Coach Nick: Why Spurs Turnovers in Game 1 Didn't Help The Heat As Much as You Think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KL2

The TO's did help the Heat quite a bit. What this video fails to take account of is the mental part of the game.

Games are often won/lost because of streaks, just 1 or 2 mins of a team playing well, and this game is a perfect example as you guys saw the explosion at the end. Each TO is a dead possession, it does not allow the team to gain a rhythm offensively (shout out to those Manu Finals defenders).

When a team gains that rhythm whether it's b2b 3pters or stringing together stops defensively, they play as a TEAM as they are all energized, especially SA. Spurs fans should know this by now. Answering that streak, quieting the crowd, that is when the pressure is on, how are you going to answer those two 3pters? That is when it is most difficult to score, we've seen many Spur killers do it, Fisher is the perfect example.

I saw a couple of potential streaks in game 1, so close to breaking away, but they were unable to do so, some were caused by TP with some poor decisions.

Just like a team building that massive lead, suddenly the pressure is on to maintain it, basketball is such a mental sport.

---

Read the title of the thread. Same thing as what was analyzed.

I swear people have shit for brains. Literally shit for brains.

That was pointless ( and wrong ) analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Body

Read the title of the thread. Same thing as what was analyzed.

I swear people have shit for brains. Literally shit for brains.

---

I understood the video, I watched it all.

While Miami may not have been able to fully capitalize on the TO's, it did affect San Antonio's rhythm, that's my point, and that's what he failed to address.

This game could've been over in the 1st had San Antonio been able to properly execute on offense and not turned the ball over so much. All it takes is a few unanswered buckets for a game to be blown wiiide open.

Well he is basically saying there were quite a few turnovers where they did not capitalize on them. For us 22 turnovers means 22 lost opportunities for our potent offense to score. So if we clean that up we're obviously in a much better position to win the game close or by a large margin. Think about it from the point of view of it we just had five less turnovers and scored on all five of those possessions.

A turnover that doesn't result in the other team scoring is nothing more than empty meaningless time off the clock. That's not rocket science.

LJ traveled on the dunk.. No call..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErnestLynch

A turnover that doesn't result in the other team scoring is nothing more than empty meaningless time off the clock. That's not rocket science.

---

Sure, but when our team was shooting around 55% all game, that's not a good thing. If we were going to stop Miami on those possessions anyway, it's obviously better to precede those possessions with buckets rather than handing the ball over. The lead could have been bigger than it was. Every turnover is sort of like a missed field goal. Whether or not Miami sores on the ensuing possession, those are points we gave away by not getting shots up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCriminal

LJ traveled on the dunk.. No call..

---

They almost never call travels on fastbreaks. Probably because it's too fast.

I'm a little concerned. It seems that everytime SA gets lucky with a game 1 win, they follow it up with an even worse game 2 performance. Game 1 of the Finals last year, game 1 of the second round series against GS last year, and game 1 of the Mavs series this year. All games they got lucky to win, but they followed it up with an even worse performance and got blown out. I'm hoping that history doesn't repeat itself, and SA cleans up their mistakes and comes out with more energy on both sides of the ball. If LeBron is healthy all game and Miami wins, then that's a bad sign for SA, because we'll be heading to Miami with the Heat having all of the confidence in the world. This is a must win game for SA.

Every game is a "must win" game as far as I'm concerned!

The Spurs need to approach as if this is the only game left to play.

The next game is always the biggest. Not a news flash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Well he is basically saying there were quite a few turnovers where they did not capitalize on them. For us 22 turnovers means 22 lost opportunities for our potent offense to score. So if we clean that up we're obviously in a much better position to win the game close or by a large margin. Think about it from the point of view of it we just had five less turnovers and scored on all five of those possessions.

---

I think we understand what he is "basically saying," but his analysis is wrong. Just because a TO fails to produce SCORING doesnt mean the TO doesnt do a plethora of things that dont show up as stats; confidence and momentum for each team, the ability to get into or get out of a rhythm, a busted play or wasted trap, the list goes on and on.

To make an analysis on something that results in such a qualitative domino effect is pointless, and this is a weak take on the significance of a turnover, which is why there are so many stupid players in today's NBA, college, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knoxxx

The next game is always the biggest. Not a news flash.

---

if spurs win game 2 game three is not biggest but game 4 if they lose both then game 5 is

good stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

I think we understand what he is "basically saying," but his analysis is wrong. Just because a TO fails to produce SCORING doesnt mean the TO doesnt do a plethora of things that dont show up as stats; confidence and momentum for each team, the ability to get into or get out of a rhythm, a busted play or wasted trap, the list goes on and on.

To make an analysis on something that results in such a qualitative domino effect is pointless, and this is a weak take on the significance of a turnover, which is why there are so many stupid players in today's NBA, college, etc.

---

He seemed to be trying to touch on the point that the Heat thrive on not just turnovers but scoring in the open court off those turnovers. They missed a lot of those chances but obviously any TO regardless of if the other team scores is a negative. Spurs don't usually turn it over like that although they have at times this postseason. I expect them to clean it up but also expect Lebron to come hard and Wade to play well again..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

He seemed to be trying to touch on the point that the Heat thrive on not just turnovers but scoring in the open court off those turnovers. They missed a lot of those chances but obviously any TO regardless of if the other team scores is a negative. Spurs don't usually turn it over like that although they have at times this postseason. I expect them to clean it up but also expect Lebron to come hard and Wade to play well again..

---

Not just that but we've got alot of players like Green and Kawhi and Manu who are great at preventing a team from scoring on the break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

WTF are you talking about. He totally negates the fact that every time we turn the ball over 1, if not all, of these things happens"

a. We dont score 1,2,3 or 4 pts
b. Heat CAN score 1,2,3 or 4 pts
c. We cant get to the line/draw foul
d. Heat CAN get to the line/draw foul
e. MOMENTUM SWING

thinking that this was "any" type of "analysis" is bat-shit cray cray.

Turnovers suck. there is nothing good about the turnover. ask pop


PS I shut this down at the 1 minute mark when he put the blame on Parker, not Green, for Green getting his pass intercepted. WTF. IDIOT

---

Shutting down at the 1 minute mark shows, because your point misses the mark. He is not saying that deadball turnovers do not matter; he said they are not as BAD as live ball turnovers, and only 14 of 23 where live ball turnovers. It partially explains why the heat did not score more than they did.

His analysis helps to explain why the spurs were able to survive so many turnovers, but honestly the spurs were lucky the heat did not convert on more of those live ball turnovers, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

if spurs win game 2 game three is not biggest but game 4 if they lose both then game 5 is

---

No NBA team has ever came back from being down 3-0 which makes game 3 bigger than game 4. Once you reach that closeout game its the biggest though.Basically I just proved my point the next game is always the biggest not one after that. Common sense.Game 2 of course is the biggest right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

Shutting down at the 1 minute mark shows, because your point misses the mark. He is not saying that deadball turnovers do not matter; he said they are not as BAD as live ball turnovers, and only 14 of 23 where live ball turnovers. It partially explains why the heat did not score more than they did.

His analysis helps to explain why the spurs were able to survive so many turnovers, but honestly the spurs were lucky the heat did not convert on more of those live ball turnovers, actually.

---

I understand what he is trying to claim. However, his "analysis" is impossible because of the billion qualitative maybes that go along with any turnover.

He is stating that the worst thing to happen off of a TO is the point-swing. That's actually not true. He states that Greens TO was really Parker's fault, which is also not true. After those two terrible points, in about a minute, I felt no need to continue listening to garbage.

the scary thing is Manu didn't have his usual amount of Turnovers in game 1.