Pop's D adjustment for Game 3

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/warrior...-92-spurs-102/

Quote:

---

Gregg Popovich solved the defensive riddle posed by the Curry/Thompson backcourt. Rather than pulling help from one player to another, the Spurs kept a single guard or wing on Curry, but then pulled Duncan or another big man to trap at the top of the arc. Suddenly, one of Curry’s favorite spots for crossing over and creating space became a too-crowded tangle of quick hands and long limbs. Curry and Jackson never seemed to fully figure it out, eventually deferring to Jarrett Jack for ball handling in the center of the court. After all the heroics and blistering shooting in previous games, Curry took only 2 shots in a crucial fourth quarter with home court advantage in the balance. That would be a disappointing line for an average player, let alone one bordering on elite.

---

Pop haters better recognize! Pop is officially the longest tenured coach in all the world of major sports franchises since Sir Alex has retired from Manchester United. In Pop I trust!

Defense won the game no doubt.

I knew he would, though the only criticism I have for Pop this season is not going to Kawhi more and not playing Joseph more. However it's not like he could foresee the Spurs needing them this much. He is the best coach ever at making in game or in series adjustments.

Pop getting praise for making the obvious moves
everyone knew he should have went big and a lot of the defensive problems would have fixed themselves
Jackson would put a non factor like Ezeli on the floor and you actually have rim protection still once one of Splitter/Duncan go out to contest the shot

It looks obvious, but I think doing the obvious is a quality many NBA coaches lack.

GSW missed a lot of uncontested shots. that's not defense

50% vs 39% won the game, esp Tony's first half, and 4 out of 5 for 9 pts from Boris.

So Pop gets credit for starting the guy who was starting games since December over starting the guy chained to the bench the whole season who doesnt deserve to wear a Spurs uniform
just imagine if Pop actually played Splitter from day 1

Was that really a masterful correction? I'd say playing Diaw more than he did in Game 2 was a better no-brainer move. WTF was that all about? Also, Pop can't play defense for everyone. The team decided to play with more energy on the defensive end. They just gave a better effort. And like someone else mentioned, the shots just didn't fall for GS this time around.

Sometimes playing at home in front of a raucous crowd can add pressure for a team to perform. There was no way Curry/Thompson could duplicate what they did in San Antonio. The law of averages was bound to catch up with them & the Spurs.

Well, I think Coach Popovich made the strategic adjustment that worked, and the Spurs players then started to feel comfortable and the Warriors felt less comfortable. It seems as if we didn't have to think as much once we got a strategy that worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freetiago

So Pop gets credit for starting the guy who was starting games since December over starting the guy chained to the bench the whole season who doesnt deserve to wear a Spurs uniform
just imagine if Pop actually played Splitter from day 1

---

Putting KL on Thompson was the real key. Pop must've figured Curry would go off anyway, so he matched up KL on Thompson hoping that he would contain him. DG locking down on Curry was unexpected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man In Black

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/warrior...-92-spurs-102/



Pop haters better recognize! Pop is officially the longest tenured coach in all the world of major sports franchises since Sir Alex has retired from Manchester United. In Pop I trust!

---

Wenger has been at Arsenal longer than Pop has been at Spurs

Such a better job from games one and two. Take game 4 and put a strangle hold on the series. The games are so good though. I have a lot more respect for Golden State now than I did before.

Popovich just did what people have been begging him to do.

I'm glad he wisened up, but this series does not show genius. Especially after his awful coaching job in game 2.

He stopped having the defense overreact to Parker getting posted up. Didn't send the double right away and let Barnes back in before sending the bigs to contest. Pretty much what a lot of posters advocated after the Game 2 loss. No reason to overreact to guys like Bogut/Barnes/Green, just stay home on their main two.

Tim did a much better job of protecting the rim. Defensive rebounding remains an issue though.

I still think that Pop's best adjustment in this game was putting up more (three now) screens for TP so that he can finally get some space to get his shot off. Keeping a young team like the Warriors in a constant state of having to catch up puts a lot more pressure on them to perform. And the pressure doesn't hepl their accuracy. Plus Tim didn't hang on to the ball so much this game. He caught and shot or caught and moved, not giving them a chance to set up a defense
and not forcing our offense to become stagnant.

Sooo, what I'm saying is that the biggest adjustment was not D; it was what they did on O.

^^^^^Plus keeping Tony on a 'in and out' rotation. Kept Parker fresh and kept his shooting hot and kept GS not knowing when he was or wan't going to be in the game. Best move of either coach in this series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freetiago

So Pop gets credit for starting the guy who was starting games since December over starting the guy chained to the bench the whole season who doesnt deserve to wear a Spurs uniform
just imagine if Pop actually played Splitter from day 1

---

Do Spurs fans here ever give Pop any credit when the team wins? When they lose he is the worst coach in the league I guess..

One thing Pop deserves credit for that no one is talking about is that he finally managed to get it through to Green that he was not to leave Curry under any circumstances. Most of the time when Green's man scores, it's because Danny helps at the wrong time. Pop also deserves credit for making sure everybody else understood that, so that the help would still be there without Danny needing to leave his man.

The difference in the last game was that the Warriors missed the same shots they were making in the previous 2 games. The defense wasn't great in any of the games by either team. There were moments of defense but overall the game has been decided on the offensive end of the floor. If Klay goes off last night like he did before, the Warriors win easily. The 1st quarter point swing was the only real difference in the game where points are concerned. The rest of the game saw the Warriors trying to play catch up and they did at times, but that's what point differentials are for. You have to have that advantage to buffer those runs, and not many teams can make a run like the Spurs made a couple games ago, but had the Warriors had one more point, they would have won just the same.

People tend to look at things in such a "frozen in time" perspective, but the game isn't played in that perspective. At the beginning of the 4th the Warriors destroyed the 10pt lead, but that lead meant that the run was buffered and it allowed the Spurs to withstand it. Had the game been tied at that point the Spurs go down 10 points an it's a different game altogether. So trace that back to the opening round and the fact that the Warriors turned the ball over too much and shot cold. It's hard to recover when a team pounces on you early, and the Spurs have historically been cold in the 1st and 3rd quarters. They cannot do that in the playoffs and expect to climb out consistently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

The difference in the last game was that the Warriors missed the same shots they were making in the previous 2 games. The defense wasn't great in any of the games by either team. There were moments of defense but overall the game has been decided on the offensive end of the floor. If Klay goes off last night like he did before, the Warriors win easily. The 1st quarter point swing was the only real difference in the game where points are concerned. The rest of the game saw the Warriors trying to play catch up and they did at times, but that's what point differentials are for. You have to have that advantage to buffer those runs, and not many teams can make a run like the Spurs made a couple games ago, but had the Warriors had one more point, they would have won just the same.

People tend to look at things in such a "frozen in time" perspective, but the game isn't played in that perspective. At the beginning of the 4th the Warriors destroyed the 10pt lead, but that lead meant that the run was buffered and it allowed the Spurs to withstand it. Had the game been tied at that point the Spurs go down 10 points an it's a different game altogether. So trace that back to the opening round and the fact that the Warriors turned the ball over too much and shot cold. It's hard to recover when a team pounces on you early, and the Spurs have historically been cold in the 1st and 3rd quarters. They cannot do that in the playoffs and expect to climb out consistently.

---

That's true to a great extent. The Warriors were missing shots I fully expected them to make. Who knows what would have happened if the Golden State has shot their series average in all three games instead of having the skew.

That being said, the Spurs' defense WAS better. It wasn't just that Curry was missing shots; Green's pressure on him forced the Warriors to go away from him altogether. In the Curry thread after the first game, we talked about how much more efficient Curry is than the rest of his team. Taking the ball out of Curry's hands (21 possessions in this game and 25 in Game 2 compared with 43 in Game 1) really hurts the Warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

GSW missed a lot of uncontested shots. that's not defense

50% vs 39% won the game, esp Tony's first half, and 4 out of 5 for 9 pts from Boris.

---

Bullshit. They were forced into taking bad shots because of the defensive pressure we were putting on them. And the dudes taking the shots weren't Curry or Thompson. We'll live with that all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Do Spurs fans here ever give Pop any credit when the team wins? When they lose he is the worst coach in the league I guess..

---

Nope it's always "well that's what he's supposed to" or, "well big deal I thought of that before"


we have thousands of coaching savants here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

That's true to a great extent. The Warriors were missing shots I fully expected them to make. Who knows what would have happened if the Golden State has shot their series average in all three games instead of having the skew.

That being said, the Spurs' defense WAS better. It wasn't just that Curry was missing shots; Green's pressure on him forced the Warriors to go away from him altogether. In the Curry thread after the first game, we talked about how much more efficient Curry is than the rest of his team. Taking the ball out of Curry's hands (21 possessions in this game and 25 in Game 2 compared with 43 in Game 1) really hurts the Warriors.

---

Warriors lost game 1. It doesn't matter how well they feel they played, or how well you or I or anyone else feels they played, if you lost you didn't play as good as you should have. They had moments, but the game is at least 48 minutes every single game. If a chef prepared the best dish in the world for you and took a shit in it before he brought it out, you wouldn't say how great that dish was other than that turd. That end of game meltdown by the Warriors is part and parcel of the game itself and neither Jackson nor any sportswriter can change that.

So, it doesn't matter who on the team scores all the points, just that they do. Their shooting percentage in game 2 was good, but the Spurs shot pretty poorly in the first two games. I actually believe it's a detriment to the success of the Warriors if Curry scores over 30 points, because that means other people aren't as involved in the offense. That's what the Lakers have dealt with all season with Kobe. When players aren't involved in the offense, they often aren't as involved in the defense. They are running wind sprints and that's about it. There are few players who overcome the lack of involvement on offense and still play great defense.

Also, with Curry, he's not a great defender. He's not even a good defender. So, when he's out there not hitting his shots, he's a liability on the floor, just like Tony Parker.

The Warriors run a bastardized version of the SSOL offense, but outside of Curry, they don't have a SSOL perimeter shooting team like the Suns had. Jack can shoot, but he overdribbles. Thompson is a streaky volume shooter. They have a couple of guys who can get a 3 now and then, but only Curry can drop them in at will if he's open. Unfortunately for the Warriors, he's also their PG so he's going to be picked up at half court on almost every offensive possession and he requires a screen to get a split second open look. If he could come off a double back screen instead, by being a 2, he'd be open for longer or his PG would have the time to make better decisions than Curry makes.

There's no reason the Warriors shouldn't win this series outside of just having a shitty system and a coach who's ego is bigger than his IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freetiago

Pop getting praise for making the obvious moves
everyone knew he should have went big and a lot of the defensive problems would have fixed themselves
Jackson would put a non factor like Ezeli on the floor and you actually have rim protection still once one of Splitter/Duncan go out to contest the shot

---

So out of curiosity, are there ANY coaches in the NBA that you think are good, or is it only posters on internet message board that know how to run an NBA team properly?

Genius move tbh, nobody would've thought that playing the rotation that won us 58 games would make our team better than playing midget ball.:toast

What he was supposed to do....?

Show me the silver misfit or the freetiago post that says put Green on Curry to shut him down?

Bunch of losers that would roll up in the fetal position if asked to coach YMCA.

What cracks me up is the writer of the blog is a hardcore Warrior fan, a guy that knows his team the way we know ours, and he's the one giving the credit to Pop for making this adjustment. We have people who say that GSW was shooting their normal percentages in games 1 and 2 and then we have people who say they just missed shots that were wide open like before, despite the fact that having 2 real bigs in made it possible for the high post big to extend out further.

Sometimes I think we're on a crazy status, you can't stop crazy. However, reality will show us what's what and I am one fan who is happy that Pop is still Executive VP and Coach of the San Antonio Spurs.

True Story - Manager Arsen Wegner of Arsenal in the English Premier League and Coach Gregg Popovich both started leading their respective teams in 1996.

In general Pop doesn't get enough credit on here. Too many fools on here talking about how much he sucks when he's always been a top 3 coach in the NBA for at least a decade. Calling people who disagree "Popsuckers" as their main argument just proves their insecurity over how terrible their takes on him are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurs21Fan4Ever

I knew he would, though the only criticism I have for Pop this season is not going to Kawhi more and not playing Joseph more. However it's not like he could foresee the Spurs needing them this much. He is the best coach ever at making in game or in series adjustments.

---

I agree. Pop stuck with De Colo way too long this year when he clearly wasn't performing very well. He should've gone to Joseph earlier, or at least more often once he brought up him from the Toros. CJo really could've used the extra couple months of NBA experience so he could play a larger role this postseason. We're still kinda stuck in the, "If Parker or Manu get hurt we're fucked" mode because we don't have a legit backup playmaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freetiago

So Pop gets credit for starting the guy who was starting games since December over starting the guy chained to the bench the whole season who doesnt deserve to wear a Spurs uniform
just imagine if Pop actually played Splitter from day 1

---

So, out of curiosity, was it just as obvious to you that the key to putting Curry off balance was to bring the double team at the top of the arc instead of closer to the lane? Is that another useful coaching tidbit that everybody knows and that you've been complaining about all along?

Honestly, I may have missed someone else talking about it, but the only person I saw mention this possibility before the game was Zach Lowe at Grantland, and he got there by watching a crapload of film on Curry and supplementing it with research into SportVU data. He also made a point of noting that Curry's game had changed significantly with the Lee injury, and that the only other NBA coach to get a shot at Curry in the playoffs, George Karl, hadn't been able to counter him effectively.

So I guess Pop only knows how to make the coaching moves that are so obvious that not even other above-average NBA coaches know how to make.

I'm certainly no expert in breaking down NBA film myself, but I know my limitations. You seem to be living in some kind of delusional fantasy world in which all there is to coaching is putting the right 5 guys on the floor and watching the fucking magic happen. You should be fucking embarrassed by the shit you post, and you're just too stupid to even realize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Warriors lost game 1. It doesn't matter how well they feel they played, or how well you or I or anyone else feels they played, if you lost you didn't play as good as you should have. They had moments, but the game is at least 48 minutes every single game. If a chef prepared the best dish in the world for you and took a shit in it before he brought it out, you wouldn't say how great that dish was other than that turd. That end of game meltdown by the Warriors is part and parcel of the game itself and neither Jackson nor any sportswriter can change that.

So, it doesn't matter who on the team scores all the points, just that they do. Their shooting percentage in game 2 was good, but the Spurs shot pretty poorly in the first two games. I actually believe it's a detriment to the success of the Warriors if Curry scores over 30 points, because that means other people aren't as involved in the offense. That's what the Lakers have dealt with all season with Kobe. When players aren't involved in the offense, they often aren't as involved in the defense. They are running wind sprints and that's about it. There are few players who overcome the lack of involvement on offense and still play great defense.

Also, with Curry, he's not a great defender. He's not even a good defender. So, when he's out there not hitting his shots, he's a liability on the floor, just like Tony Parker.

The Warriors run a bastardized version of the SSOL offense, but outside of Curry, they don't have a SSOL perimeter shooting team like the Suns had. Jack can shoot, but he overdribbles. Thompson is a streaky volume shooter. They have a couple of guys who can get a 3 now and then, but only Curry can drop them in at will if he's open. Unfortunately for the Warriors, he's also their PG so he's going to be picked up at half court on almost every offensive possession and he requires a screen to get a split second open look. If he could come off a double back screen instead, by being a 2, he'd be open for longer or his PG would have the time to make better decisions than Curry makes.

There's no reason the Warriors shouldn't win this series outside of just having a shitty system and a coach who's ego is bigger than his IQ.

---

To be honest, I don't even really know what you're trying to say here. I agree with you that the Warriors are a streaky team. I also think the Spurs played better defense by limiting the Warriors' possessions. Curry didn't have a bad game simply because he missed shots; he had a bad game because he didn't TAKE a lot of shots. That had everything to do with Green's ball pressure. If you go back and watch the game, you can see Curry's confidence is shot by the end of the third quarter. They stopped trying to give Curry the ball. He is their most efficient player by far. Him not touching the ball hurts their offense. It would be as if the Spurs went away from Parker.

I think your analysis of the Warriors' offense is good. But it doesn't make the Spurs' defensive effort any less noteworthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

To be honest, I don't even really know what you're trying to say here. I agree with you that the Warriors are a streaky team. I also think the Spurs played better defense by limiting the Warriors' possessions. Curry didn't have a bad game simply because he missed shots; he had a bad game because he didn't TAKE a lot of shots. That had everything to do with Green's ball pressure. If you go back and watch the game, you can see Curry's confidence is shot by the end of the third quarter. They stopped trying to give Curry the ball. He is their most efficient player by far. Him not touching the ball hurts their offense. It would be as if the Spurs went away from Parker.

I think your analysis of the Warriors' offense is good. But it doesn't make the Spurs' defensive effort any less noteworthy.

---

Basically look at the shooting percentages. Many of those shots that have been falling for Curry and Thompson did not fall last night. Curry had a bad night all around. He's a chucker and that's how it goes with them. Win or lose by 1 point and everyone dissects the game as if there are flags that indicate the reasons for the win or the loss, but the fact is that it came down to making or missing shots. Nothing else really changed.

The defense isn't really noteworthy. The Spurs turned the ball over like 4 consecutive times in the 4th quarter last night. There were ample opportunities for the Warriors to take the lead or tie the game. They just missed shots. If you miss a shot you can say it was too hard, which equates in this case to too much defense, but the same shot you hit last night with the same hand in your face went in. What do you credit for that? If shooting is a skill, then the skill is lacking on some nights? No, you aren't zeroed in as well, and you aren't hitting. When enough people aren't hitting, your team loses. Defense is important but the defense has been there all series. It's silly to have to defend a guy 7 feet past the 3pt line but when Curry is hitting the Spurs are forced to do that and it opens up the middle. Curry has been off since game 1 so the middle wasn't open since, but Klay was shooting lights out in game 2. Last night Curry is still off, the paint isn't as much a free for all, and Klay wasn't making shots. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Win or lose by 1 point and everyone dissects the game as if there are flags that indicate the reasons for the win or the loss, but the fact is that it came down to making or missing shots. Nothing else really changed.

---

Are you really Pop just posting as DMC? :)

the adjustment for this game was a lot like the adjustment for 4th quarter overtime in game 1.


1) Completely took away the middle by pressuring early past halfcourt. The first line of defense did a great job on this, particularly Joseph. Tony did a great job as well. They didn't allow the Warriors to masturbate at the top of the key and wait for a killer pass to a wing shooter, and they took away dribble penetration. The Warriors were pretty insistent in getting it back up top, so the Spurs immediately denied, and took away the back door as well. Pretty simple Spurs defense basketball concept, that they seem to forget sometimes.

2) Once the ball got to the middle, Green and Leonard did the dirty work. Doesn't really count as an adjustment, moreso than it is the aftermath of the first adjustment of forcing to one side. Also, Green and Leonard were just on defensively, so that helped. They didn't get screened off too much, and simply hustled getting to their man. Diaw and Tim were exceptional if anything got to the middle. Obviously some dunks will occur off slipped rotations, but it's better than a perpetual layup line.

3) Less Bonner and less Neal worked wonders for the defense. Absolute night and day.

4) We all know Parker has an on/off button. Tonight he was "on". Ironically, other than the periodic 4-down, there was less heroball and more motion off the loop and pick and roll. The Warriors took away the paint at first, but once the midrange started going down, everything opened up. Again not so much an adjustment than it is just having an on night--hitting like 80% in the first half helped though.


The main adjustments were minutes-wise. At the end of the day the Spurs just showed up on both ends.

Biggest adjustment was gst shooters finally cooling off and spurs picking up their defensive intensity.green is now bothering curry and kawhai's got a lil something for klay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tesseractive

So out of curiosity, are there ANY coaches in the NBA that you think are good, or is it only posters on internet message board that know how to run an NBA team properly?

---

What other coach in the NBA would rely on Bonner as much as Pop has? That's got to be one of the biggest issues. It's taking him 3 years to realize our best chance of winning involves Tiago being our starting center. We're not saying he's a superstar or savior but it maximizes our chances of winning.

I don't see how people think that Curry much less Thompson were getting as many open looks. There is absolutely no acknowledgment of keeping Curry out of the lane a hell of a lot better either.

So glad Pop's such a brilliant coach that he waited until game 3 to make an adjustment I was talking about during game 1.

Because Tiago couldn't yet play due to his ankle, couldn't one say that Pop had his team adjust and when he had Tiago back to full strength, he just made his team go back to base sets? The adjustment was made and we see Spurs ball because of it. Credit goes to Pop AND his players for sticking to the gameplan and for having the discipline to not freestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man In Black

Because Tiago couldn't yet play due to his ankle, couldn't one say that Pop had his team adjust and when he had Tiago back to full strength, he just made his team go back to base sets? The adjustment was made and we see Spurs ball because of it. Credit goes to Pop AND his players for sticking to the gameplan and for having the discipline to not freestyle.

---

The decision to send a big out to help with the pick and roll could have been made at any time prior to game 3, regardless of who was in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therealtruth

What other coach in the NBA would rely on Bonner as much as Pop has? That's got to be one of the biggest issues. It's taking him 3 years to realize our best chance of winning involves Tiago being our starting center. We're not saying he's a superstar or savior but it maximizes our chances of winning.

---

There's a lot of things that go into who goes out on the court. One of them is injuries, and Tiago has had some issues, especially rookie year. Another is putting in the work, learning the system, and making the right plays. You can be a far better player, but if you're not making the right defensive rotations, or you're committing dumb fouls, or you don't know the plays -- or even if you've just been slacking off in practice or something -- you're going to be in Pop's doghouse. Accountability is pretty fundamental to good player development, and Pop has a very strong track record for developing players given the lack of high picks he has to work with.

I don't know exactly why Tiago got less playing time in seasons 1 & 2, but I do know that it's far from a given that he would have been just as effective then as he has been this year.

Bonner is a stopgap and he always has been. There are lots of things he's not very good at, and his shooting motion isn't quick enough to consistently get his shot off against good playoff teams. But he plays within himself, he doesn't generally miss rotations or make other unforced mistakes, and he's not a terrible player to have as your 4th or (better) 5th big man. Even Pop knows that he really only belongs in spot minutes, to take advantage of very specific matchups, or if a real player can't go. When Bonner was getting big minutes, it was because of a roster problem, not gross stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The decision to send a big out to help with the pick and roll could have been made at any time prior to game 3, regardless of who was in the game.

---

Which big did you think would work best given the choices that Pop had at the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

The decision to send a big out to help with the pick and roll could have been made at any time prior to game 3, regardless of who was in the game.

---

Which big did you think would work best given the choices that Pop had at the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man In Black

Which big did you think would work best given the choices that Pop had at the time?

---

If I could choose anyone, I'd probably choose the one on the floor during the pick and roll. Standing 15 feet away from the play while Bogut and Curry work on Joseph or Parker wasn't very successful. Again, it's a strategic decision, and has nothing to do with who's on the floor (IMHO). The Spurs got pummelled doing it the way they did it. There's not a case to be made that they'd have gotten pummeled worse if they'd disrupted Curry on the picks.