Printable View
We were 88-78 and finished 90-88. So yes, a 10-point lead became a 2-point lead (and shortly after a 2-point deficit).Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Cause vs correlation is irrelevant here, as the outcome is always "they should have shot better and turned the ball over less". Regardless of the reason the result is clear: Hack-a-Jordan didn't work at all. The Spurs stopped doing it and managed to turn the tide. You can believe it's a coincidence, I don't.
I think it can work in certain situations, like if Paul was torching us, it could force the ball out of his hand and stop the flow of the game. It also obviously gets in these dudes heads. But when you're up already I think it's just retarded tbh. Pop just trolling the fuck out of LA imo
i actually thought hack a jordan worked really well last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
I prefer it when the team is losing, tbh..most people prefer doing it with a lead, but I disagree..
Doing it while you're losing stops the clock to buy more time for a run, along with rest..if you had built a 10-point lead prior to Hack-a-Jordan, you were clearly doing something right, why change it?
Pop's timing was puzzling IMO..
Why change your strategy at a time where your plan was succeeding? It's the equivalent of the Spurs running a successful high pick&roll on 5 consecutive plays against a weak defender, yet subsequently deciding that they're going to stop doing it, despite the opponent not adjusting their defensive coverage..
If you have a 10-point lead, you were clearly doing something right, stick with it IMO..premature panic move..
if it gives Old Man Riverwalk a few seconds to rest on the court, I'm for it in a losing situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
I thought it was a great thing to do when the Clipper started running. Took Paul and Blake out of the game. But the Spurs have a great defense. They don't need to resort to hack-a-plays often. No way you do that with Wingstop on the perimeter. If they are trotting a lineup of Parker/Mills-Beli-Manu-Diaw-Baynes out there, though, they should hack.
It woulda worked yesterday if the Spurs were able to box out on the rebounds + Duncan made those 2 gimmes + they call the Jordan hack before Redick made the 3 + Belli's turnover wasn't a live turnover. The lead would still have been around 6 or 8 but instead of 6 minutes left in the quarter, there would be 2 minutes left.
Do it when opponent is on a run to break the dynamic and cool off the bleed
Does not make sense doing it when you have the lead and you are showing you keeping dat lead
Quote:
Originally Posted by will_spurs
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Therein lies the problem; it's a complex system that requires more data than you can actually collect to know if it worked or not. You'd need to know what the outcome would have been otherwise, you cannot collect that data. You have to know what momentum was doing for point production, what rest was doing for OT production, anything and everything and still people would disagree because there are also other factors involved.
Cause vs correlation.
Like someone said, I appreciate a thread that's actually not about player fans and focuses on basketball. Up until this year, I was thinking that it was really useful and something that would always help the spurs hold the advantage over the Clippers and Rox in particular if we played them. However, this year has really made me reconsider the strategy. It did work well with Josh Smith, but I remember seeing some stat with Deandre that said when he took 15+ free throws the Clippers actually had a great record, and last game it looked like it also kind of killed our momentum. I like the strategy in cases where we are either up about 10 and trying to stop the come back, or if they are shooting extremely well and we need to just put an end to the rhythm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by testies
I don't mind it if it's used, like others have said, when we're down. Also, if they start getting momentum and the crowd starts getting into it, then it is good to use it as a momentum killer. Really takes the crowd out of it and the players too.
you can come up with an estimate by taking Jordan's FT% for the season (40) and translating it into points per possesion (0.4) and comparing it to the clippers eFG% and turning that into points per possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
of course, there's no guarantee that it will work during a given game, because maybe the clips would have been cold anyway, or maybe DJ ends up hitting 7 in a row. so yeah, its correlation. but you can still play the numbers and put yourself in a favorable position.
Disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
Sure, it made it more difficult on the offense, but they had a gassed Duncan and Diaw, as well as no Ginobili or Parker and given the opportunity, obviously a Clippers team that was playing with maximum intensity. In other words, struggling to score down the stretch was inevitable.
It was less a "premature panic move" and more a I-know-my-team-and-I've-seen-this-movie-before move. Think of it as a preemptive measure that had the added benefit of buying Duncan and Diaw some on court rest.
Hack-a-Jordan disrupts the game's rhythm. The only time it would make sense to do it is when you're trying to disrupt the rhythm of the game to your advantage. If you've already got a good rhythm don't mess it up.
I generally am for it, but it almost backfired yesterday. Timmy had 5 fouls in 4th quarter and OT. If one bad call went against him he's out of the game and the spurs probably lose the game. Luckily Manu was playing poorly or else Manu's absence would have hurt more as well.
I'm for it, but the right people need to foul and as has been mentioned, get the fucking rebound.
I like it. It messes with their minds...and puts you in control of the game. YOU are dictating what they do, not them. For that reason alone, I like it...especially against a horrible FT shooter. Plus, we are better in half court game than them. If we want to keep the tempo high...well, we just don't hack them. So, we control the tempo of the game totally.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by testies
Lots of good points here.
I'll also say the Clippers are an emotionally fragile team. They need some outside persecution to rally around, and the hacking does it.
Paul, as a superior point guard, is able to keep their offense running when needed.
My biggest beef is that it destroys the Spurs' offensive rhythm. It kills the flow completely.
it doesn't and has never worked. It hurts the Spurs more than the other team. The statistics bear it out.
I think it also has a mental affect on Jordan, which seeps into the rest of his play. Even if we he makes them a a higher percentage than normal, it's still added strain on him that will dull his edge. Those extra bits of concentration I'd rather he use on free throws, which will sap his effort on rotations blocks etc.
Yeah I thought it was bad timing as well. Pop has said that Hack-a-whoever has a negative affect on our offense/defense and he factors that in when deciding to employ the tactic. I don't know what he saw that made him think it was time to start hacking and unfortunately no reporter has the balls to ask him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malik Hairston
in hindsight its probably why Pop was playing Marco over green. Marco can give you something off the dribble in addition to good shooting (and apparently terrible late game turnovers), and his defensive deficiency didn't matter since they were hackingQuote:
Originally Posted by Chinook