Reply With Quote
Pop loves to make dramatic "look at me" gestures.
Tonight they can play the "B2B, we're tired, of course" card, so Pop quitting so early will be a useless stunt, saving no energy while losing in BOS anyway.
It's a long season still, they were out played by the Knicks in the 4th quarter, Pop pulled the plug early since they play Boston in a back2back. The Spurs were handed their fifth loss of the season and still have the best record in the NBA, so really he knew the Knicks had the game in hand and has his sights on the Boston game which the Spurs have a good shot at winning.
Pop loves to make dramatic "look at me" gestures.
Tonight they can play the "B2B, we're tired, of course" card, so Pop quitting so early will be a useless stunt, saving no energy while losing in BOS anyway.
MOVE on its just one loss ... spoiled to the max
Really? Winning is bad?
The things you read here...
What message is Tim Duncan going to receive after 10+ seasons in the league? You don't think he knows what happened? He received the same message a bunch of times over the years. Do you really think that quitting games is going to fire him up? He was going to hear it after the game regardless, and he's fully aware that this team needs to improve defensively.
These are not 10 year olds or a bunch of rooks.
Is that really how you understood his comment?
really?
this
It's not about the loss. It's the fact that he didn't even call a timeout and tried to run a play for an open 3 when the game was still within reach. Just quit to send whatever 'message'.
I didn't have a problem with it. They weren't getting it done last night so there was no need of them using all of their energy just to try to keep the game close.
I'd rather have them rested for the Boston game anyways.
I would have pulled them out at the beginning of the 4th....
BTW this is it:
You tell me. Does winning on a fluke is bad now? I mean, we've been doing it a lot this season as Kori pointed it out.
A win is a win is a win. Maybe in your book it isn't.
Could you please translate what 'tbh a win down the stretch might have been worse for this team.' really meant?
Why would I tell you how you understood it?
Did you understand that comment to mean "winning is bad"?
not mad at Pop at all, Knicks shot the ball so well they couldn't miss if they tried.
You already know how I understood it, that's why you replied in the first place.
My rationale is pretty simple:
- We lost the game.
- That's bad on a sport whose sole objective is winning.
- Somebody points out that 'a win down the stretch might have been worse for this team'.
- My natural reaction is: Worse than losing? Worse than bad?
But do please tell me. What's wrong with that rationale?
I guess that means understood this post to mean "winning is bad". In that case there's no reason for anyone to explain why this loss may be better in the long run. It's already been explained, you simply don't understand it.
Pop wanted to make sure his players got a standing ovation for allowing the Knicks to win a game
I was at the game (always wanted to say that!) and I was kind of surprised when Pop threw the subs in but I had been watching Timmy in the 4th and I hate to say this but he wasn't getting up and down the court well. I don't know if this was a night the knee was acting up or if he was just generally fatigued or what, but his mobility did not look great.
That factor, plus a looming back to back, plus the desire to send a message to the team that they couldn't win playing that way all added up, IMO, to Pop's conclusion that it was better to just pack it in.
Maybe you can explain to me how losing is better than winning in the long run?
Under that rationale we should really be trying to lose every game.
Perhaps there's nothing to understand because it really makes no sense?
Losing happens. I'm not particularly bothered by the loss itself. It's the fact that people rationalize losing as a good thing that makes no sense to me.
It’s already been explained; you just don’t understand it or don’t agree with it. I certainly hope you’re playing dumb, in which case you’d be really good at it. If you’re simply incapable of understanding the reasoning behind it, then I’m sorry.
I already stated I don't agree with the reasoning. It's plastered all over this thread. I certainly hope you’re playing dumb, in which case you’d be really good at it. If you’re simply incapable of reading the thread, then I’m sorry.
Playing dumb in regard to what?
Did you not say:
Since the reasoning is "plastered all over this thread", I guess it's safe to assume you read the entire thread and understood the reasoning to mean "winning is bad". That obviously isn't the reasoning behind people thinking this loss could actually benefit the Spurs in the long run. So it's apparent you need things explained to you in a thread longer than five pages and I don't have the time for that.
Ya'll are overreacting about this white towel last night. I used to get pissed seasons ago when Pop would quit in the 3rd, but last night was different. The Spurs were not going to stop the Knicks. That was clear as day. When he finally quit, the Knicks were in complete ownage mode. There was not even a .01% chance the Spurs were going to win that game.
The Spurs are 29-5. They can afford it. The Mavs won 67 games in a season and still got owned. It's not a big deal.
they weren't able to stop the knicks for the first 45 minutes. What in the world makes you guys think the last 3 minutes were gona be any different?
Pop called timeouts all game to make adjustments. No one stopped the ball from getting to the rim. Bonner was totally ineffective, refused to shoot fairly open shots. Gary Neal was hitting the front of the rim all night. Manu was Kobe on steroids. Tim couldn't do much either. No one could stop the ball on defense. A timeout at that juncture wouldn't have made a difference. What magical potion was Pop going to employ? If anything the team gets down by 15 or more and it turns into a blowout.
I trust Pop knows what he's doing, and that most here don't.
Why would I tell you why you are playing dumb?
I did.
You don't need to assume anything. You merely have to read the entire thread. It's right here and it's going nowhere. If you're lazy, that's not really my problem.
I understand their rationale perfectly. I don't agree with it and I don't think it makes sense short or long term.
I'm in the opinion that sending messages by losing games where you still have a shot is not beneficial in the short nor long term. You could equate that to "winning is good" and "losing is bad". Conversely, some people think the opposite. That sending messages is more important in the long term than trying to win a particular game where you still have a shot at it. That, sometimes, "losing is good" or "winning is bad".
Apparently, you simply are too dumb or lazy to realize that nobody needed anything explained to them.
If you understand the rationale perfectly then why make this comment?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
