...was an effective strategy implied by Scott Brooks. It was a momentum killer which prevented the Spurs from finishing the 3rd quarter in a very high note. My brother and I were jumping-jacks while watching the Spurs put on a clinic during the mid-3rd quarter when suddenly, Brooks enraged, stood up and ask his players to foul the Brazilian player. Unseriously (is there such a word?), I think the strategy was a kill-joy as I was ecstatic and aroused by the play of the Spurs during the said quarter, expecting more of those Manu's behind the back pass to Parket for a three.
Nevertheless, I give Brooks props for applying that strategy which did good for them OKC, making it a close game and preventing a blowout. Now let's head to OKC and finish the business.
looks like you didnt actually watch the game
on average teams score around 1 point per posession throughout an entire game
if you hit 1/2 free throws youre scoring at a 1 ppp pace
Splitter did that
and when the hacking started the spur lead went from like 16 to a miniscule 15
and it only took 3 minutes to do it
I liked it tbh, I was/am sick of hacking anybody period, good to see Brooks give Pop a taste of his own medicine.
but it still took the flow out of SAs game ... it might have to do with the lineup to start the 4th as well
Yes if consider PPP I think it wasn't that successful, then again splitter was in the high 60's in the regular season. I think like pop did it wasn't just because he was a poor free throw shooter, the strategy also change the tempo of the game and took the spurs out of rhythm.
I watched
The momentum was shifted to OKC before Hack-a-Splitter tactic. We were up by 80-58 and before they started Hack-a-Splitter the score was 82-66. OKC was already playing well at that period. The 3rd period finished with 92-76. That's why Hack-a-Splitter tactic did'nt have too many impact.
I dont especially like the tactic, but used in certain situations I think it's a decent move. Not sure why they didn't put in a bench guy to rack up the fouls though. I thought it worked reasonably well last night at accomplishing what Brooks was after - to get SA out of their groove offensively - if only for a few minutes.
Pop needs to play splitter at the beginning of the 2nd and especially 4th qtr. This will make them think twice about this strategy since it will put us in the bonus early.
I think it was a good move at the time.
Another symptom arises... it turned our possessions into stand around and watch Tiago while OKC got multiple possessions to actually run offense. Playing D multiple times in a row, even though you get a bit of a rest, is taxing imo.
Again the discussion turned to rule changes on TNT when we got it thrown back in our faces in game 2. Yet this same tactic is used quite often at the end of fairly close games, even on good foul shooters, to attempt to salvage a game. It also ruins the flow of a good game, but extends the end of the game excessively, which also works out quite nicely for commercial time, and gives the couch coach potato at home time to critique and then complain. Hoarding timeout, bring out the white board, and excessive subs utions at the end of games still within reach for a desperate team, turn the game stacatto. No one seems to mind this as it has become a fixture. Imo opinion its irritating.
I think it failed miserably.
First, you had to look at the number. Hack a Splitter didn't allow Thunder to cut their deficit.
Second, Tiago was atrocious at the line in the playoffs. Before that game he was 8/25 with some ugly misses. When he was hacked, he shot free throws way better than in previous games. Future will tell but Tiago might be very well done with his free throws shooting slump. In that case, a big thank you Brooks.
Third, the whole momentum/rhythm thing is kinda bull to me. It's just that, when you are up by a lot, it's hard to keep the pedal to the metal. For example, Spurs get sloppy in game 4 against Utah. Yesterday's game reminds me too a lot the February regular season game against Thunder where Parker had 42 points. Spurs were up by a lot in the 3rd before seeing their lead being cut by a lot.
The best about the Hack a Splitter, is that if it starts working, Pop can easily remove it for the equation. He just needs to change his rotation pattern by bringing Splitter at the start of the second and fourth quarter. Spurs would be damn happy to see Thunder being in the penalty with 8 or 10 minutes left in these quarters.
Splitter needs to get some training like TD got and go from a crappy free throw shooter to a decent one.
Remember Durant and Westbrook being gassed in the 4th quarter of game 1, leading to lackluster defense and the Spurs' game-clinching run? Hack-a-whoever not only disrupts your opponent's rhythm, but it allows for extra rest time for your players, even when they're on the floor.
It's debateable about whether it disrupted the Spurs offence or whether it helped the Thunder reducing the lead, however, the simple fact that Pop let Tiago get hacked 5 times and then subbed him for TD when it was clear he wasn't supposed to be there by the end of the 3rd quarter might suggest Pop didn't like what he saw.
I made those very two points in another thread. Tiago simply is not someone who is typically susceptible to this strat because he's he's normally a 65-70% FT shooter in a temporary slump. It allowed him to get into a rhythm and he definitely looked better at the end.
I think its extremely lazy and superficial to give credit to the strat for working.
I thought it was a good opportunity for Splitter to practice his FT on the big stage. He was getting a little afraid of going to the line, but that tag-a-tiago might just help him lose that.
ing got......was an effective strategy implied by Scott Brooks. It was a momentum killer which prevented the Spurs from finishing the 3rd quarter in a very high note. My brother and I were jumping-jacks while watching the Spurs put on a clinic during the mid-3rd quarter when suddenly, Brooks enraged, stood up and ask his players to foul the Brazilian player. Unseriously (is there such a word?
Nevertheless, I give Brooks props for applying that strategy which did good for them OKC, making it a close game and preventing a blowout. Now let's head to OKC and finish the business.
It did not work. The Thunder are a running team, they scored in transition it seems much easier than they did in the half court set. Slowing the game means no transition buckets. I don't blame Brooks for trying it, down by 22 you have to do something to stop the bleeding, but it failed. What worked was small ball, getting into passing lanes and getting out in transition. They need to work on their defense. That's why they lost. They scored enough to win almost any playoff game.
What Brooks did is admit his defense cannot stop the Spurs offense. You can say Pop did the same thing, but Pop doesn't do it down by 20. He would start that up by 10 to see what happens.
Disagree about its lack of effectiveness. It chopped the game up. The Spurs were in an insane flow. Expect to see more of the same if Splitter is out there and the Spurs are rolling. It will force Pop to really consider when and where to use Tiago.
It may not have made any difference in the score at the time, but the Thunders sure seemed to play with a lot more energy after it than they were before it. Prior to it OKC was absolutely getting blitzed, they were hanging their heads after every Spur basket and had absolutely given up making any secondary defensive effort to chase the 3pt shooters off the line as evidenced by Tony's 3 point attempt where 5 guys literally just stood there and watched him take his time to line up his shot. After hack a splitter, different story.
Obviously there's no way to know whether the hack-a was the cause, but I don't think it's out of the question to believe that the slowdown in play gave OKC a chance to gather themselves. Given how most of Brooks' moves leave absolutely no room for discussion about whether or not they worked (which is an emphatic NO), the mere fact that you can even have a debate about whether or not HackaSplitter helped his team probably means that Brooks thinks the strategy is worth another try. It's not like Brooks has a whole lot of options at this point.
Oh sorry, you anti-ecstatic Spurs fan, bet you're a big fan of Kawhiing got...
I thought it had a modest effect. In actual score- no as has been pointed out they burned a lot of clock and only gained 1. On the other hand it took the Spurs out of their flow though TBH they had already cooled down some. I thought the biggest factor in the Thunder making a game of it was the uncharacteristic fouling on the Spurs part and getting to the line early in the fourth. Not sure about the quickness getting into the passing lanes- some of those turnovers where just bad.
Hack a Splitter is dead. From now on it is dubbed the "Splitter Hitter".
It worked because 1.) it stopped the flow of the game and B.) They got some free timeouts.
It didn't work because 1.)B.) They lost
What if pop countered with fouling Ibaka or Perkins right after Splitters FTs. This could make for the longest game in NBA history. I think its a sound strat with a lead.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
