Spurs VS Boston is a True Test

[TD 21]

This really is quite amusing...

Maybe it's just a case of bloated expectations and a sense of en lement for people who didn't experience life before Duncan, but what the were you really expecting?

Holt departing from his frugal ways and assembling one of the most talented teams the Spurs have ever had wasn't a guarantee of a le or Finals appearance; even if everything broke their way and they managed to stay healthy and playing their best ball at the right time, there'd still be a chance they'd come of short..

You're not going to see what this team's ceiling is until the majority of the regular-season has been played, and it'd be foolish to make wholesale judgments before the team's played even a third of the season; building chemistry, trust and a rotation takes time.

The Spurs aren't likely to do better than the third seed, and that's fine.

Ideal? No.

Fine? It has to be.

See, extending the minutes of a guy who has degenerative condition with his knee leads to what happened last year. Throwing caution to the wind with Manu and his minutes leads to what happened the last two years. And without those two at their best at the end of the year, this year's going to end a lot like the last two years.

The Celtics loss was nothing to fret over. The Spurs still match up well with them. They're a disjointed team trying to find their way individually and collectively, yet, they still managed to give themselves a shot to win after some piss-poor execution and focus; Boston's a Championship-caliber team that's been together for a while now. They're leaps and bounds ahead of the Spurs in terms of continuity and cohesion.

So, on a night like tonight, when two teams that match-up as well as they do come together, it's not surprising to see a Spurs team lose the way they did; you couldn't have honestly watched that game and thought that the Celtics were demonstrably better and that the Spurs didn't have plenty to do with their own demise. They're a team in the early stages of a building process that, given health, will be right up there with Boston at the end of the season. They're not there yet; there's no guarantee they ever will be either.

The Spurs are who I thought they were; their season's ending has still yet to be determined..

No, it's a case of watching what should be a very good team underachieving and the coach simply not taking a measuring stick game against one of the two best teams in the league seriously. In addition to that, the team also didn't look prepared. As others have said, take off the rose colored glasses and get over yourself. I don't care about how things worked or came together in the past. That was then, this is now. Duncan was an all-time great player having an all-time great season back in '03 and he logged 40.6 mpg.

I gave you history already. I guess only certain history matters.

Aww...look at that. You bolded it just so you would look even more stupid.

If you want to argue that Manu should have been in there late or that Duncan didn't get back in the game fast enough in the 4th, I would allow you that. Otherwise, lineups had nothing to do with us losing. In fact, the second team brought us back in the game in both early and late in the game.

We played one good quarter of defense...and that was the 4th quarter. Boston was on a 100 pt pace through the end of the third. Boston also shoots 49% for the season...so you are(once again) stretching by saying that 46% is well below their average. 14 of our 18 turnovers were in the first three quarters. We missed ten free throws and went 2-16 from distance. These are the reasons why we lost.

Well..sorry. We're not gonna be a top 3 seed. The door is that way...see ya.

History with regards to what?

No, just to show that I was right and you were wrong. I didn't want that part getting lost in the midst of a long post.

You would allow me that? Get over yourself you ing loser. The reality is Pop treated this like it was a preseason or an All-Star game against one of the two best teams in the league. Because of this, more than anything else, the Spurs lost. When I say lineups, I just mean in general the key/best players should have played more, not necessarily starters over bench.

Conveniently break it into segments to attempt to suit your argument. The reality is they held a team that averages 99 points to 90 and a team that shoots 49 to 46 percent (that is fairly substantial) and still lost. So I don't want to hear that it came down to defense and rebounding (+23), because it didn't. Had this game been treated with the proper amount of respect as it deserved, the Spurs more than likely win, as they should have when you consider all the factors in their favor.

Why, because you said so? You've got a superiority complex and you need to grow up. Only a childish goof would attempt to boss people around on a message board because he's been on it longer.

[TD 21]

I was told to speak to you so I can join your conspiracy group. I dont really care about what its about, I just honestly want to conspire. I mistook what you said earlier...I thought Benefactor was the leader of said conspiracy group. But he said it was you. I dont really care who is who, because thats probably another conspiracy,...I just want to be in a cool group so I can brainwash people and not be alone. Teach me your ways.

What conspiracy group? I don't even know whether this is serious or sarcastic, let alone what you're talking about.

[benefactor]

You would allow me that? Get over yourself you ing loser. The reality is Pop treated this like it was a preseason or an All-Star game against one of the two best teams in the league. Because of this, more than anything else, the Spurs lost. When I say lineups, I just mean in general the key/best players should have played more, not necessarily starters over bench.

Conveniently break it into segments to attempt to suit your argument. The reality is they held a team that averages 99 points to 90 and a team that shoots 49 to 46 percent (that is fairly substantial) and still lost. So I don't want to hear that it came down to defense and rebounding (+23), because it didn't. Had this game been treated with the proper amount of respect as it deserved, the Spurs more than likely win, as they should have when you consider all the factors in their favor.

And you conveniently keep ignoring the obvious reasons why we lost while reaching to try to prove something you cannot prove. 46 to 49 percent is fairly substantial? You are seriously going to run with that? Ok...I'm game. So let's look at the shots the Celtics took. They made 36 of their 78 field goals for 46 percent. If they made 38.5 of those they would be at 49 percent. So you are going to tell me...with a straight face...that holding them to 2.5 less makes over a full 48 minutes is a great defensive effort?

There is no doing anything to suit my argument. My argument is based on facts...facts that say we shot 41% from the stripe(season average = 74%), shot 13% from distance(season average = 36%), gave up 74 points through three quarters and slapped 18 turnovers on it all as icing on the cake. The only thing that kept us from getting blown out was the rebounding. You say I am citing things just to suit my argument...when your own stat arguments are completely and totally laughable.

Make a couple of free throws...sink a couple of threes...take better care of the ball...play just one more quarters worth of defense...win. It's as simple as that.

[TD 21]

And you conveniently keep ignoring the obvious reasons why we lost while reaching to try to prove something you cannot prove. 46 to 49 percent is fairly substantial? You are seriously going to run with that? Ok...I'm game. So let's look at the shots the Celtics took. They made 36 of their 78 field goals for 46 percent. If they made 38.5 of those they would be at 49 percent. So you are going to tell me...with a straight face...that holding them to 2.5 less makes over a full 48 minutes is a great defensive effort?

There is no doing anything to suit my argument. My argument is based on facts...facts that say we shot 41% from the stripe(season average = 74%), shot 13% from distance(season average = 36%), gave up 74 points through three quarters and slapped 18 turnovers on it all as icing on the cake. The only thing that kept us from getting blown out was the rebounding. You say I am citing things just to suit my argument...when your own stat arguments are completely and totally laughable.

Make a couple of free throws...sink a couple of threes...take better care of the ball...play just one more quarters worth of defense...win. It's as simple as that.

Thank you for answering why I "bolded" a part of my post two posts ago. I DID answer that, you just conveniently won't acknowledge it or glossed over it. What I said was, despite the ty officiating, putrid shooting and 18 turnovers, the Spurs were still in it at the end. What cost them, more than anything, was playing foolish lineup combination's much of the night. The Celtics played a tighter, more predictable rotation and won the game. End of story. I never said great or even good, what I said was, the defense didn't cost the Spurs this game.

No, your argument was based on old-school basketball speak that you've heard from the Spurs, mainly Pop, many a time and have resorted to regurgitating it yourself. You're missing the point, which is that despite all of that, this was a winnable game in the final few possessions. My point is that if logical lineups were played, the Spurs probably win this game. My argument is based on logic: if you use a more predictable, tighter rotation and play your best players appropriate minutes against a team of this caliber, you give yourself as good a chance to win as you possibly can. Pop didn't do that and the Spurs lost.

[Mel_13]

My argument is based on logic

Your argument is based on your assumption that you could deploy the assets available on the Spurs more effectively than Pop. That's your schtick and we'll have to live with you posting your "logic". You'll have to live with others finding you laughable and ridiculous.

[TD 21]

My argument is based on logic: if you use a more predictable, tighter rotation and play your best players appropriate minutes against a team of this caliber, you give yourself as good a chance to win as you possibly can.

Are you honestly going to tell me that this doesn't make sense? I know it wasn't said by someone with a high post count whom you've been buddy-buddy with for x amount of time, but use your head. I wouldn't pretend that I'm alone in my thinking, not when I see others in this thread alone agreeing with me and various others scattered throughout myriad threads.

[Mel_13]

I know it wasn't said by someone with a high post count

Self-quote and weak post count smack.

Like I said, you're good for a laugh.

[benefactor]

Thank you for answering why I "bolded" a part of my post two posts ago. I DID answer that, you just conveniently won't acknowledge it or glossed over it. What I said was, despite the ty officiating, putrid shooting and 18 turnovers, the Spurs were still in it at the end. What cost them, more than anything, was playing foolish lineup combination's much of the night. The Celtics played a tighter, more predictable rotation and won the game. End of story. I never said great or even good, what I said was, the defense didn't cost the Spurs this game.

No, your argument was based on old-school basketball speak that you've heard from the Spurs, mainly Pop, many a time and have resorted to regurgitating it yourself. You're missing the point, which is that despite all of that, this was a winnable game in the final few possessions. My point is that if logical lineups were played, the Spurs probably win this game. My argument is based on logic: if you use a more predictable, tighter rotation and play your best players appropriate minutes against a team of this caliber, you give yourself as good a chance to win as you possibly can. Pop didn't do that and the Spurs lost.

Here's your breakdown of the Spurs best players...Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Jefferson...7 of the 10 missed free throws and 13 of the 18 turnovers. Mason, Bonner and Ginobili are regular rotation players and depended on to shoot well from distance. They went 2-10. These things combined with three quarters of bad defense and we lose. Like I said before...if you want to argue that playing Ginobili late instead of Mason or not bringing Duncan soon enough might have cost us the game that that is fine. I could agree with you there. But overall the mistakes and overall lack of disciplined play is what did us in.

[TD 21]

Self-quote and weak post count smack.

Like I said, you're good for a laugh.

I self-quoted because you left out the part where I explained why my argument was logical, showing you bias in the process. It's fine to disagree with me, but be fair.

Says the guy who seemingly doesn't have an opinion and is just here, why? To backup some other guy he's more than likely been buddy-buddy with in other threads.

[benefactor]

Are you honestly going to tell me that this doesn't make sense? I know it wasn't said by someone with a high post count whom you've been buddy-buddy with for x amount of time, but use your head. I wouldn't pretend that I'm alone in my thinking, not when I see others in this thread alone agreeing with me and various others scattered throughout myriad threads.

It's a conspiracy!

[Mel_13]

I self-quoted because you left out the part where I explained why my argument was logical, showing you bias in the process. It's fine to disagree with me, but be fair.

Says the guy who seemingly doesn't have an opinion and is just here, why? To backup some other guy he's more than likely been buddy-buddy with in other threads.

More good stuff. I especially like the part about the bias. Yes, anyone that disagrees with you is part of some grand conspiracy that refuses to acknowledge your brilliance. There's really no "logical" explanation for any opposing view.

[TD 21]

Here's your breakdown of the Spurs best players...Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and Jefferson...7 of the 10 missed free throws and 13 of the 18 turnovers. Mason, Bonner and Ginobili are regular rotation players and depended on to shoot well from distance. They went 2-10. These things combined with three quarters of bad defense and we lose. Like I said before...if you want to argue that playing Ginobili late instead of Mason or not bringing Duncan soon enough might have cost us the game that that is fine. I could agree with you there. But overall the mistakes and overall lack of disciplined play is what did us in.

Here's your breakdown of idiotic lineup decisions:

- Blair and Bonner going against Garnett and Wallace. Two undersized, sub-par post defenders on two long, rangy players with excellent turnaround jumpers.
- Duncan sitting for 10+ straight minutes in the 2nd half, including first 8 of 4th quarter
- Ginobili playing but seconds in the 4th
- (correct me if I'm wrong), but no sequences where Parker, Ginobili, Jefferson, McDyess and Duncan played together ... you know, the 5 best players on the team
- Not having the quicker and longer Hill chase Allen through the myriad screens the Celtics run him off of (mainly staggers on the baseline). Instead, letting the physical, yet slower, Bogans get torched
- 50 combined minutes for Duncan and Ginobili
- Inexplicably playing a cold and struggling Mason throughout the 4th
- Because of how well Blair was playing, it would have been tough, but not playing Ratliff, a lengthy rim protector, against a team with a long front court

I partially agree with you and am not brushing off the mistakes and sloppiness, but don't tell me that Pop's treating this game as if it were the preseason or an All-Star game didn't play a significant part in the loss. He allowed for no rhythm or chemistry to be established by yo-yoing guys in and out and playing a ridiculous amount of combination's. Also, how un-prepared did the team, especially the starters, look offensively in the 1st? Defensively, mainly the bench, at the end of the 3rd? This was not Pop's finest hour.

[TD 21]

More good stuff. I especially like the part about the bias. Yes, anyone that disagrees with you is part of some grand conspiracy that refuses to acknowledge your brilliance. There's really no "logical" explanation for any opposing view.

Despite you desperately attempting to convince many of the opposite in virtually every single post I've seen of yours, you're incredibly stupid. I meant bias in regards to you not posting my reasoning for why I believe that my statement that you quoted was logical. Like I said, if you don't agree with it, fine, then state your reasoning, but this phony pretend-like-I-find-something-funny-and-I'm-more-intellectual act is played out.

[benefactor]

And I partially agreed with you. Now will you please stop with the ridiculous post count/company line stuff. That makes you look really, really stupid and makes people not take you very seriously.

[Mel_13]

Despite you desperately attempting to convince many of the opposite in virtually every single post I've seen of yours, you're incredibly stupid. I meant bias in regards to you not posting my reasoning for why I believe that my statement that you quoted was logical.

And now, inevitably and predictably, you stoop to personal insults. Still laughable and now a little bit sad.

[TD 21]

And I partially agreed with you. Now will you please stop with the ridiculous post count/company line stuff. That makes you look really, really stupid and makes people not take you very seriously.

I'll stop when people like you and Mel_13 stop coming into threads I post in and conveniently siding with one another on everything and acting like everything I say is automatically wrong, because it's not the way "Pop does things", or because you've gotten in past arguments with me. Who's people, you and your SpursTalk buddies? Do you really think I care what you people think of me? Then again, you probably do.

[TD 21]

And now, inevitably and predictably, you stoop to personal insults. Still laughable and now a little bit sad.

And now, inevitably and predictably, you stoop to copping out because you know full well that I'm right and you're biased. No, for the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm talking about the fact that you didn't even quote my reasoning when I said "my argument is logical".

[Mel_13]

And now, inevitably and predictably, you stoop to copping out because you know full well that I'm right and you're biased. No, for the umpteenth time, I'm not talking about my opinion, I'm talking about the fact that you didn't even quote my reasoning when I said "my argument is logical".

It's only the conspiracy that forces anyone to disagree with you.

[benefactor]

I'll stop when people like you and Mel_13 stop coming into threads I post in and conveniently siding with one another on everything and acting like everything I say is automatically wrong, because it's not the way "Pop does things", or because you've gotten in past arguments with me. Who's people, you and your SpursTalk buddies? Do you really think I care what you people think of me? Then again, you probably do.

I wasn't siding with anyone or agreeing with anything Pop does or does not do. You made those assumptions on your own. I made my argument out of facts. Facts that happened in the game. I was not influenced by anyone else's opinion.

Spouting off that people are conspiring against you because their post count is high and they know each other is ridiculous. If you don't like it here and you think everyone is against you then that small X at the top right of your screen it just the click of a mouse away.

[TD 21]

It's only the conspiracy that forces anyone to disagree with you.

As usual, no opinion whatsoever to offer on the topic at hand. This is most likely because you have an elementary understanding of the game and so you attempt to conceal this by not talking about basketball altogether. Are you that lonely in life that you have to come to a basketball message board, not to talk basketball, but to attempt to make friends? Way to continue to evade the question and cop-out.

[TD 21]

I wasn't siding with anyone or agreeing with anything Pop does or does not do. You made those assumptions on your own. I made my argument out of facts. Facts that happened in the game. I was not influenced by anyone else's opinion.

Spouting off that people are conspiring against you because their post count is high and they know each other is ridiculous. If you don't like it here and you think everyone is against you then that small X at the top right of your screen it just the click of a mouse away.

I did no such thing. You spouted the usual basketball coach speak (of which Pop has cited many a time) and attempted to pass it off as fact.

Conspiring? I never said that, but keep making things up, that's real mature. It's not at all ridiculous, I see it all the time on message boards, particularly this one. If you're not well known by the regulars, then most of them instantly disregard your opinion. I like it just fine, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm just stating what goes on on a typical message board. Stop trying to play moderator and acting like you speak for the entire board or have some type of power over me. So long as I'm within' board rules (which I am), I don't have to, nor do I intend to, go anywhere. Deal with it.

[benefactor]

[Mel_13]

I'll stop when people like you and Mel_13 stop coming into threads I post in and conveniently siding with one another on everything and acting like everything I say is automatically wrong, because it's not the way "Pop does things", or because you've gotten in past arguments with me. Who's people, you and your SpursTalk buddies? Do you really think I care what you people think of me? Then again, you probably do.

As usual, no opinion whatsoever to offer on the topic at hand. This is most likely because you have an elementary understanding of the game and so you attempt to conceal this by not talking about basketball altogether. Are you that lonely in life that you have to come to a basketball message board, not to talk basketball, but to attempt to make friends? Way to continue to evade the question and cop-out.

Paranoid much?

I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again.

Your whole "logical" case can be distilled down to one basic proposition. Simply stated, you believe that you could more effectively deploy the assets on the Spurs roster than Pop. I reject that proposition.

[benefactor]

This guy is starting to grow on me. He is like a better spoken version of edwin_is_edwina.

[TD 21]

Paranoid much?

I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again.

Your whole "logical" case can be distilled down to one basic proposition. Simply stated, you believe that you could more effectively deploy the assets on the Spurs roster than Pop. I reject that proposition.

Then you misconstrued what I said. A normal person would have conveyed this way back at the start.

Simply stated, I believe that Pop, who's coaching an aspiring contender, ought to treat games against fellow contenders like every other contender that I've ever seen does. Which is by playing a tight, predictable rotation and playing his best/key players extended minutes. But, apparently he knows better than everyone else on everything and you can't challenge him, because he's "won 4 championships", so that automatically means he's right about everything. Had I coached the Spurs last night and delivered the exact same coaching performance that Pop did (minus the 4 rings), I'd be stunned if you and many of the other apologists wouldn't be calling for my head right about now.