Why Pop ?

[exstatic]

are you saing it's impossible to win a game down by 13 at the end of the third ?
because i saw a lot of teams make a come back against us after having been down by more points.

we could have won it. maybe 10 % of chances, maybe less, but a 13 points deficit with 12 minutes to play is nothing in the NBA.

You have 4 games in 7 days, 3 of them on the road, all against quality WC compe ion. I'd say since the team was LA, it was more like 5%, and you don't burn up your team for a 5% chance to win one game out of 82. You risk dropping Tuesday's game because of tired legs from a Sunday game. you have to know when to cut your losses, and move on.

Pop burnt up Manu last year in the regular season, and I think he's learned from that.

[kace]

It's not impossible but I'd say this game Pop could have coached all out and the Lakers still win 98% of the time. That 2% isn't worth the wearing down the key players ... especially when there are a load of tough upcoming games.

come on. you know the spurs and Pop surely better than I. Pop does this thing almost every time. not only against LA.

i'm not bashing Pop, i really like him as a coach but i always hated this aspect of his coaching.

You can't say we gave up because we were playing worse than our opponent: every time you're down by 10+ points, i guess it's because the opponent plays better than you, is this a good reason to give up ?

and what about the lack of experience of coming back in a game ? don't you think it would be a good idea to see if the team, and especially the new guys, have the nuts to make a come back ? won't this experience be lacking come PO time ?

[SequSpur]

Eh, it was over. Shooters weren't hitting, Duncan not outplaying Bynum, Ginobili not doing much, Parker decent but not too efficient and the bigs offering little help. You run TP and Duncan out there, best case scenario is Spurs keep it close before they tire out and Kobe comes in to win the game. Then next game the Spurs are even more tired.

This game was over a couple minutes into the third.

oh, i thought ginobili was capable of winning the game in the last 3 minutes?

[South Side Spurs Fan]

It's not impossible but I'd say this game Pop could have coached all out and the Lakers still win 98% of the time. That 2% isn't worth the wearing down the key players ... especially when there are a load of tough upcoming games.

Yeah, that sounds logical...except it's total BS. How in the are you going to, having played the first two-three minutes into the 3rd, put your odds of winning at 2%? That is straight BS. You can't know that, nor can Pop.

And weren't you the one who was mocking other posters for saying that shooters who were shooting poor shots needed to stop shooting, because there was no way they could know they wouldn't start hitting shots? You said they culdn't kow that during the flow of the game.

Sounds like you're doing the same thing here by implying that we couldn't come back (98% says we lose) so we stop competing.

And you didn't even touch on Bowen not playing in the second which I thought gave some really critical insight into Pop's strategy.

[timvp]

Yeah, that sounds logical...except it's total BS. How in the are you going to, having played the first two-three minutes into the 3rd, put your odds of winning at 2%? That is straight BS. You can't know that, nor can Pop.

Reading comprehension fail.

[South Side Spurs Fan]

It's not impossible but I'd say this game Pop could have coached all out and the Lakers still win 98% of the time.

[timvp]

I need to re-read the thread to see where my reading comprehension came up short.

True.

[SequSpur]

timvp, whottt, solid d......

where was Ginobili? i got a kick how everytime ginobili had the ball, the lakers would just stand there on his left side.... it was worse than superman's kryptonite...

ginobili has nothing..

[Brazil]

I know the reasons but what costs to Pop to play his best line-up the first 4 min in the 4th to see what happen ?

[slayermin]

I was disappointed Pop didn't just leave TD and TP in there, even with foul trouble. You basically concede the game if you don't. But winning this game would have taken a small miracle. Pop made the right decision. You need to keep the long term goal in mind.

[timvp]

come on. you know the spurs and Pop surely better than I. Pop does this thing almost every time. not only against LA.

i'm not bashing Pop, i really like him as a coach but i always hated this aspect of his coaching.

You can't say we gave up because we were playing worse than our opponent: every time you're down by 10+ points, i guess it's because the opponent plays better than you, is this a good reason to give up ?

and what about the lack of experience of coming back in a game ? don't you think it would be a good idea to see if the team, and especially the new guys, have the nuts to make a come back ? won't this experience be lacking come PO time ?

I've disagreed with Pop giving up too soon in the past but I agreed with it this time. What did the Spurs have going in their favor? Only Parker was having a halfway decent game. With everyone else struggling, the Lakers playing well, Kobe waiting in the wings to ice the game ... it would have taken a Herculean effort.

This time it was better to concede and live to fight another day.

[South Side Spurs Fan]

True.

I understand what your saying (tough schedule ahead, conserve our guys rather than wearing them out early inside a long road trip, etc.), I am not speaking to that.

I am speaking to your putting percentages on our chance at success. I think it's BS. You just called out posters on that and now I think your conveniently side stepping the whole thing.

[South Side Spurs Fan]

... it would have taken a Herculean effort.

This time it was better to concede and live to fight another day.

It would have taken some defense, which we have not been playing for a while now. If we are within 10 and start to play D, we can win, I'm not going to concede that Kobe is going to come back and win anything. But evidently you think so..

[Tully365]

If T-Mac can score 13 points in 35 seconds against the Spurs, then the Spurs can certainly make up a similar deficit in one and three-quarter quarters. No NBA game is over early in the third quarter.

[alchemist]

I was disappointed Pop didn't just leave TD and TP in there, even with foul trouble. You basically concede the game if you don't. But winning this game would have taken a small miracle. Pop made the right decision. You need to keep the long term goal in mind.

I don't think he made the right decision, I think he should've started Timmy & Tony in the 4th, if by the 7:00 minute mark the game isn't close then you clear the bench.

But whatever, he made his choice and we all have to live with it onto the next game.

[kace]

I've disagreed with Pop giving up too soon in the past but I agreed with it this time. What did the Spurs have going in their favor? Only Parker was having a halfway decent game. With everyone else struggling, the Lakers playing well, Kobe waiting in the wings to ice the game ... it would have taken a Herculean effort.

This time it was better to concede and live to fight another day.

what about the experience of coming back in a game ? don't you think it could help to try it sometimes, especially for the new guys (mason, bonner....) ?

you take the shot a little sooner in the clock, you try some gamble (interception, full court pressure....). all these things need to be learned as a team in a real game. anyway, i don't think the spurs do that, even in PO, so ......

[exstatic]

I understand what your saying (tough schedule ahead, conserve our guys rather than wearing them out early inside a long road trip, etc.), I am not speaking to that.

I am speaking to your putting percentages on our chance at success. I think it's BS. You just called out posters on that and now I think your conveniently side stepping the whole thing.

? timvp didn't start the "percentages" thing. He simply disagreed that it was a 10% chance late in the third as was stated by another poster, and took a WAG at 2%. I thought 5% myself. It's still a REAL THIN ing percentage that being down by 13 with 2-3 minutes left in the third, Kobe rested on the bench, and your starters sucking that you might win this game.

[ClingingMars]

Eh, it was over. Shooters weren't hitting, Duncan not outplaying Bynum, Ginobili not doing much, Parker decent but not too efficient and the bigs offering little help. You run TP and Duncan out there, best case scenario is Spurs keep it close before they tire out and Kobe comes in to win the game. Then next game the Spurs are even more tired.

This game was over a couple minutes into the third.

+1

after the timeout it was over. Pop made a wise decision, it's why he's still one of the best coaches in the league. It's still January.

[South Side Spurs Fan]

? timvp didn't start the "percentages" thing. He simply disagreed that it was a 10% chance late in the third as was stated by another poster, and took a WAG at 2%. I thought 5% myself. It's still a REAL THIN ing percentage that being down by 13 with 2-3 minutes left in the third, Kobe rested on the bench, and your starters sucking that you might win this game.

It's real thin WITHOUT DEFENSE, I guess Pop figures he can get better results with a loss than a win here. Which I actually stated on page 1 of this board.

But think about it: a few minutes into the third, we are barely down by double digits and you say we have a 2% chance to beat the Lakers? That logic sucks, any way you look at it. Especially when you blasted someone else for saying essentially the same thing previously...

[exstatic]

If you understand and watch Spurs basketball, you know that Pop wants strength in there at the beginnings of odd quarters and the ends of even quarters. The Spurs big guns just left the game too far out of reach when it came time for their regular rest. Pop plays the subs from late first to early second and late third to early fourth. I agree with timvp that if you leave the big guys out there, they could claw back to within maybe 7-8 points...then Kobe comes off the bench and obliterates us, because they didn't get their 10 minute blow between quarters.

[exstatic]

It's real thin WITHOUT DEFENSE, I guess Pop figures he can get better results with a loss than a win here. Which I actually stated on page 1 of this board.

But think about it: a few minutes into the third, we are barely down by double digits and you say we have a 2% chance to beat the Lakers? That logic sucks, any way you look at it. Especially when you blasted someone else for saying essentially the same thing previously...

It wasn't a few minutes into the third, it was a few minutes LEFT in the third. That's when Tim and Tony go for their rest period. That's when the game got out of hand.

[South Side Spurs Fan]

This game was over a couple minutes into the third.

[kace]

If you understand and watch Spurs basketball, you know that Pop wants strength in there at the beginnings of odd quarters and the ends of even quarters. The Spurs big guns just left the game too far out of reach when it came time for their regular rest. Pop plays the subs from late first to early second and late third to early fourth. I agree with timvp that if you leave the big guys out there, they could claw back to within maybe 7-8 points...then Kobe comes off the bench and obliterates us, because they didn't get their 10 minute blow between quarters.

well, if all the subs utions and the benching times are already planned and unchangeable for every game, i guess you or i could be the spurs coach too.

[timvp]

But think about it: a few minutes into the third, we are barely down by double digits and you say we have a 2% chance to beat the Lakers? That logic sucks, any way you look at it. Especially when you blasted someone else for saying essentially the same thing previously...

Yeah, that sounds logical...except it's total BS. How in the are you going to, having played the first two-three minutes into the 3rd, put your odds of winning at 2%? That is straight BS. You can't know that, nor can Pop.

Again, reinstall your reading comprehension. I never said the Spurs had a 2% chance of winning at the beginning of the third quarter. I brought out the 2% when the conversation was regarding the Spurs' chances of winning going into the fourth.

Read.

[timvp]

This game was over a couple minutes into the third.

Obviously I didn't mean literally if I later said the Spurs had a 2% shot of winning the game going into the fourth. The beginning of the third is when the Spurs lost the game. They needed to hold the fort to keep it close going into the fourth.

When they lose ground in the beginning of the third to put themselves in a hole, that's what ended the game. Pop would have probably put TD and TP back in if the Spurs could have made any type of push at the beginning of the fourth but that simply wasn't going to happen. When no one is playing above average offense and the defense isn't good, the hope is lost.

2% was probably being generous at that point.