Reply With Quote
Lakers suck. One and done.
112-91 seems like a trouncing, but there's a good reason L.J. (TimVP) remains adamant that the Lakers are the worst match-up for us in the West, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
The Lakers for the most part executed their defensive game plan perfectly against the Spurs in the half court. The Spurs just beat it with an anomaly performance.
7-of-18 (38.9%) from 3 is fairly normal by Spurs standards, but by my count, the Spurs shot, and made, an extraordinary number of long-2s, defined as jumpers between 15-22 feet.
They were 19-of-28 last night (67.9%), which is an INSANE percentage. First off, if a defense gets the opponent to shoot 28 long twos, they're feeling wonderful about themselves, because it means they're keeping the opponent away from the paint, the free throw line and from more the more efficient three-point shot. But the average team shoots 40-47% from long two. To shoot at the clip the Spurs did is just something you tip your hat to and shrug your shoulders at, if you're Mike Brown.
Parker, specifically, was out of his mind, shooting 10-13 (76.9%) from 15-feet and beyond, and one of those three misses was from downtown, which as we all know is not his shot.
Duncan, meanwhile, was 5-7 (71.4%), which is obviously a great night for him since he shoots so many of those flat jumpers we cringe at.
Friends, we can't expect a night like that against the Lakers again any time soon. Instead of our usual 50-something points in the paint, we had to settle for 30-something because of the length of Bynum and Gasol. We got our fair share of lay-ups, but even most of those came on the fast break due to Lakers turnovers. Getting only 11 FTA attempts and having to count on canning 26 jump shots is no way to have sustained success against LA or anyone else.
To me, the real positives from the win, besides (or rather because of) Pop's eureka moment of giving Blair a DNP-CD, were at the defensive end. Forcing the Lakers into 19 turnovers, limiting them to only eight offensive rebounds (Bonner!), allowing less than 50% FG despite their relatively low number of 3-point attempts (2-of-10) and keeping them off the line as well (11-of-11, yikes) were all far more significant accomplishments than anything Parker or Duncan did on offense.
But yeah, all in all, I'd be thrilled if the Spurs maintained HCA and the Lakers held on that 3 seed.
Lakers suck. One and done.
Every game is an anomaly. The Spurs beat good teams by having better offense. That's not an anomaly to a team with the best record in the West. The anomaly was when the Lakers trounced the Spurs at home because the Spurs shot poorly and gave up 30 rebounds to Bynum, and only recorded 1 offensive board.
I can show you plenty games where a better offense destroys a lesser one. We did it last year to the Heat before they did it to us the next time we met. The Suns used to trounce the out of teams by 25 points.
So it's not an anomaly as much as it is our good movement, good shooting and energy all happening at the same time. I think much of that is because we played on consecutive nights, the rhythm is there for the team and they just kept it going. Long layovers have them coming out rusty and giving up huge leads in the 1st half quite often.
That said, they are a different team with Kobe, and unless he gets his stroke going right away, expect them to suffer a bit when he returns as he has a few off nights in a row.
It doesn't matter if it's in an empty gym, shooting 70% from long twos is not something that happens often. If you've been paying attention, the focus of every good defense in the league, including the Spurs for the past 15 years, is to force opponents into taking long twos.
Efficient basketball is shooting lay-ups, FTs, threes and taking care of the ball. The Spurs do all of these things, more or less, and that's why they're one of the best offenses in the league.
Inefficient basketball is shooting long twos, not getting to the line and turning it over a bunch.
What the Spurs did last night, offensively was the basketball equivalent of getting 4-for-4 performances from 8th and 9th hitters who hit .230. It's great for that game, but not sustainable.
What a kiss ass
Coming in after one of the best wins of the year and posting about fools gold is...well...borderline gy, but I'm in a good mood so you get a pass.
Funny you say that...because I was just thinking about how he's trying way to hard to impress LJ.
How many of those long 2's were contested and open? That certainly makes a difference in the percentage. Good NBA players can hit 75+% of unguarded long 2's. The reason the league on average shoots lower is because of contested 2's. An unguarded long 2 can be an efficient shot.
We didn't need 70% to win. We won by 20+. Tony attacked the rim relentlessly as did Manu, Tim and the rest.
You take those mid range shots when they are offered.
You don't get to the line when no one is near you on the break.Spurs had 44 points in the paint. That's 10 more than we had against the Warriors. The Lakers had only 4 more with that huge front court they have. You cannot blame that on long range shooting.
Efficient basketball is shooting lay-ups, FTs, threes and taking care of the ball. The Spurs do all of these things, more or less, and that's why they're one of the best offenses in the league.
Inefficient basketball is shooting long twos, not getting to the line and turning it over a bunch.
Wrong. The Spurs got separation not by shooting jump shots, but by converting turnovers into fast break points. After that, sure we shot the ball well and kept the lead, but you take what the opponent gives you.What the Spurs did last night, offensively was the basketball equivalent of getting 4-for-4 performances from 8th and 9th hitters who hit .230. It's great for that game, but not sustainable.
wake up.
both teams are very evenly matched. A series will go 6 or 7 games, but I like Spurs chances.
better role players
better coach
home court
their best player has the brainpower of an ipod nano
There were so many long 2s where Tony was wide open with Blake or Sessions trying to go under the screen and getting tied up, not able to even get a hand up. That's by design, and when he hits his first couple and starts rolling he's unstoppable. Even if we only shoot 40%, the game still would have been compe ive, on the road against one of the "best" teams in the league (I don't really believe that but it seems to be consensus)
Going under the screen and relying on your big man to help you tends to leave open lots of long 2's and 3's, if players are willing to be patient, dribble to the open spot and nail it.
While I agree it seems flukish, I also think part of the fluke is directly linked to the Lakers' defensive gameplan. It's a lot less flukish than 30 rebounds, let's just say that.
This was as iron pyrite-like as the Lakers stomping us.
What say lets find a new saying for Fool's Gold. Its so very tired. And my creation above is so very bad.
Everyone in the NBA goes under the screen on Tony Parker. Believe it or not, but he doesn't shoot 75% from long twos. Neither does Duncan, who pretty much doesn't get covered outside of 12 feet. If they could shoot like they did last night, we'd never lose a game.
Btw, I'm not saying beating the Lakers was fool's gold, I'm just saying the margin is deceptive. I do think the two teams are evenly matched, for the most part, with different strengths and weaknesses.
I'm just saying I feel a whole lot more confident playing just about anybody else.
If metta scores 26 and Bynum boards 30 lakers never lose a game either
I wouldn't say he attacked it relentlessly. 13 of his 20 FGA were beyond 15 feet and he had 1 FTA. Really, of the three Ginobili was probably the only one who had more lay-up attempts than usual for him, which was probably related to him shooting the worst from outside.
They sure took (and missed) a whole mess of them in SA against these guys.
The Spurs had like a billion FTA against the Warriors.
That's my point: The Lakers give us less than what anyone else gives us.
bingo. Both blowouts are pretty fluky.
As you might guess, I agree with roycrikside
Parker's shooting from 16-to-23 feet isn't something that the Spurs can depend on to win a championship. Last night was an example of how when Parker's shot is on, the Spurs are pretty much unbeatable.
I didn't want to post this because I didn't want to be the Debbie Downer but in his previous ten games, Parker was 9-for-32 on shots from 16-to-23 feet. Last night, Parker was 9-for-11 on those shots. Obviously, going from 28% to 82% is going to make a difference.
The Lakers remain an extremely difficult matchup. The Spurs would basically have to shoot even better than usual to beat them in a series. It's not impossible but I would honestly give the Lakers an edge in a series just because good inside teams usually beat good perimeter teams.
That said, Andrew Bynum's 30 rebounds last game were obviously a fluke. Sure, he should out-rebound a Blair frontline ... but 30 required a lot of luck.
In the grand scheme of things, last night didn't change my opinion of the Lakers being the team the Spurs should try to avoid most in the West. However, the heart, determination and precision the Spurs illustrated made me believe in this team even more overall.
As long as the Spurs can avoid the Lakers and avoid injuries, I like their chances of coming out of the West.
I didn't think there were that many fluky shots out there. Sure, we might not shoot 70% and blow them out every game, but a more pedestrian 55% would've won the game too.
That was another uncharacteristic fluke though. I think there's a middle ground somewhere in between.
The Lakers I saw last night is a lot closer to the Lakers I've seen all season long. Giving the other team every chance at Staples, MWP terrible from downtown, their bench giving them next to nothing outside of Barnes. Bynum disinterested at times.
They've been like that every other game all season long. That's how you lose games at home to Utah, Houston, etc, needing game winners against NJ... and end up with a road record under .500 despite being #3 in the West.
Not to mention that Phoenix dropped 125 on them just a week ago. This Lakers team is vulnerable, and their defense is pretty shaky. Lakerfan themselves have a good laugh when you mention Mike Brown's "defensive specialist" a en.
when Parker penetrates as easily as he did last night he is going to get open uncontested jumpers. If he hits them, the other team is in trouble. There is nothing about those open shots that were difficult for him. Ahh a few were tough but the majority he got space and perfect sight.
If Parker gets beat up and has a slow footed night, he shoots contested jumpers.
Only team I'm worried about facing in the West is Memphis tbh. Partially because I still remember last year, but they have a deep talented team and more mentally tough than the Lakers/OKC imo.
All valid points. I'm not saying the Lakers are favorites to win the le by any means. They're just a tough match-up for us, unfortunately. Also, I think partly their up-and-down play has to be attributed to their age. If any teams out there are plainly less interested in results and more worried about just surviving the regular season in one piece, it's the Lakers and the Mavs, two teams who are actually older than the Spurs, even if the national media won't mention it. The Lakers were pretty much the same way the couple years with PhilJax and even the Shaq-Kobe teams would coast for weeks at a time. They've always been a "light-switch" team.
But when Bynum and the rest of the team is focused and they're on their game, they're gonna be a tough nut to crack. One would assume they'll try their best in the playoffs, although I suppose with Bynum you never know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
