Is this the game the rubes will excuse as a "trap game?"

Or a "let down" game after the big win against GS?

Horseshit. The same fuckin' problems that have been plaguing this team since February were in full on display tonight. Let's check off the list:

- Danny can't hit shit: Check.

- Team struggling when LMA and Kawhi aren't combining for 45-50 points: Check.

- Underwhelming effort on the road against a good team (the Hornets are 26-11 at home): Check.

- Patty, Fat Ass, Manure having 1 good game every 5 games (at least West is the only Coshitty member who's somewhat consistent): Check.

This wasn't a "let down" game. This team's offense has more variance than a slot machine, and that's primarily because the offense has to be carried by Kawhi and LMA, because no one else on the team can seem to manage 2 double digit games in a row. That's a huge flaw, and it's been nagging me for a month. Yes, this team's defense and the 1-2 Kawhi/LMA punch will likely be enough to reach the WCF, but forget about beating GS.

And again, it's why I supported Parker been that 3rd guy, because the committee idea is fundamentally flawed, since they're composed of role players. But even Parker is inconsistent now.

And to think I was ready to side with the Chinooks and such after that awesome first quarter. I had my "Spurs defense>Golden State offense" thread all planned out and was ready to join the rube bandwagon. But then the fucks going on to give up 84 points in 3 quarters and made Jeremy Lin look like Steph Curry should've looked the other night.

At least I called it before the game started, tbh... can't call it a knee jerk reaction...Me

Meltdown thread much?

They took their foot off the gas after the 1st.

So bitter....

Spurs decided to coast after the first and it bit them in the ass. Nothing else to see here. Pop is thrilled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

At least I called it before the game started, tbh... can't call it a knee jerk reaction...Me

---

Because you know there's something "off" with this team, you just can't consciously admit it yet. Top heavy scoring from 2 players isn't a good recipe for success in today's NBA, no matter how good the defense is.

I've been there.

We just beat the blazers okc clippers GSW and we lose to the hornets and you post this?
:lmao

If you'e going to have Kawhi and LMA score 45, you need to get them going. A lot of the games where they botch scored less than 20 featured a dofferent set of offense in the first half.

Games like these are going to happen. Pop is trying out a different set of offense against a good team away. I'm sure he's trying his best to diversiify his game...

But its pretty aparent that Both Kawhi and LMA lack the ego or probably even the lockerrom heiarchy to impose themselves when the team has started to play differently. Today ws a heavy dose of PnR...surprising considering how shitty charlottes bigs are in defending the post.

Pop: "2nd quarter our 2nd unit went out for lunch"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

If you'e going to have Kawhi and LMA score 45, you need to get them going.

---

They deserved a "night off" so to speak after carrying the load for 2 months. And Duncan and Tony supplemented with enough scoring. Time to call out the Krew favored Committee members here:

Danny: 0-7

Fat Ass: 0-5

Patty: 1-5

Manu: 1-3

You ain't winning too many games against decent teams when you're bench/key starter is that shitty.

But somehow this will be blamed on Parker.

Almost every team is heavily reliant on their main few scorers to score big consistently; that's not a flaw. Too many are stuck in '12-'15, when this team was the exception to that rule. Now, they're a more conventional team.

The inability of the shooters to shoot a high percentage from three, on the road, particularly against plus .500 teams, is the bigger issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Because you know there's something "off" with this team, you just can't consciously admit it yet. Top heavy scoring from 2 players isn't a good recipe for success in today's NBA, no matter how good the defense is.

I've been there.

---

Nah... I think a bunch of guys look like they're coasting/bored (hi Bobo, Danny)... add a Kawhi bad night and Lin playing out of his mind and you get this...

Not really concerned about it. Except for the Dubs, I don't think we'll lose a 7 game series against any other team.

EDIT: I did mention Mill's production being pretty crappy on the road all season, but he gets the benefit of the doubt because of how well he played on the road last playoffs against the Clips

win some lose some

Tony with 19 and we lost. So much for the team needing Tony as the 3rd scorer. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

They deserved a "night off" so to speak after carrying the load for 2 months. And Duncan and Tony supplemented with enough scoring. Time to call out the Krew favored Committee members here:

Danny: 0-7

Fat Ass: 0-5

Patty: 1-5

Manu: 1-3

You ain't winning too many games against decent teams when you're bench/key starter is that shitty.

But somehow this will be blamed on Parker.

---

Do you think that just becausd 12-15 happened, all of a sudden basketball changed :lol?

Its pretty aparent that this team wants to run a more conventional offense to allow better concentration on defensce by their role players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

Tony with 19 and we lost. So much for the team needing Tony as the 3rd scorer. :lmao

---

The starters were fine outside of D-League.

If your boy Patty House goes 2-5 and Fat Ass goes for 1-5, we win.

:lol Can't call out Committee members because of your hatred of Tony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Do you think that just becausd 12-15 happened, all of a sudden basketball changed :lol?

Its pretty aparent that this team wants to run a more conventional offense to allow better concentration on defensce by their role players.

---

Calling mills and Manu defensive role players......lol :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

The starters were fine outside of D-League.

If your boy Patty House goes 2-5 and Fat Ass goes for 1-5, we win.

:lol Can't call out Committee members because of your hatred of Tony.

---

We lost one game and won 50 other games with me being right. Now go be a faggot. :lmao

Spurs have only lost 11 games all year :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Do you think that just becausd 12-15 happened, all of a sudden basketball changed :lol?

Its pretty aparent that this team wants to run a more conventional offense to allow better concentration on defensce by their role players.

---

The offensive philosophy isn't my issue. My issue is with role player consistency. The Duncan-era Spurs ran a conventional offense, but it was supplemented by 3 big time scorers who were all threats to score 20 (Manu, Tim, Tony) and much more consistent role players (yes, I know our players role since 14 have been consistent, but they are a dice roll this year).

If you're going to center your scoring on two big guns, then the role players need to show up every fuckin' night. None of this 12 points and then 3 points shit from Patty House, Manu, Danny. A solid 6-10 points every night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

We lost one game and won 50 other games with me being right. Now go be a faggot. :lmao

---

:lol Right.

How many games did we win in which a double digit performance from Tony was the difference? Go to BBREF and get to work. I'll wait.

RPM says Tony is a shitbag. :lmao

We do better when he does less. Read between the lines faggot. :lmao

no way of spinning it...this is is was a most un-championship collapse you could get from a team that claim to be one ..In those instances, a would-be Champ would stop the bleeding at some point and tighen the screws late to salvage a W. Up fuckin' 23, we watched ourselves getting reeled in helplessly ..It really speaks about a fundamental flaw with in the team..getting offense (in particular clutch shooting) outside Big 2 has been frustrating process..It was basically the Orlando game only that Kawhi/LMA didn't have it to save our asses tonight..

Man, dabom is really desperate tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

At least I called it before the game started, tbh... can't call it a knee jerk reaction...Me

---

http://lolworthy.com/wp-content/uplo...ideeye-gif.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mugen

http://lolworthy.com/wp-content/uplo...ideeye-gif.gif

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floyd Pacquiao

They took their foot off the gas after the 1st.

---

And why they couldn't put it back on after hornets come back? Show that the quality of the team not close to Warriors...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

RPM says Tony is a shitbag. :lmao

---

Being such a rube that you don't read anything about the stats you cite:

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/article...advanced-stats

Here is the statistic's main flaw:

Quote:

---

RPM reflects enhancements to RAPM by Engelmann, among them the use of Bayesian priors, aging curves, score of the game and extensive out-of-sample testing to improve RPM's predictive accuracy.

---

If you're an engineer, as you say, you should see the issue.

If y'all don't think we've been at our best this year when Tony doesn't even look to score... You're not watching. I wouldn't blame tonight on that tho, he scored early cause it just came to him easy and he took it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Man, dabom is really desperate tonight.

---

Wearing his blame Tony helmet and all.

:lol Dabom too chicken shit to call out his beloved committee.

I am not even sure what the definition of a trap game is...

No stats are perfect dumbass. They still have weight though. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

Wearing his blame Tony helmet and all.

:lol Dabom too chicken shit to call out his beloved committee.

---

That committee is 59 and 11 or whatever. Might go for 68wins this year. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dro210

If y'all don't think we've been at our best this year when Tony doesn't even look to score... You're not watching. I wouldn't blame tonight on that tho, he scored early cause it just came to him easy and he took it.

---

That's all I want from him, really. Take what the defense gives him and score when needed. Also, the Tony haters don't seem to fuckin' realize than him scoring (or anyone else scoring) takes a load off Kawhi and LMA. Those two aren't machines and could use more support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

And why they couldn't put it back on after hornets come back? Show that the quality of the team not close to Warriors...

---

spurs beat the warriors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

That committee is 59 and 11 or whatever. Might go for 68wins this year. :lmao

---

68 wins ain't the goal. Winning the title is, and the Coshitty isn't good enough at present to win that series. You'll realize it when you ship 200.00 my way.

But I do hope I'm shipping it your way. I just don't see it. Not when Patty House, D-League, and Fat Boy can't summon up two good games in a row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mugen

http://lolworthy.com/wp-content/uplo...ideeye-gif.gif

---

"Byeeee Biitch' :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floyd Pacquiao

spurs beat the warriors

---

Dont get fooled by it, Warriors are the bigger earner of the game!!! being on the road, b2b and shortened, with off night by Curry and Kley and still close game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kobyz

Dont get fooled by it, Warriors are the bigger earner of the game!!! being on the road, b2b and shortened, with off night by Curry and Kley and still close game...

---

Spurs shut them down. They had an easy game against the mavs. Their all young and in their primes. No excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floyd Pacquiao

Spurs shut them down. They had an easy game against the mavs. Their all young and in their primes. No excuses.

---

Spurs played it like a playoff game, full effort with surprise adjustments by Pop, Warriors just play their regular natural ball and still close game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

That's all I want from him, really. Take what the defense gives him and score when needed. Also, the Tony haters don't seem to fuckin' realize than him scoring (or anyone else scoring) takes a load off Kawhi and LMA. Those two aren't machines and could use more support.

---

I hear that, by no means a Tony hater here... I've been a vocal supporter since the beginning, and still don't let the people who wanted Jason Kidd live it down. Personally love what he's done this year for the most part. I think, with exception of a couple stretches, he's been great in continuing to transition to a floor general role. And he's played good defense for his ability. He'll never be able to guard Curry or Westbrook, but he's doing what he's capable of at a higher level than ever.... If we can get the rest of the guys to snap out of it, that's where the scoring needs to ideally come from on most nights. Gotta have more points in the 2nd unit. I kinda think Pop saw Manu was fine after that first game back tho, and has a leash on him. I really expect him to jumpstart that unit when we get a little closer to the finish line.

Frankly I can't believe no one is going to mention the team staying BIG the entire game and running a lot of offense through Tony to get TD rolling. TD struggled against GSW and was sat down bc he could not handle the matchup, was slow making rotations on one end, could not punish them offensively on the other. I saw a distinct effort to get him rolling this game. He got a lot of plays and a lot of PnR. That is not to say we are going to be playing like this in the playoffs, but Pop wanted to get TD confidence rolling. That is why Kawhi was frozen out for a good chunk of the game at times and the ball in Tony's hands a lot. When you play TD offensive sets have to take advantage of the bigs bc otherwise they just clog the lanes for dribble penetration.

Pop IMO was trying out his BIG man based offense and seeing what they could do against a team that was playing small/perimeter ball for a good chunk of the time. Charlotte was able to put on display why this BIG man line-up can get killed in the playoffs. They cheated, playing passing lanes as everything is more congested with two big men in the paint, were very active defensively and killed us in transition off our TO.

Dwest was our worst big against this team. Fouled a 3 pts shooter for a 4 point play, was passive, passing up good looks for himself, didn't want to man up inside, TO the ball, and was very slow getting back on transition. His assigned big outran him for easy buckets couple of times and he can't defend in the perimeter.

Make of that what you will. Pop wanted to see the big men step up against a perimeter team and it was a disaster. CIA Pop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

Frankly I can't believe no one is going to mention the team staying BIG the entire game and running a lot of offense through Tony to get TD rolling. TD struggled against GSW and was sat down bc he could not handle the matchup, was slow making rotations on one end, could not punish them offensively on the other. I saw a distinct effort to get him rolling this game. He got a lot of plays and a lot of PnR. That is not to say we are going to be playing like this in the playoffs, but Pop wanted to get TD confidence rolling. That is why Kawhi was frozen out for a good chunk of the game at times and the ball in Tony's hands a lot. When you play TD offensive sets have to take advantage of the bigs bc otherwise they just clog the lanes for dribble penetration.

Pop IMO was trying out his BIG man based offense and seeing what they could do against a team that was playing small/perimeter ball for a good chunk of the time. Charlotte was able to put on display why this BIG man line-up can get killed in the playoffs. They cheated, playing passing lanes as everything is more congested with two big men in the paint, were very active defensively and killed us in transition off our TO.

Dwest was our worst big against this team. Fouled a 3 pts shooter for a 4 point play, was passive, passing up good looks for himself, didn't want to man up inside, TO the ball, and was very slow getting back on transition. His assigned big outran him for easy buckets couple of times and he can't defend in the perimeter.

Make of that what you will. Pop wanted to see the big men step up against a perimeter team and it was a disaster. CIA Pop.

---

Right, it had nothing to do with the fact that, for going on two seasons, the shooters can't shoot on the road (at least against decent or better competition) and your boy isn't even a threat to.

Green, in particular down the stretch, had myriad wide open shots and missed them. That had nothing to do with who was on the floor with him.

Duncan, Aldridge and Parker, were the only ones who brought the proper amount of energy, focus and intensity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

Right, it had nothing to do with the fact that, for going on two seasons, the shooters can't shoot on the road (at least against decent or better competition) and your boy isn't even a threat to.

Green, in particular down the stretch, had myriad wide open shots and missed them. That had nothing to do with who was on the floor with him.

Duncan, Aldridge and Parker, were the only ones who brought the proper amount of energy, focus and intensity.

---

This. People are looking too much into things IMO. Spurs missed shots and Hornets made theirs..I know that's Pops favorite saying but it was true this game.

Spurs let their guard down for sure and when you get caught doing that especially on the road it can be tough. Especially against a team that's playing almost as good as anybody in the league.

Danny Greens shot looks like Charles Barkley's golf swing right now. Shit just ain't right.

Feel like Mid is fastly becoming a caricature of himself due to all his previous threads backfiring. Spurs lost to the Hornets. Sucks, but it's not a big deal. Charlotte is better than any team Golden State has lost to this season besides the Spurs. This doesn't point to critical issues with SA any more than GS almost losing to Minny point to their issues. It's just a game.

I think in games like this team team feels a lot more the fact that manu is still recovering and is clearly noticeable.

Before the injury he was playing very good defense and dropping 9-13 point games every night, moving the ball and limiting his turnovers.

Since his return, and aside of his return game, he has had at least 3 turnovers a game almost every game, has not dished assists nor control the tempo with the second unit and his defense has been subpar.

If Manu and the bench plays well this games are 10 point wins. The problem is Manu isnt and the rest has dissappeared.

Also pop changed the rotations and that is not helping a bench with a subpar ginobili, the second unit usually played a lot with green or kawhi, now they are playig with anderson, who i dont think should share the court with manu.

Either patty manu kawhi boris diaw
Or patty manu danny boris diaw

Yeah, Manu coming back hasn't helped Anderson much at all. Also, Pop isn't prioritizing defense the way he had been. Maybe that is because the Spurs are pretty much locked into their seed at this point. It makes more sense to get Martin acclimated than it does to give the others playoff minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaji157

I think in games like this team team feels a lot more the fact that manu is still recovering and is clearly noticeable.

Before the injury he was playing very good defense and dropping 9-13 point games every night, moving the ball and limiting his turnovers.

Since his return, and aside of his return game, he has had at least 3 turnovers a game almost every game, has not dished assists nor control the tempo with the second unit and his defense has been subpar.

If Manu and the bench plays well this games are 10 point wins. The problem is Manu isnt and the rest has dissappeared.

Also pop changed the rotations and that is not helping a bench with a subpar ginobili, the second unit usually played a lot with green or kawhi, now they are playig with anderson, who i dont think should share the court with manu.

Either patty manu kawhi boris diaw
Or patty manu danny boris diaw

---

:tu
Really the MAnu issue is the elephant in the room.

To me all the Kyle Anderson hate threads are pure deflection to the elephant in the room: the fact that Manu is lacking confidence and has not been playing well. His being a facilitator makes all his passes super predictable and easy to steal bc he's not looking to score. Patty Mills has been super streaky all season and both Diaw and D west are beta. Diaw passes up a lot of shots from the perimeter to drive and dish and D west gets the ball in the post but wants to pass. Maybe Martin can be what they need since they need a scorer who is not going to have the mind to defer.

The bench has never really been defensive minded anyways. Patty and Manu cover their deficiencies with a lot of gambling for steals and they don't have a true rim protector either. If they are not scoring at a high clip (like at least 50%) they will give up leads, count on it. Martin is probably the better fit for a glass cannon.

I think Anderson is really the odd man out and that's a shame bc we kept a winning record with him playing over 20 minutes per game and yet we have been close to loosing and have lost a game already with a lot of Manu/Martin mixes.and we lost the Pacers game that Manu played 20 mins and Anderson played about 9 and was aggressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Feel like Mid is fastly becoming a caricature of himself due to all his previous threads backfiring. Spurs lost to the Hornets. Sucks, but it's not a big deal. Charlotte is better than any team Golden State has lost to this season besides the Spurs. This doesn't point to critical issues with SA any more than GS almost losing to Minny point to their issues. It's just a game.

---

None my threads have backfired.

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game. When LMA and Kawhi aren't combining for 45-50, the team's offense is a disaster since every role player is an inconsistent gamble offensively. Are we getting 3 points tonight from Manu or 15? Is Danny Green going to hit a shot or not? What's Boris, Patty, going to do? Will Duncan have a throw back or get "skunked?" You might say, "They're role players. What do you expect?" Well, guess what, role player consistency (and how they play on the road) is a major, major factor in playoff success.

And it's not just one game. This top heavy scoring trend has been bothering me for a month. What's going to happen when LMA and/or Kawhi struggle for a game(s)? Who's going to step up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

None my threads have backfired.

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game. When LMA and Kawhi aren't combining for 45-50, the team's offense is a disaster since every role player is an inconsistent gamble offensively. Are we getting 3 points tonight from Manu or 15? Is Danny Green going to hit a shot or not? What's Boris, Patty, going to do? Will Duncan have a throw back or get "skunked?" You might say, "They're role players. What do you expect?" Well, guess what, role player consistency (and how they play on the road) is a major, major factor in playoff success.

And it's not just one game. This top heavy scoring trend has been bothering me for a month. What's going to happen when LMA and/or Kawhi struggle for a game(s)? Who's going to step up?

---

I completely agree with you in the committee problem. The issue is that it is unsolvable bc no one else, no third cog has stepped up. Tony cannot do it consistently. He tries but just can't. Manu really was the 3rd cog in scoring. Sometimes it was a mix of Manu and Patty. These two are just as unreliable as Tony or worse.

It's as simple as we don't have a third wheel right now and are not going to have it. Maybe we get someone new next season, maybe Anderson develops into that guy... but this team right now is a bunch if old dudes and 2 prime alpha dogs. Either the committee steps up or we are through.

I think it's a definite concern and that is why Pop went after Martin and let Butler go, a guy who he had really grown to trust to even close our a couple of games. The scoring situation is that dire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Feel like Mid is fastly becoming a caricature of himself due to all his previous threads backfiring. Spurs lost to the Hornets. Sucks, but it's not a big deal. Charlotte is better than any team Golden State has lost to this season besides the Spurs. This doesn't point to critical issues with SA any more than GS almost losing to Minny point to their issues. It's just a game.

---

Dude has crossed into the tholdren territory. He is obsessed and he keeps making it worse. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnightpulp

None my threads have backfired.

---

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.

Quote:

---

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game.

---

Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Redick struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

Chinook going in raw. :wow











midnightpulp needs to call 911. :lol

the way midnight writes stresses me out. I can't even finish reading the paragraph... it's like seeing that crazy homeless person screaming about how the end of the world is coming.

I'll take the long way home, thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.



Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Redick struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

---

This is actually a very well developed point and its true. At the end of the day the bench underperformed but the game was within hand. Its your stars that are supposed to take you home. Still Kawhi was benched to test out Martin in different lineups and IMO Pop made an effort to get TD rolling, who had been underperforming offensively in several games. There was a lot of Tony/TD PnR and unusual emphasis on playing inside out. I think Pop was testing thins/guys out.

That would be highly unusual in a playoff game. Kawhi would plsy more and get more chances to get in rhythm and one of Anderson or Martin will sit. No way both play, at some point Pop will make up his mind.

In no way was that game typical or representative of our ultimate play. If anything guys in the bench learned they have to step up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative.

The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Redick struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

Frankly I can't believe no one is going to mention the team staying BIG the entire game and running a lot of offense through Tony to get TD rolling. TD struggled against GSW and was sat down bc he could not handle the matchup, was slow making rotations on one end, could not punish them offensively on the other. I saw a distinct effort to get him rolling this game. He got a lot of plays and a lot of PnR. That is not to say we are going to be playing like this in the playoffs, but Pop wanted to get TD confidence rolling. That is why Kawhi was frozen out for a good chunk of the game at times and the ball in Tony's hands a lot. When you play TD offensive sets have to take advantage of the bigs bc otherwise they just clog the lanes for dribble penetration.

Pop IMO was trying out his BIG man based offense and seeing what they could do against a team that was playing small/perimeter ball for a good chunk of the time. Charlotte was able to put on display why this BIG man line-up can get killed in the playoffs. They cheated, playing passing lanes as everything is more congested with two big men in the paint, were very active defensively and killed us in transition off our TO.

Dwest was our worst big against this team. Fouled a 3 pts shooter for a 4 point play, was passive, passing up good looks for himself, didn't want to man up inside, TO the ball, and was very slow getting back on transition. His assigned big outran him for easy buckets couple of times and he can't defend in the perimeter.

Make of that what you will. Pop wanted to see the big men step up against a perimeter team and it was a disaster. CIA Pop.

---

Extraordinarily cogent observations. Terrific!!! Especially the part about getting Duncan going. It was totally obvious, imo. It was like Pop was 'making it up" to Tim for the GSW game. Not saying that he was, but something was going on with the over-reliance on Tim in this game, and your analysis sure beats anything I came up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.



Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Redick struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

---

Analysis of the argument. What a pleasant approach in this forum. Well said and well reasoned. Thank you. I think it could have been said slightly more graciously, but your points are extraordinarily valid and clearly backed up with evidence.

Again, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Extraordinarily cogent observations. Terrific!!! Especially the part about getting Duncan going. It was totally obvious, imo. It was like Pop was 'making it up" to Tim for the GSW game. Not saying that he was, but something was going on with the over-reliance on Tim in this game, and your analysis sure beats anything I came up with.

---

Well I think you are being sarcastic since we have disagreed on a lot but I don't consider you a troll. In my observations about the bigs based offense I made no mention of Anderson. Frankly he was a blip in this game. He played only to finish the 1st Q and start the 2nd, wasn't very impactful, but the game wasn't lost there. There was still a lot of game to be played after he sat. My comments were more general. I do feel Pop was making an effort to get TD rolling, then after that testing Martin out in the game with different guys. He wanted to win but not at the cost of seeing the results of his tests.

I've never known a poster to get shit on in his own threads as much as OP. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

Well I think you are being sarcastic since we have disagreed on a lot but I don't consider you a troll. In my observations about the bigs based offense I made no mention of Anderson. Frankly he was a blip in this game. He played only to finish the 1st Q and start the 2nd, wasn't very impactful, but the game wasn't lost there. There was still a lot of game to be played after he sat. My comments were more general. I do feel Pop was making an effort to get TD rolling, then after that testing Martin out in the game with different guys. He wanted to win but not at the cost of seeing the results of his tests.

---

Well, I was NOT being sarcastic. If I am being sarcastic, I put it in blue. The fact that we occasionally disagreed does not relate to you making good points. I am very sorry that you think that. I am aware that there are "krews" in this forum that always disagree or agree with another poster just based on whether or not they are in agreement regarding the relative merits of a particular player.

I never mentioned Anderson whatsoever in my post, and I am at a loss as to why you referenced him in your response. If you check out my postings in general, I have made very very few comments regarding Anderson at all, mostly because I am neither as high on him as some folks are, and not as low on him as others. So I mostly withhold observations about him because my mind is still open about it.

I honestly am a bit taken aback by your response. I was trying to give you props for what I thought was a particularly well-written piece.

I am never trolling, tbh. I'm not even sure how to or exactly what it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

Well, I was NOT being sarcastic. If I am being sarcastic, I put it in blue. The fact that we occasionally disagreed does not relate to you making good points. I am very sorry that you think that. I am aware that there are "krews" in this forum that always disagree or agree with another poster just based on whether or not they are in agreement regarding the relative merits of a particular player.

I never mentioned Anderson whatsoever in my post, and I am at a loss as to why you referenced him in your response. If you check out my postings in general, I have made very very few comments regarding Anderson at all, mostly because I am neither as high on him as some folks are, and not as low on him as others. So I mostly withhold observations about him because my mind is still open about it.

I honestly am a bit taken aback by your response. I was trying to give you props for what I thought was a particularly well-written piece.

I am never trolling, tbh. I'm not even sure how to or exactly what it means.

---

:tu
Sorry that you were taken aback. It's just difficult by the nature of this forum to tell when ppl are being sarcastic or not.

Lately everyone thinks all my points have to do with Anderson and they all do not, so I guess I am already very defensive stating up front that my comments had nothing to do with him. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SAGirl

:tu
Sorry that you were taken aback. It's just difficult by the nature of this forum to tell when ppl are being sarcastic or not.

Lately everyone thinks all my points have to do with Anderson and they all do not, so I guess I am already very defensive stating up front that my comments had nothing to do with him. :toast

---

:tu It's all good.