Reply With Quote
If you don't like my posts don't read them. Simple, huh?
With that, I'll leave you with a quote from Tim Duncan.
"Good, better, best. Never let it rest. Until your good is better and your better is best." -Tim Duncan
must you find fault in everything? it was just a compliment and ginobili being humble
i have no doubt that you are re ed in some capacity, but that's the running excuse on spurtalk and you're not getting any special leniency for it
If you don't like my posts don't read them. Simple, huh?
With that, I'll leave you with a quote from Tim Duncan.
"Good, better, best. Never let it rest. Until your good is better and your better is best." -Tim Duncan
In the same vein, people have the right to point out why exactly they think a post sucks.
“I think I've still got things to work on,” Ginobili said.
Like his combover? That bald spot picked up steam over the summer.
i read the post before i look at the dumbass who posted it. it's always too late. posters like you are a dime a dozen, no matter how good things are with the team they'll find something stupid to about. must be because your lives suck. sorry about all that.
Someone piss in your corn flakes this morning?
heard it!
Like finding a hair restoration specialist or a good toupee.
Bald jokes! Real funny!
While I certainly didn't favor Mason at the point, I think certain factors predispose us to think he was worse in that role than he actually was.
First, it took time from George Hill, who had done so well at the beginning of the season and to many here (me included) seemed at least as good, if not better than Mason, at the backup point.
Second, it significantly diminished Mason's own effectiveness. Dude's shooting dropped off pretty significantly when he was playing point guard, and it seemed like a waste of his talent.
I think those two things made it seem like Mason was worse than he actually was. Also, regardless of whether Mason was great in the games, the decision to play him at the spot was likely based on practice as well. It's possible that Pop, Manu, and others saw Mason perform well in practice in that role, and therefore thought playing him in that spot during games was just the logical thing to do. Because we have a more limited sample of his performance at the backup point spot, and if he was worse in games than in practice, we see him more negatively than they do. Unfortunately, games are what count. But I think it's pretty damn easy for us to (incorrectly) just say "Pop was stupid, what was he thinking playing Mason at point" when we are probably a) biased given the two factors mentioned above and b) have less overall evidence to pull from, even if its from practice.
Common misconception here, but not true.
Mason took over the backup PG job on March 1st.
His shooting numbers in January and February were already down quite a bit from November and December. They actually ticked up a little in March and April.
You can look it up.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1721
Much is made of the Mason move, the Hill move, and Pop's decisions on Bowen, Udoka, JV, etc., etc., etc.
I don't care to debate any of those decisions, but I'll say this. All of those discussions ignore the elephant in the room.
There was one Spurs team that was 32-12 which equals a 60 win pace and a solid 2nd seed in the conference.
Then there was a second Spurs team that was 22-16 which equals a 48 win pace and a fight with Utah for the 8th seed and to avoid the lottery.
The first Spurs team had Manu, the second one didn't. The second team played the Mavs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions