Calling Miss Cleo

[Blackjack]

Calling Miss Cleo

Blackjack -RTB-



Destiny.

To some the thought is comforting; belief and faith allows it to be. Knowing that in the end, it'll all work out. But to others it's an unsettling prospect. The predetermined nature leaves one to wonder just how much control they actually have in their own fate.

It was asked not too long ago -- before the seeding was settled and the Spurs-Mavs matchup materialized -- if Dallas was destined to be San Antonio's first-round foe. What's probably been the best NBA rivalry going for years now -- and has finally seemed to garner such recognition on a national scale -- just seemed an inevitability at some point; San Antonio's less-than-stellar regular-season made sure that it'd happen sooner rather than later.

But was it destiny? Was it, in the end, absolutely unavoidable? One can't help but notice a bit of role-reversal.

Spurs-Mavs officially became a rivalry in 2006 when the Dallas Mavericks finally managed to break through against their southern big brother. The series was one for the ages -- filled with plenty of drama, controversy, great play, and plenty of antics -- and would set the tone for what this rivalry's become: second-to-none. But it wasn't only one for the ages, it's become oddly similar: through five games, the '10 series is following the '06 script, only in reverse.

The Mavs of '06 came into the series as an underdog ceding the homecourt. They'd lose Game 1 and break through with a road win in Game 2; the home team would hold serve through Game 5. In four of the five games the losing team felt they'd given one away or that they'd missed an opportunity. One game was a no-contest. Sounds familiar.

If it was truly destined to be and the role-reversal held true to form, a fan base could be on the verge of widespread panic -- Game 6 would be another missed opportunity. The prevailing wisdom of any and all would be a Mavericks win in 7 and a historic collapse for the Spurs -- it was the same wisdom held after San Antonio's Game 6 win four years ago.

But prevailing wisdom is only prevailing, not fact. It was the Mavs -- not the Spurs -- that advanced in that fateful Game 7 and it was that victory which gave credibility to their rivalry -- disdain and dislike aren't enough for a rivalry if it's not coupled with an unknown outcome. (Funny, unknown ... not undetermined.)

On the eve of Game 6 there are many quetions left to be answered: How healthy and energized are Duncan and Ginobili; is Terry any worse for the wear with his ankle; will a certain referee's presence effect the performance of a particular player or even the outcome; was Game 5 more about the Mavs' adjustments rather than the Spurs' approach; and is Game 7 destined to be poetic justice for the Spurs?

Questions all soon to be answered ... or at least made known; turbaned seers need-not-apply.

[TD 21]

How healthy and energized are Duncan and Ginobili?

They're fine. Still two of the best players in the game and I have no doubt that they'll both play big in game six and lead the Spurs to victory, but when a series is every other day (which this one has been since game two) and they're, particularly in the case of Duncan, playing extended minutes and shooting well above their average, they're due to come back down to earth. Law of averages.

This is how the Spurs will have to win in the playoffs for the duration of the Duncan era: Win the games they have to win and not concede, but accept that they'll be blown out once or twice in a series and the games those occur, they need to pull the plug early. A loss wasn't the worst case scenario last night; Duncan, Ginobili, McDyess and a to a lesser extent, Parker, Jefferson and Hill, playing extended minutes and a loss was. We know the Spurs will be highly motivated to finish this series tomorrow night, but just as (if not more importantly), the key players will all be fresh. With those two things working in conjunction, I like the Spurs chances.

[Blackjack]

As you know, I believed if the Spurs were going to win, it'd be in 6. I also made mention of the poetic justice aspect I made note of in this piece.

But I also believed the Spurs would lose Game 4 and win Game 5 before the series started, so after the Spurs managed to win 4 ... I fully expected them to drop 5; Dallas would be desperate and the teams are too close to think you're going to see someone rip off four straight, closing it out in their hated rival's gym.

But the Spurs definitely dropped the ball in Game 5. That crowd felt they were witnessing impending doom and the Mavericks looked like they were on the proverbial ropes -- they were ready for the knock-out blow but their opponent came in with their hands down and their chin exposed.

The Mavs didn't play all that well. They play harder, which lead to their rebounding, transition and free throw advantage, but they didn't shoot the lights out or play this impenetrable defense. They got a couple of quality individual outings, but that team was ripe to be had.

As it pertains to Tim and Manu, I'm not as confident to make the same statement of certainty. I have faith and I'll throw my chips in with them, but the anecdotal evidence won't allow me to simply scoff at it.

Tim looked as good as he had all year after being given almost a week off prior to Game 1 and having a couple days off between Game 2. Since that time -- with the every-other-day in effect -- his production and crispness as steadily dropped off. Manu has looked sluggish and worn, to some degree, since Game 4 -- he's been carrying this thing for so long that one has to wonder if a day off is going to really be enough for him to get his legs back to regain his stroke (if fatigue is the problem -- his problems sleeping with the broken nose might also be exacerbating the situation, as well).

I'm not panicking over their health at this point -- I believe their compe ive fire will allow them to overcome -- but it's a legit concern and something we're going to have to monitor.

[TD 21]

As you know, I believed if the Spurs were going to win, it'd be in 6. I also made mention of the poetic justice aspect I made note of in this piece.

But I also believed the Spurs would lose Game 4 and win Game 5 before the series started, so after the Spurs managed to win 4 ... I fully expected them to drop 5; Dallas would be desperate and the teams are too close to think you're going to see someone rip off four straight, closing it out in their hated rival's gym.

But the Spurs definitely dropped the ball in Game 5. That crowd felt they were witnessing impending doom and the Mavericks looked like they were on the proverbial ropes -- they were ready for the knock-out blow but their opponent came in with their hands down and their chin exposed.

The Mavs didn't play all that well. They play harder, which lead to their rebounding, transition and free throw advantage, but they didn't shoot the lights out or play this impenetrable defense. They got a couple of quality individual outings, but that team was ripe to be had.

As it pertains to Tim and Manu, I'm not as confident to make the same statement of certainty. I have faith and I'll throw my chips in with them, but the anecdotal evidence won't allow me to simply scoff at it.

Tim looked as good as he had all year after being given almost a week off prior to Game 1 and having a couple days off between Game 2. Since that time -- with the every-other-day in effect -- his production and crispness as steadily dropped off. Manu has looked sluggish and worn, to some degree, since Game 4 -- he's been carrying this thing for so long that one has to wonder if a day off is going to really be enough for him to get his legs back to regain his stroke (if fatigue is the problem -- his problems sleeping with the broken nose might also be exacerbating the situation, as well).

I'm not panicking over their health at this point -- I believe their compe ive fire will allow them to overcome -- but it's a legit concern and something we're going to have to monitor.

I thought they'd win in six, but I'm not sold on this notion that if they drop game six, they're in trouble in game seven. It's still winnable and not in a technically-every-game-is-winnable kind of way, legitimately winnable.

I always had game five as a loss and the instant the Spurs went up 3-1, I knew it would be in blowout fashion. Seeing one "rip off" three straight was surprising enough; four wasn't going to happen. It was clear from the start that the Spurs had gotten the games they needed to get and were saving themselves for the final one they (feel) need to get.

You can't on the one hand say "these teams are too close to expect one to rip off four straight", then say "the Spurs definitely dropped the ball". Maybe you'd have liked a closer game, but really, if the Spurs really wanted to, they could have made that closer by not pulling the plug so early; that obviously wasn't their concern (rightfully so).

I agree. I'm not as worried about game six as most. I saw nothing surprising out of the Mavs in that game, everything was predictable. I'm glad that Butler got his inevitable law of averages game out of the way. I expect Butler to drop off significantly tomorrow.

They essentially got a half a night off and let's face it, they didn't exactly go all out in the half they played. On top of that, they're going to view this game as must win, so even if they are somewhat fatigued I expect their adrenaline and urgency will overcome it. Based on their history in this scenario, there's no reason not to feel confident in them.

Ginobili's shooting, to me, is more law of averages than anything. He was scorching hot down the stretch and to start this series. He wasn't going to continue to shoot that well. Looking at his numbers for the series today, he's due for a good shooting game. Duncan as well. He's shooting almost identical to what he shoots for his career, but he's also coming off two poor shooting games, so he's due for good shooting game.

I'm not concerned at all about their health or energy level for tomorrow's game. Beyond that, I am.

[Blackjack]

I thought they'd win in six, but I'm not sold on this notion that if they drop game six, they're in trouble in game seven. It's still winnable and not in a technically-every-game-is-winnable kind of way, legitimately winnable.

I agree; and the sick part of me is rooting for that poetic justice.

I always had game five as a loss and the instant the Spurs went up 3-1, I knew it would be in blowout fashion. Seeing one "rip off" three straight was surprising enough; four wasn't going to happen. It was clear from the start that the Spurs had gotten the games they needed to get and were saving themselves for the final one they (feel) need to get.

Agree.

You can't on the one hand say "these teams are too close to expect one to rip off four straight", then say "the Spurs definitely dropped the ball". Maybe you'd have liked a closer game, but really, if the Spurs really wanted to, they could have made that closer by not pulling the plug so early; that obviously wasn't their concern (rightfully so).

Don't confuse sound rationale and conventional wisdom with the reality of what took place. The Spurs and Mavs are composed of talent that makes them close enough to where neither should be able to rip off four straight and close out the series in each other's gym, but that talent still has to perform and the game still has to be played. The Mavs should have looked like world-beaters in that situation, instead they looked opportunistic.

I don't have any problem with when they pulled the plug. My problem was with the approach they took to the game from the jump and the fact that they blew a golden opportunity to knock the Mavs out when they were clearly vulnerable and the venue was as tame as a regular-season affair.

I agree. I'm not as worried about game six as most. I saw nothing surprising out of the Mavs in that game, everything was predictable. I'm glad that Butler got his inevitable law of averages game out of the way. I expect Butler to drop off significantly tomorrow.

The Spurs have a Game 6 -- at their place -- to close out an opponent as a 7 seed. It's hard to complain with that or feel all that pessimistic about their chances. I actually like Butler and think he's a of a guy and player, but I'm not sure he's found his comfort zone and niche with the Mavs just yet. And I haven't seen he and Dirk coexist playing their best enough to think that we'll see a performance like that in tandem (which is what they'll probably need to get a road win). Hopefully you're right with the "law of averages game" and nothing clicked for him or gave him the confidence to carry forward offensively -- the hesitation was killing him.

They essentially got a half a night off and let's face it, they didn't exactly go all out in the half they played. On top of that, they're going to view this game as must win, so even if they are somewhat fatigued I expect their adrenaline and urgency will overcome it. Based on their history in this scenario, there's no reason not to feel confident in them.

I'm confident in them because of who they are: champions. I really don't buy into the notion that playing 25 minutes as apposed to 40 minutes reaps any real significant rewards. Is it better? Sure. But is it difference-making significant? I'm not so sure; once you get to a certain age and you go through the routine, shootaround and/or warmup and then the actual game, fatigue's going to get you regardless. It's better to play 10-15 less minutes but you're going to pay a price any way you slice it.

Ginobili's shooting, to me, is more law of averages than anything. He was scorching hot down the stretch and to start this series. He wasn't going to continue to shoot that well. Looking at his numbers for the series today, he's due for a good shooting game. Duncan as well. He's shooting almost identical to what he shoots for his career, but he's also coming off two poor shooting games, so he's due for good shooting game.

I hope so. I'm not as sure with the way his shot looked and the exaggerated motion to get loft on the ball on particular occasions -- something that Tim's also done and tends to do when he's fatigued -- but Manu's proven time-and-time again that you can never count him out -- just look what he did in Game 3 of the Lakers series a couple of years ago on that ankle.

[TD 21]

I agree; and the sick part of me is rooting for that poetic justice.



Agree.



Don't confuse sound rationale and conventional wisdom with the reality of what took place. The Spurs and Mavs are composed of talent that makes them close enough to where neither should be able to rip off four straight and close out the series in each other's gym, but that talent still has to perform and the game still has to be played. The Mavs should have looked like world-beaters in that situation, instead they looked opportunistic.

I don't have any problem with when they pulled the plug. My problem was with the approach they took to the game from the jump and the fact that they blew a golden opportunity to knock the Mavs out when they were clearly vulnerable and the venue was as tame as a regular-season affair.



The Spurs have a Game 6 -- at their place -- to close out an opponent as a 7 seed. It's hard to complain with that or feel all that pessimistic about their chances. I actually like Butler and think he's a of a guy and player, but I'm not sure he's found his comfort zone and niche with the Mavs just yet. And I haven't seen he and Dirk coexist playing their best enough to think that we'll see a performance like that in tandem (which is what they'll probably need to get a road win). Hopefully you're right with the "law of averages game" and nothing clicked for him or gave him the confidence to carry forward offensively -- the hesitation was killing him.



I'm confident in them because of who they are: champions. I really don't buy into the notion that playing 25 minutes as apposed to 40 minutes reaps any real significant rewards. Is it better? Sure. But is it difference-making significant? I'm not so sure; once you get to a certain age and you go through the routine, shootaround and/or warmup and then the actual game, fatigue's going to get you regardless. It's better to play 10-15 less minutes but you're going to pay a price any way you slice it.



I hope so. I'm not as sure with the way his shot looked and the exaggerated motion to get loft on the ball on particular occasions -- something that Tim's also done and tends to do when he's fatigued -- but Manu's proven time-and-time again that you can never count him out -- just look what he did in Game 3 of the Lakers series a couple of years ago on that ankle.

It would be nice to get revenge and it would be poetic justice. But in the moment, I don't want to see it get that far. Not only because of the obvious, but energy-wise, I don't want to see a repeat performance of the '08 Lakers series in round two. I want this team at least reasonably fresh, so that they have a realistic shot at taking this thing further.

I don't think the Mavs looked like world beaters or opportunistic, they were more in between than anything. It was the typical, predictable performance in that situation. If you've followed, not just the Spurs, but the league long enough, you should have seen that game coming the instant the Spurs went up 3-1.

My problem was the approach to the game too. Veteran team, it's as if they were resigned to what I alluded to. Only, where we're just fans and can't alter the outcome, they're players and could have. It's as if they decided beforehand, "we're probably not going to win tonight anyway and too many of our key players are too old to kill themselves in a game we don't need to win anyway, particularly with the game we do have to win looming in less than 48 hours".

Agree. No one can complain with the scenario the Spurs are in and while it's normal to be somewhat concerned, there's no need to be anything more than that. Not with the track record of the big three and Pop in this scenario.

Maybe it doesn't reap any significant rewards, but it has to help. Weren't you concerned after Duncan, shooting way above his average already, played 44:30 in game 3, with game 4, which at the time was the biggest game of the season, looming in two days? For the same reason I was concerned then, I'm not now. It that going to be the difference between the Spurs winning and losing tomorrow? Probably not, but I got to believe it helps. I can't say for sure though, only Duncan knows how his body feels and I can't even relate, because I'm not his age.

He may have had an exaggerated motion just because he's been struggling with his shot. Sometimes players do that when they're struggling, they intentionally try to put more arc or aim their shot, rather than letting it fly naturally. The nose, the shot, the fatigue, I'm not concerned about Ginobili for tomorrow. The adrenaline, urgency and (hopefully) law of averages will win the day.

[Blackjack]

It would be nice to get revenge and it would be poetic justice. But in the moment, I don't want to see it get that far. Not only because of the obvious, but energy-wise, I don't want to see a repeat performance of the '08 Lakers series in round two. I want this team at least reasonably fresh, so that they have a realistic shot at taking this thing further.

And that's why it's the sick part of me that wants it. I'll be more than happy if this thing ends tomorrow.

I don't think the Mavs looked like world beaters or opportunistic, they were more in between than anything. It was the typical, predictable performance in that situation. If you've followed, not just the Spurs, but the league long enough, you should have seen that game coming the instant the Spurs went up 3-1.

I saw a solid regular-season performance. The effort and intensity was amped up but in terms of the actual level of ball they played, it wasn't anything special -- It was good enough and opportunistic from a standpoint of what the Spurs' sloppy and uninspired play allowed them to do: manufacture points.

My problem was the approach to the game too. Veteran team, it's as if they were resigned to what I alluded to. Only, where we're just fans and can't alter the outcome, they're players and could have. It's as if they decided beforehand, "we're probably not going to win tonight anyway and too many of our key players are too old to kill themselves in a game we don't need to win anyway, particularly with the game we do have to win looming in less than 48 hours".

I'm sure it was more of a subconscious thing but it had to be along those lines. As understanding as I try to be to this team's age and the reality that comes with it, it just literally gets ... well, old -- it's a small price to pay as a fan when the team's as successful, I suppose . . .

Maybe it doesn't reap any significant rewards, but it has to help. Weren't you concerned after Duncan, shooting way above his average already, played 44:30 in game 3, with game 4, which at the time was the biggest game of the season, looming in two days? For the same reason I was concerned then, I'm not now. It that going to be the difference between the Spurs winning and losing tomorrow? Probably not, but I got to believe it helps. I can't say for sure though, only Duncan knows how his body feels and I can't even relate, because I'm not his age.

Absolutely. If you've got Tim playing 40+ and a game 48 hours later, that definitely breeds concern. And it's no doubt a better scenario to have Tim play 25 minutes rather than 44 on an every-other-day schedule.

But what I've found -- through my own experience -- is the body gets used to a certain routine. It's not as if you hit a magical number in terms of minutes or reps. Each individual -- whether it be in a team concept or on their own -- has a standard their body's accustomed to. And as long as you're not exceeding that routine, regimen or activity, your recovery-time or next-day-soreness doesn't change all that much; 25-35 minutes, 75-100 reps or whatever it is that you do, if it's a legitimate workout (which an NBA gameday no doubt is -- even if only 25 minutes) you can usually expect a similar effect. And I can definitely tell you it gets a lot tougher once you're staring at 30 and not 20.

He may have had an exaggerated motion just because he's been struggling with his shot. Sometimes players do that when they're struggling, they intentionally try to put more arc or aim their shot, rather than letting it fly naturally. The nose, the shot, the fatigue, I'm not concerned about Ginobili for tomorrow. The adrenaline, urgency and (hopefully) law of averages will win the day.

Manu's one of the tougher guys to get a handle on when it comes to shooting. He's got three different releases on his three-point shot and he's not someone that has a conventional game in really any respect; he's a slasher with a three-point shot and everything in between is whatever he comes up with -- simplifying a bit but the guy's just a different cat.

But as it pertains to the exaggerated motion, it's more about overcompensation than adjusting the sights, so to speak. When the legs are heavy, the upper body has to compensate. And when that happens, everything gets thrown off kilter; players often exaggerate the loft to make sure they get it there or to soften the shot because they're having to shoot it harder -- the shot just isn't as fluid or easy. That's what it's looked like (at times) to me but you just never completely know with Manu; and even if you know, he might find a way around it.

[Danny.Zhu]

After last game's collapse, I got a little nervous. I don't care what the history is, this Spurs team need to deal with a lot of new tactics Mavs used in the last game.

Hope they can nail it tonight.

[TD 21]

And that's why it's the sick part of me that wants it. I'll be more than happy if this thing ends tomorrow.



I saw a solid regular-season performance. The effort and intensity was amped up but in terms of the actual level of ball they played, it wasn't anything special -- It was good enough and opportunistic from a standpoint of what the Spurs' sloppy and uninspired play allowed them to do: manufacture points.



I'm sure it was more of a subconscious thing but it had to be along those lines. As understanding as I try to be to this team's age and the reality that comes with it, it just literally gets ... well, old -- it's a small price to pay as a fan when the team's as successful, I suppose . . .



Absolutely. If you've got Tim playing 40+ and a game 48 hours later, that definitely breeds concern. And it's no doubt a better scenario to have Tim play 25 minutes rather than 44 on an every-other-day schedule.

But what I've found -- through my own experience -- is the body gets used to a certain routine. It's not as if you hit a magical number in terms of minutes or reps. Each individual -- whether it be in a team concept or on their own -- has a standard their body's accustomed to. And as long as you're not exceeding that routine, regimen or activity, your recovery-time or next-day-soreness doesn't change all that much; 25-35 minutes, 75-100 reps or whatever it is that you do, if it's a legitimate workout (which an NBA gameday no doubt is -- even if only 25 minutes) you can usually expect a similar effect. And I can definitely tell you it gets a lot tougher once you're staring at 30 and not 20.



Manu's one of the tougher guys to get a handle on when it comes to shooting. He's got three different releases on his three-point shot and he's not someone that has a conventional game in really any respect; he's a slasher with a three-point shot and everything in between is whatever he comes up with -- simplifying a bit but the guy's just a different cat.

But as it pertains to the exaggerated motion, it's more about overcompensation than adjusting the sights, so to speak. When the legs are heavy, the upper body has to compensate. And when that happens, everything gets thrown off kilter; players often exaggerate the loft to make sure they get it there or to soften the shot because they're having to shoot it harder -- the shot just isn't as fluid or easy. That's what it's looked like (at times) to me but you just never completely know with Manu; and even if you know, he might find a way around it.

I got that. I'm just saying if you could guarantee me right now that the Spurs will win this series, but asked me how I'd prefer to look back on it, as a game six win at home (where they get some rest before round two) or, by getting revenge and poetic justice by winning on the road in game seven, I'd still take the former. Even though months and years down the road the story would sound better if it were the latter. Because I'm still thinking in the moment, what's best right now for this team.

I'm sure it was more subconscious than not, but particularly in the case of Duncan, McDyess and Ginobili, they know they very well might have one good game left in them this series and if that's the case, then I assume they'd save it for the one they feel they have to have. Had the Spurs not collapsed to start the second half and the Mavs continued to invite them into the game, then I'm sure their antennas would have went up.

To steal a line from Pop, "I don't know how to quantify that". That being the whole does 25 or 35 minutes make a difference for a veteran player. I'd like to think it helps at least somewhat. The legs have to feel a little fresher, I'd imagine. But does it make a substantial difference? Probably not.

Yeah, Ginobili is a very unique player, which is why I think he's the most exciting player in the game. No one comes up with more spontaneous stuff than him. People can bring up James and Bryant all they want, the reality is, particularly in the case of James, he's really not all that creative. You pretty much know what you're going to get, it's just ridiculously hard to stop or even slow down obviously.

I'm confident he finds a way around it. I'm sticking to law of averages. He was blistering hot with his shooting down the stretch and the first three games of this series. No one continues to shoot well above their average for that long. Now, he's slightly under his usual marks, which means he's due for a good shooting night.