The Fool's Gold of Yesterday's Blowout

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.