Actually, since you insist on being obtuse because I typed 62 instead of 63, I'll point out that the Spurs won 58 games in '06-07. Now that we've established that anyone can make a mistake, obviously we're tallking about the 2006 playoffs.
Wrong. Dallas didn't run a small ball lineup enough to do that kind of damage, and Nazr and Rasho were both out of the rotation before the Mavericks series even started.
The only change Dallas made to the way they always played was to replace Adrian Griffin with Devin Harris after game 1 since he was finally healthy. Stackhouse, Daniels, Howard, and Harris were all getting past their man and going into the paint all series long, where they were challenged by either Michael Finley or Robert Horry alongside Duncan, (or NOT challenged if you'd like). It's why Duncan and Horry were in perpeutal foul trouble during the entire series.
Nazr was the starting center at the end of the year because Rasho had gotten injured. He was the starting center up until he hit a three pointer at the end of game 1 against Sacramento, and then his minutes diminished. By game 4, he'd lost his starting job to Rasho. By game 5, Horry was the starter. Game 1 against Dallas, Nazr and Rasho totalled 10 minutes of time combined. 15 in game 2 since nobody but Duncan showed up. Game 3, Rasho was DNP, Nazr got garbage time and Fabricio suddenly started getting minutes. There's not really any way to justify putting in a guy who had played fewer minutes than Beno Udrih beginning in game 3 of the conference semifinals, nor is there justification for using the same gadget lineups against Erick Dampier and Dirk Nowitzki as you used against Ron Artest and Bonzi Wells.
Here's the kicker: In game 7 against the Mavs, Horry only played 10 minutes. Michael Finley was the power forward for the Spurs, and he logged 47 minutes. Dampier and Diop totaled 35 minutes. That's 14 minutes max of Mavericks smallball, yet the Spurs played 52 minutes of it.
The Spurs' inability to defend at the rim and keep Duncan out of foul trouble was absolutely and without-a-doubt, the difference in the series.
Blair couldn't have that kind of impact on a playoff series if he brought a weapon to the game.
Reply With Quote
) at Pop would be that Splitter should have been fully established in the rotation by that time. Another big criticism is that you don't just decide that one of your players "doesn't match up" and then stop playing him, particularly against a weaker opponent. One would think someone would have learned that lesson from 2006, though many of us know the "doesn't match up" argument is justification by Popsuckers well after the fact. That fallacy is only matched by the 'Arthur was tearing up Blair' line.