulls, let alone the 2011 Lakers without Kobe. Still, my point stands that their work on defense and the boards was far more significant (and sustainable) than the way they went about scoring their 112 pts.

I agree. Too many jumpers.

Sorry, but you need to shut the fuck up. After that 21 point win, I wouldn't call it fools gold. It's called a great team effort and fantastic shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

wake up.

both teams are very evenly matched. A series will go 6 or 7 games, but I like Spurs chances.

better role players
better coach
home court
their best player has the brainpower of an ipod nano

---

this.

Last night's game did change one thing: It proved that the Spurs could beat the Lakers...many questioned whether it could even happen.

No need to get apologetic over the game....Spurs did make adjustments, it wasn't just Parker's jumpers. Fronting Bynum and preventing him from getting the ball so easily disrupted Bynum and the Lakers' offense.

In other words: a wins a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DieHardSpursFan1537

Sorry, but you need to shut the fuck up. After that 21 point win, I wouldn't call it fools gold. It's called a great team effort and fantastic shooting.

---

Root word: Fantasy. Hence, fool's gold.

Look, it's nice that the Spurs decided to show up for this game, because they clearly didn't in the first one. As mentioned, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. At least we know they can compete when they decide to. Let's all hope this Tony Parker shows up for the postseason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think they're extremely reliant on their oldies playing well, because their younger talent (Blake, Barnes, Murphy, McRoberts, Sessions even Bynum to a degree) have been between wildly inconsistent to absolutely dismal performance-wise.

When Kobe doesn't shoot too well, and it has happened plenty this season, they've a really slim margin. I think Mike Brown figured this out a while ago, and it's the reason he shut down Kobe for a while.

When Kobe plays though, they have a different set of problems. Artest turning into a spot up shooter is one (and he's shooting 29% from downtown this season). Their bigs not getting enough touches is another one.

Bynum is also a guy that I noticed will start to lose interest in hustling out there if he's not getting involved enough on offense.

---

The bolded is a very salient point. Bynum does not get it yet.

And if he has to run while the Lakers trail and he is not scoring, he pouts something awful and becomes a wonderfully, stupid worn out player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Root word: Fantasy. Hence, fool's gold.

Look, it's nice that the Spurs decided to show up for this game, because they clearly didn't in the first one. As mentioned, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. At least we know they can compete when they decide to. Let's all hope this Tony Parker shows up for the postseason.

---

Yeah that is very true. We saw what happened when he scored 4 points against LA in that other match up of the season.

Most of those shots the Spurs hit from 2 point range were uncontested open shots.
The lakers basically didn't show up with a good effort on both ends of the court( the Spurs needed the game more after the last loss to them) like the Spurs didn't show up the last time they met.

Hard to take much out of either game and translate it to what will happen in the playoffs. The playoffs are played at a higher intensity defensively and those open looks the Spurs had all night won't be there, shooting % will fall.

Without Kobe in either game it can be fool's gold, but this Lakers team looks even more inconsistent and arguably worse than last year's. And the last year Lakers had terrible chemistry, a hobbled jumpshooting Kobe, and a passive jumpshooting Pau.

WTF?? :nope

Just enjoy the fucking win. How about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

112-91 seems like a trouncing, but there's a good reason L.J. (TimVP) remains adamant that the Lakers are the worst match-up for us in the West, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

The Lakers for the most part executed their defensive game plan perfectly against the Spurs in the half court. The Spurs just beat it with an anomaly performance.

7-of-18 (38.9%) from 3 is fairly normal by Spurs standards, but by my count, the Spurs shot, and made, an extraordinary number of long-2s, defined as jumpers between 15-22 feet.

They were 19-of-28 last night (67.9%), which is an INSANE percentage. First off, if a defense gets the opponent to shoot 28 long twos, they're feeling wonderful about themselves, because it means they're keeping the opponent away from the paint, the free throw line and from more the more efficient three-point shot. But the average team shoots 40-47% from long two. To shoot at the clip the Spurs did is just something you tip your hat to and shrug your shoulders at, if you're Mike Brown.

Parker, specifically, was out of his mind, shooting 10-13 (76.9%) from 15-feet and beyond, and one of those three misses was from downtown, which as we all know is not his shot.

Duncan, meanwhile, was 5-7 (71.4%), which is obviously a great night for him since he shoots so many of those flat jumpers we cringe at.

Friends, we can't expect a night like that against the Lakers again any time soon. Instead of our usual 50-something points in the paint, we had to settle for 30-something because of the length of Bynum and Gasol. We got our fair share of lay-ups, but even most of those came on the fast break due to Lakers turnovers. Getting only 11 FTA attempts and having to count on canning 26 jump shots is no way to have sustained success against LA or anyone else.

To me, the real positives from the win, besides (or rather because of) Pop's eureka moment of giving Blair a DNP-CD, were at the defensive end. Forcing the Lakers into 19 turnovers, limiting them to only eight offensive rebounds (Bonner!), allowing less than 50% FG despite their relatively low number of 3-point attempts (2-of-10) and keeping them off the line as well (11-of-11, yikes) were all far more significant accomplishments than anything Parker or Duncan did on offense.

But yeah, all in all, I'd be thrilled if the Spurs maintained HCA and the Lakers held on that 3 seed.

---

The whole season has been fools gold like last season. The Spurs still trot out a weak frontline and until that is fixed they won't be winning any titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benefactor

:lol

funny you say that...because i was just thinking about how he's trying way to hard to impress lj.

---

+1

How many of those flat jumpers does Duncan have to make throughout his career for you to approve TS?

If you believe the Lakers are the worst matchup for the Spurs, do you also advocate "resting" Tony and Manu against them Friday? If Spurs beat them, LAL drops to 4th, setting up a 2nd round matchup with the SA. Memphis famously tanked last year to play the Spurs and it worked out for them. Should SA employ the same strategy? Spurs have a game advantage over OKC and the remaining games are very winnable. Can lose the Laker game and still finish 1st.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic Petro

If you believe the Lakers are the worst matchup for the Spurs, do you also advocate "resting" Tony and Manu against them Friday? If Spurs beat them, LAL drops to 4th, setting up a 2nd round matchup with the SA. Memphis famously tanked last year to play the Spurs and it worked out for them. Should SA employ the same strategy? Spurs have a game advantage over OKC and the remaining games are very winnable. Can lose the Laker game and still finish 1st.

---

As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs proved what they needed to prove with the second game since they decided not to show up in the first game. Every game between now and the end of the season should be treated with equal importance and lineups determined situationally. If it's time to sit everyone against the Lakers, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic Petro

If you believe the Lakers are the worst matchup for the Spurs, do you also advocate "resting" Tony and Manu against them Friday? If Spurs beat them, LAL drops to 4th, setting up a 2nd round matchup with the SA. Memphis famously tanked last year to play the Spurs and it worked out for them. Should SA employ the same strategy? Spurs have a game advantage over OKC and the remaining games are very winnable. Can lose the Laker game and still finish 1st.

---

I understand the argument certainly, but I still think more harm than good would come of it. Our magic number for that #1 overall seed is *only* four, so it's not quite in the bag yet, unless you want them trying hard to win at Phx the second-to-last game of the season and also having to beat the Warriors.

Also, I'm still holding out hope, however misguided, that they'll finish with a better record than Miami, which would obviously come into play should the two meet in the Finals. The Heat own the tiebreaker, so the Spurs would need to finish with one less loss to get it, and I think all things considered you still have to consider Miami the faves to come out of the East.

Looking at the Lakers and Clips schedules, I think there's a decent chance the Lakers can hold on to the 3 seed even if they lose to us on Friday. Clips still have road games left @Phx, @NY and @Atl, so hopefully they'll lose a couple. Lakers own the tiebreaker there, so they just need to finish in a tie with them.

Lakers might want to play us in the second round, but remember, that most likely means they'd get the Grizz in rd 1 and that's not an easy series for them at all.

When it's 3 blowouts in 3 nights, there's no fools gold involved.

I do agree that the Lakers are the worst matchup for the Spurs. But if the Spurs beat them again on Friday, I promise you the Lakers won't be looking to land in the Spurs' half of the bracket.

Spurs don't need to rest the big 3 to lose to the Lakers. That can happen regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roycrikside

112-91 seems like a trouncing, but there's a good reason L.J. (TimVP) remains adamant that the Lakers are the worst match-up for us in the West, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

The Lakers for the most part executed their defensive game plan perfectly against the Spurs in the half court. The Spurs just beat it with an anomaly performance.

7-of-18 (38.9%) from 3 is fairly normal by Spurs standards, but by my count, the Spurs shot, and made, an extraordinary number of long-2s, defined as jumpers between 15-22 feet.

They were 19-of-28 last night (67.9%), which is an INSANE percentage. First off, if a defense gets the opponent to shoot 28 long twos, they're feeling wonderful about themselves, because it means they're keeping the opponent away from the paint, the free throw line and from more the more efficient three-point shot. But the average team shoots 40-47% from long two. To shoot at the clip the Spurs did is just something you tip your hat to and shrug your shoulders at, if you're Mike Brown.

Parker, specifically, was out of his mind, shooting 10-13 (76.9%) from 15-feet and beyond, and one of those three misses was from downtown, which as we all know is not his shot.

Duncan, meanwhile, was 5-7 (71.4%), which is obviously a great night for him since he shoots so many of those flat jumpers we cringe at.

Friends, we can't expect a night like that against the Lakers again any time soon. Instead of our usual 50-something points in the paint, we had to settle for 30-something because of the length of Bynum and Gasol. We got our fair share of lay-ups, but even most of those came on the fast break due to Lakers turnovers. Getting only 11 FTA attempts and having to count on canning 26 jump shots is no way to have sustained success against LA or anyone else.

To me, the real positives from the win, besides (or rather because of) Pop's eureka moment of giving Blair a DNP-CD, were at the defensive end. Forcing the Lakers into 19 turnovers, limiting them to only eight offensive rebounds (Bonner!), allowing less than 50% FG despite their relatively low number of 3-point attempts (2-of-10) and keeping them off the line as well (11-of-11, yikes) were all far more significant accomplishments than anything Parker or Duncan did on offense.

But yeah, all in all, I'd be thrilled if the Spurs maintained HCA and the Lakers held on that 3 seed.

---

Ok so we shoot closer to normal and win by 6 or 7 instead of 21, no big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horse

Ok so we shoot closer to normal and win by 6 or 7 instead of 21, no big deal.

---

...You'd think.

The Lakers are really terrible at covering the pick and roll tbh. We'd probably be getting the same looks either way.

"Fool's Gold" is so played out tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

"Fool's Gold" is so played out tbh.

---

For us it is...

I absolutely believe the Fakers - along with the Grizzlies - are the worst matchup for the Spurs. Those teams have the one kyptonite that makes the Spurs appear very mortal - they have big, tall, physical post players, who can score and dominate the glass from the low block . I knew that before opening this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yorae

fool's gold win or no, FTL!!!!!

---

This applies to any season or situation.

Kobe will put up 28 "long 2s" of his own, while rendering Artest irrelevant again. Then you have that giraffe Gasol settling for "long 2s" when he has a huge advantage inside.

Lakers are soft, and Kobe only makes it worse. Welcome (and hurry) back Kobe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donjuansdaddy

Thing is last week, Bynum didn't step up at all to defend the pick n' roll and Tony, Neal, Duncan etc. scroched his Lazy @$$ for just staying around the rim. Tuesday night, Pop ran Bynum's ass round early with Splitter and then, he pick the living shit of the Lakers guard knowing Bynum was tire and wouldn't step up on the pick. Lakers got burned bad.

The Spurs have shooters on this team. If you leave Neal, Green, Parker, Manu, Bonner, Leonard, Sjax etc. wide open for 15-22 fts, yes they are going to shot 50%+ or more from the floor. Spurs did the same thing to the Kings last night.

---

I believe the nature of this season has forced Pop to make more adjustments which has helped him be more flexible. Hopefully he'll pull the plug on Bonner in the playoffs when necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donjuansdaddy

Thing is last week, Bynum didn't step up at all to defend the pick n' roll and Tony, Neal, Duncan etc. scroched his Lazy @$$ for just staying around the rim. Tuesday night, Pop ran Bynum's ass round early with Splitter and then, he pick the living shit of the Lakers guard knowing Bynum was tire and wouldn't step up on the pick. Lakers got burned bad.

The Spurs have shooters on this team. If you leave Neal, Green, Parker, Manu, Bonner, Leonard, Sjax etc. wide open for 15-22 fts, yes they are going to shot 50%+ or more from the floor. Spurs did the same thing to the Kings last night.

---

Yeah and he got Gasol a couple of times out on the perimeter and sent him stumbling over his own feet trying to keep Tony from getting a layup, so Tony popped in 15 to 18 foot jumpers on him. If the big comes out on Tony he blows by him. If he stays back, Tony will burn him with a short jumper. It doesn't matter who the big is. Gasol and Bynum both found that out. One other thing that no one is pointing out. Duncan and Bonner out rebounded Gasol and Bynum. Is there something else? YES Our bench outscored the Lakers bench, 45-24, 21 points. Was this game FOOL GOLD? Maybe but if you look at what the TEAM has done over the last 18 games. 16 - 2, one of the losses was a give away game and the other to the Lakers when the team looked like they didnt care. The 18-0 run in the lakers game was no fluke, defense was about as good as the team could play. Even an 80% effort like this and Spurs will dominate any team.

Shit load of fools gold these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Shit load of fools gold these days.

---

No one would love to see a 4-0 second round sweep over these guys with four blowouts more than me. I'd love to be wrong. I'm thrilled with how we're playing right now, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Shit load of fools gold these days.

---

I know it's sort of overdone, but I'm leaning towards, "Fuck yo fools gold, clown."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

I know it's sort of overdone, but I'm leaning towards, "Fuck yo fools gold, clown."

---

:lmao

I would say "If the Spurs shoot 61% at home they are going to blow out any team in the NBA" ... but F it, that was too sweet of a win.

I hope Laker Fan is forced to watch that second half on loop for the rest of eternity, tbh.

ElNono right bout dem Lakers :hat

I wonder if the Spurs can average 60% shooting against the Lakers in the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therealtruth

I wonder if the Spurs can average 60% shooting against the Lakers in the playoffs.

---

If the Lakers want to continue defending the pick and roll the way they have been, I think it could be done (maybe not 60% average but 50%+). :hat

Our shooters are way too good to leave open like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therealtruth

I wonder if the Spurs can average 60% shooting against the Lakers in the playoffs.

---

Fast break points:
Spurs-22
Lakers-4


Points in the paint:
Spurs-54
Lakers-30

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

I would say "If the Spurs shoot 61% at home they are going to blow out any team in the NBA" ... but F it, that was too sweet of a win.

I hope Laker Fan is forced to watch that second half on loop for the rest of eternity, tbh.

---

I can't remember a more beautiful 3rd quarter.

The maker of this thread needs to be tarred and feathered. Or at least bitch slapped.

OK I guess public ridicule will do. Mods, please pink his ID and bar him from starting any more threads for 3 weeks.

It's good to be beasting going into the playoffs. I just want us to play our best games, if we lose I can live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

I know it's sort of overdone, but I'm leaning towards, "Fuck yo fools gold, clown."

---

:lol

If the thread starter owns up to his foolishness I am OK with leniency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxxx

If the thread starter owns up to his foolishness I am OK with leniency.

---

Most of us have laid a few eggs here. Saying "oops" works wonders.

Well I appreciate the attempt at analysis of our win at LA. My own "analysis" was that Kobe comes out launching in the rubber match and the Lakers get worse.

As it played out, Kobe was not the problem. The offensive juggernaut that is our Spurs, along with the overall genius of Pop and the FO are the real stories.

There is no more feared team in the league than us, period.

love how tony continues to disappear v the big teams

Lakers bigs are way too slow. They cannot contend with the speedy guards. Everyone on the Spurs sans Splitter/Blair can hit midrange jumpers consistently. If the bigs cannot close out and get back to the Spurs bigs then it is game over for the Lakers.

SPURS DICK SWANGIN LOW FUCK THEM LAKErs

The OP was 100% correct. It's fools gold to think the Spurs can continue to beat some size, a breaking down fade away chucker, and a shitty bench with precision pick and roll basketball, solid defensive rotations, and rebounding. They'll never be able to continue that in the playoffs, there it will only be a 5 to 7 pt win and not a 22 pt win. Fools gold.

Thrilled with the win, obviously.

Some interesting things to note:

The Spurs did indeed regress to the mean in their long twos, after their ridiculous 19-of-28 (67.9%) effort from there last time. In this game they attempted fewer of them (24) and made far fewer (10), shooting 41.7%. That's just about normal.

Parker in particular, who couldn't miss on those long J's in the last game (10-of-12), was only 3-of-8 this time around, while Duncan was 3-of-6 compared to last game's 5-of-7 effort.

Where the Spurs made up the difference was in the paint, where they had 10 more points than the last game. Their hustle (or a few lucky bounces) also got them five more offensive boards and seven more FT attempts (and 12 more makes!).

Finally, the Spurs were a ludicrous 10-of-15 from downtown. They're not gonna lose many when they're shooting like that.

Defensively, the game was hard to figure. The Spurs allowed 19 more FTA than last time, two more offensive boards, gave up four more made threes, and forced seven fewer turnovers. Even though they defended well enough that the Lakers shot only 43% (compared to 48% last game), the Spurs still allowed a half-dozen more points.

Yet they were so otherwordly efficient on offense it simply didn't matter.


So here's my conclusion... the Lakers are big yes, but they can't consistently take advantage of their height because they're so slow on the perimeter. The Spurs will get all the open looks they want against these guys as long as they're patient. It's just a matter of making the open shots. LA is particularly vulnerable when the benches get involved, as they have almost no serviceable reserves outside of Barnes. I can't say I'm as worried about this match-up as I was a week ago, but we still have to see how guys like Green, Bonner and Leonard deal with playoff pressure.

i'd also note that, even with shorter rotations in postseason, LA is going to have a really hard time not losing 6-10 points over a 3 minute span when the teams go to the benches.

inexplicably, their bench actually managed to go on a run against the Spurs in the first half. but in the second, we saw the lead go from 8 to 19 in a wink once subs started coming in.

The OP mentioned that beating the Lakers badly while hitting long twos at such a ridiculous clip was fool's gold. He was exactly right. Last night, they beat the Lakers badly by scoring in the paint and outrebounding them 42-29.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

Most of us have laid a few eggs here. Saying "oops" works wonders.

---

Well our Spurs have made alot of people look foolish lately.

WOW!! did Timmy look good last night