Reply With Quote
Of course.
It shouldn't require regular lineups/rotations to handily beat the worst team in the league, on the second night of a back to back, missing almost every legit NBA player they have.
Did you even watch the game?
Would you say the Spurs used regular lineups and rotations or not?
Of course.
It shouldn't require regular lineups/rotations to handily beat the worst team in the league, on the second night of a back to back, missing almost every legit NBA player they have.
Pop tried lineups and rotations we will never see again. That's how the Spurs treat games like these -- glorified scrimmages. A guy like Brown knows he is going to be spotted several points so a win is possible. Actually making games out of these otherwise laughable matchups may actually be the plan, especially at this point of the season. I would not be at all surprised if this is the case.
The Clippers weren't 3 games better than the Spurs (able to win the series 4-1). Teams 3 games better don't lose 2 games at home in a playoff series and almost lose game 7 on their home floor. It took Kawhi ting himself and Chris Paul finally being clutch in the playoffs for the Clippers to pull out a win. If Kawhi played up to par in that series, the Spurs win in 6. Splitter, a big part of both the 2013 and 2014 runs, was also a gimped up pile of all year and in the series. Your Clippers prediction only wound up "being right," because you call every series the Spurs play a loss (you even "predicted" the Spurs would get emasculated by Memphis again in 2013. What happened there?I didn't move . If you care to go back and look at some of my posts last year, you'll realize I had them pegged relatively early. All the issues I harped on throughout bit them in the end.
It was absolutely a five gamer disguised as a seven gamer, as any astute fan would know. The numbers are skewed because of the Spurs' game 3 blowout. In a series that lack another clear one (at least in terms of the final score) and considering any series is obviously a small sample size, that made a huge difference. Aside from that, they didn't deserve to win another game and wouldn't have, if not for two fluke finishes.
What excuse? He really did miss the first two games of the series, no matter your opinion of his play thereafter. When two teams are so evenly matched, things like having your third best player miss a third of the series kind of matters.
I've never discredited the Spurs for it, all I've said is, let's not pretend it didn't play a factor and couldn't have potentially swung the series.
So let me get this straight: If I make observations about the team that come off as unflattering, it automatically means I've lost faith in them and am predicting their demise?
It was beneath the standards of a team with championship aspirations. If it were a one off, I'd chock it up to them clearly taking the opposition lightly, not giving a , etc.
As for the Ibaka deal, there's more evidence in my favor than yours. What happened in game 5? The Thunder got destroyed just the same, and that was after riding the momentum of tying up the series. I even said during that series that the Spurs Achilles Heel against the Thunder was winning at Chesapeake, where I think they had something like a 12 game losing streak. So no, I don't buy the Spurs and Thunder were evenly matched. We blew them out on our home floor and won for the first time in like 2 years on their floor in a closeout game. That doesn't say "evenly matched." But keep using the Ibaka excuse (he played, looked fine, in what was essentially a 3 game series from game 5 on. Nothing suggests he would've swung the series if played from the start).
You predict their demise every year. It's fine to cite their flaws, but it's all you focus on and then pat yourself on the back like some kind of sage when those flaws (fun fact: we all here know what the Spurs' flaws are) materialize and cost the Spurs a series. I'm not calling out your pessimism, but your intellectual dishonesty. EVERY team has flaws and strengths, and a battle between contending teams usually comes down to who can more effectively impose their strengths vis a vis the opposition's flaws. And for teams rather evenly matched, that's a coinflip. You nor I will "know all along" how a playoff series will play out between contending/evenly matched teams. The Spurs have the best frontline in basketball. That is a BIG strength, but their guard rotation is average-below average, a BIG flaw. They will probably be a top 3 defense this year, BIG strength. But their 3 point shooting hasn't come around and they lack penetration, BIG flaw. Deep bench, BIG strength, but many of the bench players are older and injury prone, could be a BIG flaw.
An intellectually honest person would say, "In light of that, I give us a 35 percent chance to beat Golden State in a playoff series. If we can impose our size and length on them, bother Curry (which we have the horses for), and slow the game down like the Cavs did, we can beat them," rather than say stupid like, "This team's inability to blow teams out from start to finish shows they aren't a championship caliber team," and then declare yourself a basketball prophet when the odds stay true (only one team can win a le and it is very, very hard to do. You need luck, opposing teams choking, unsung heroes hitting big shots and playing out of their heads, your own star players to live up to the hype, good officiating, and health).
All things being equal (Spurs' health, fatigue and motivation), of course the Clippers aren't 4-1 better than them, but at the time that series was played, they were. It took two fluke finishes for the Spurs to make it a seven game series.The Clippers weren't 3 games better than the Spurs (able to win the series 4-1). Teams 3 games better don't lose 2 games at home in a playoff series and almost lose game 7 on their home floor. It took Kawhi ting himself and Chris Paul finally being clutch in the playoffs for the Clippers to pull out a win. If Kawhi played up to par in that series, the Spurs win in 6. Splitter, a big part of both the 2013 and 2014 runs, was also a gimped up pile of all year and in the series. Your Clippers prediction only wound up "being right," because you call every series the Spurs play a loss (you even "predicted" the Spurs would get emasculated by Memphis again in 2013. What happened there?
As for the Ibaka deal, there's more evidence in my favor than yours. What happened in game 5? The Thunder got destroyed just the same, and that was after riding the momentum of tying up the series. I even said during that series that the Spurs Achilles Heel against the Thunder was winning at Chesapeake, where I think they had something like a 12 game losing streak. So no, I don't buy the Spurs and Thunder were evenly matched. We blew them out on our home floor and won for the first time in like 2 years on their floor in a closeout game. That doesn't say "evenly matched." But keep using the Ibaka excuse (he played, looked fine, in what was essentially a 3 game series from game 5 on. Nothing suggests he would've swung the series if played from the start).
You predict their demise every year. It's fine to cite their flaws, but it's all you focus on and then pat yourself on the back like some kind of sage when those flaws (fun fact: we all here know what the Spurs' flaws are) materialize and cost the Spurs a series. I'm not calling out your pessimism, but your intellectual dishonesty. EVERY team has flaws and strengths, and a battle between contending teams usually comes down to who can more effectively impose their strengths vis a vis the opposition's flaws. And for teams rather evenly matched, that's a coinflip. You nor I will "know all along" how a playoff series will play out between contending/evenly matched teams. The Spurs have the best frontline in basketball. That is a BIG strength, but their guard rotation is average-below average, a BIG flaw. They will probably be a top 3 defense this year, BIG strength. But their 3 point shooting hasn't come around and they lack penetration, BIG flaw. Deep bench, BIG strength, but many of the bench players are older and injury prone, could be a BIG flaw.
An intellectually honest person would say, "In light of that, I give us a 35 percent chance to beat Golden State in a playoff series. If we can impose our size and length on them, bother Curry (which we have the horses for), and slow the game down like the Cavs did, we can beat them," rather than say stupid like, "This team's inability to blow teams out from start to finish shows they aren't a championship caliber team," and then declare yourself a basketball prophet when the odds stay true (only one team can win a le and it is very, very hard to do. You need luck, opposing teams choking, unsung heroes hitting big shots and playing out of their heads, your own star players to live up to the hype, good officiating, and health).
I remember exactly what I said going into the '13 WCF: If they're healthy (Parker and I believe Leonard, were banged up going in), they'll win the series.
I also never called them gutless worms for losing to the Clippers and unlike you, I don't believe they choked either.
The evidence is in my favors, on Ibaka. He was clearly in their heads, they had dominated the Spurs the previous few years and him missing a third of the series played a major role in the outcome.
I predicted the Spurs would win the championship in '12 and '14, once Ibaka got injured.
Everything in bold is made up . I thought you were better than that and cliche garbage, but this is a rare time that I can definitively say I was wrong.
Someone lock this thread until after the ASB
There's your intellectual dishonesty again, interpreting something one way and one way only (in this case, calling a close game the Spurs win a "fluke finish") so that you can confirm your opinion. Game 2, even if you call Griffin's TO that led to a score to send the game into OT a "fluke" (it isn't, since Griffin has turned the ball over in the clutch before), the Clippers had overtime to rectify said fluke, and they lost by 4 points in the period. Doesn't seem too flukey to me. Game 5? Only lost the lead once in the 4th, going up by as much as 7 points in the quarter. Oh, the DeAndre Jordan goaltend? Yeah, you're not allowed to that. That was on the Clippers own inability to execute rather than the Spurs just getting "lucky."
In any event, close games always have "flukey" events that benefit both teams.
You have no evidence, none, that had Ibaka played the first 2 games it would've "changed the series." For one, a single player typically doesn't make up 25-30 point deficits. Two, Ibaka played in the game 5, and the Spurs won by about the same point differential as they did in the first 2 games of the series. You can invoke past games all your want, but this was a new season, a new situation, so what happened in 2012 had no bearing on what happened in 2014. You're just speculating and calling it a "fact" so you don't have to admit that you were wrong.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 11-16-2015 at 09:34 PM.
RJ 24 doing RJ 24 things
It is a jinx to be bumping it while we are winning.
Should be on the freezer.
Both plays were extreme rarities, in the situations they occurred in. It wasn't just that though; the way the Spurs played was not indicative of them and unsustainable.
You have no evidence that Ibaka not playing in the first two games didn't matter. I'm not saying for sure it would have, all I'm saying is, considering the history (not just '12, but '13 and '14, too), there's reason to believe it easily could have.
You have a serious lack of reading comprehension.
No, those plays weren't extreme rarities. Have you watched how the Clippers have closed out games for the past 2 years? My Greatest Closer Thread gets bumped every week. Ask Clipper Nation if he ever feels confident during the last few seconds when the Clippers have a one possession lead.
Can't prove the negative. Ibaka played. The Spurs still won by the same margin of victory at home and beat the Thunder on the road. We can't prove it either way, since he didn't play those games, but the evidence leans in favor of, "It wouldn't have mattered." Also, since when has regular season success against a certain team ever been an indicator of what transpires in the post-season?
My reading comprehension is fine, your arguments are just bad, which you know, but you can't concede because it would mean admitting you were wrong.
They were. I've watched a ton of Clippers games and games in general and you just don't see many endings like those two.
Can't prove it either way; that's the point. The difference is, only one of us is unbiased enough to admit as much. You have to be especially biased and ignorant to pretend a team missing their third best player for a third of a series is irrelevant. And the Thunder's success of the Spurs was more than just typical random regular season success. They flat out had their number.
It's terrible. You've repeatedly made things up and misinterpreted basic things.
I don't agree they were flukes. Nothing flukey about bad play in the last 20 seconds of crunch time (which happens A LOT. Duncan had a similar TO in game 5 late). As for the Jordan goaltend, the ball was going out. He made a bad play. Teams who make bad plays don't win games. Jordan has made a lot of bad plays. Don't see what's flukey.
If game 1 and 2 were closer, I would be more on your side. But the Thunder got smashed in both. Single players typically don't have 25 point impacts. Game 5, same situation. Thunder in SA. Got destroyed just the same. Can't prove it either way, correct, but logic says it wouldn't have mattered. You keep belaboring the Ibaka excuse because you don't want to admit that the 2014 Spurs bucked your early season predictions.
Reading comprehension is fine. There's nothing ambiguous about this:
losing in 6 to the Trallblazers
I think the Blazers lead for like 30 total seconds for that series. Where's yourIbaka excuse
That said, I understand your mentality. I get pissed and meltdown, too. Have called Manu and Tony all sorts of names, thrown dirt on the team's grave, etc, etc. But when they rise to the occasion, I simply tip my hat and say, "They proved me wrong."
It's not that hard of a pill to swallow.
"A bad play" is too vague a term. The specifics of those plays, at those times, were flukes.I don't agree they were flukes. Nothing flukey about bad play in the last 20 seconds of crunch time (which happens A LOT. Duncan had a similar TO in game 5 late). As for the Jordan goaltend, the ball was going out. He made a bad play. Teams who make bad plays don't win games. Jordan has made a lot of bad plays. Don't see what's flukey.
If game 1 and 2 were closer, I would be more on your side. But the Thunder got smashed in both. Single players typically don't have 25 point impacts. Game 5, same situation. Thunder in SA. Got destroyed just the same. Can't prove it either way, correct, but logic says it wouldn't have mattered. You keep belaboring the Ibaka excuse because you don't want to admit that the 2014 Spurs bucked your early season predictions.
Reading comprehension is fine. There's nothing ambiguous about this:
I think the Blazers lead for like 30 total seconds for that series. Where's your
That said, I understand your mentality. I get pissed and meltdown, too. Have called Manu and Tony all sorts of names, thrown dirt on the team's grave, etc, etc. But when they rise to the occasion, I simply tip my hat and say, "They proved me wrong."
It's not that hard of a pill to swallow.
Apparently, you've never heard of the butterfly effect. The Spurs dominated the paint in games 1 and 2. I think it's safe to say both games wouldn't have played out how they did with one of the premier rim protectors in the league.
The fact that we'll never know obviously means I wasn't necessarily right or wrong; that's my point. Pretending otherwise is beyond ignorant.
As far as that post, that was probably one of the two dumbest things I've ever said on here (the other being my don't play Ginobili in crunch time anymore thread). I never actually believed either and only said them out of frustration. But I'm fine with being called out for it because there's irrefutable evidence.
The rare times I've been wrong, I've admitted it, even going so far as to put it in bold. More ignorance on your part.
Worms worming it up
Pop ed the team with ty rotations tbh, not that the players were anything but gutless worms, but Pop was even more gutless
ing pussies
ing refs
That was not a worms worthy performance by any stretch.
Noob bump
ing pathetic effort
Only one chance to win outside of the US, and it's blown. Spurs send Duncan into retirement a loser. What a pathetic franchise
So Kawhi is recovering from gastro and this is what happens....
Honorable mention to Danny ing Green.
Would be nice if LMAO could step up like he did against the 6ers.
Im at work so couldn't watch, da fuq happened?
The spurs played like trash even though we're desperately trying to stay in the race with the Warriors and have both OKC and Cleveland hot on our heels for #2 overall.
Pathetic effort, now we need OKC and Cleveland to both lose again.. and quick
"We're" not in a race with the Warriors, but holding off the Thunder, Cavs and to a lesser extent, Clippers, is vital, since this team has been terrible offensively, on the road, against .500 or better opponents, for a season plus now.
I know they almost always play terrible in Toronto, but usually they get their during the RRT and play them on a back to back. No such excuse this time for the beyond pathetic effort. I could see right from the opening minute that they weren't ready to play and had no chance of winning despite the fools gold final score.
That's another frustrating thing with this team; they can't they win games they don't deserve. Other elite teams do it all the time.
Warming it up!
19 points in 6 minutes to the in' Lakers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions