Is this the game the rubes will excuse as a "trap game?"

[SAGirl]

I think in games like this team team feels a lot more the fact that manu is still recovering and is clearly noticeable.

Before the injury he was playing very good defense and dropping 9-13 point games every night, moving the ball and limiting his turnovers.

Since his return, and aside of his return game, he has had at least 3 turnovers a game almost every game, has not dished assists nor control the tempo with the second unit and his defense has been subpar.

If Manu and the bench plays well this games are 10 point wins. The problem is Manu isnt and the rest has dissappeared.

Also pop changed the rotations and that is not helping a bench with a subpar ginobili, the second unit usually played a lot with green or kawhi, now they are playig with anderson, who i dont think should share the court with manu.

Either patty manu kawhi boris diaw
Or patty manu danny boris diaw

:tu
Really the MAnu issue is the elephant in the room.

To me all the Kyle Anderson hate threads are pure deflection to the elephant in the room: the fact that Manu is lacking confidence and has not been playing well. His being a facilitator makes all his passes super predictable and easy to steal bc he's not looking to score. Patty Mills has been super streaky all season and both Diaw and D west are beta. Diaw passes up a lot of shots from the perimeter to drive and dish and D west gets the ball in the post but wants to pass. Maybe Martin can be what they need since they need a scorer who is not going to have the mind to defer.

The bench has never really been defensive minded anyways. Patty and Manu cover their deficiencies with a lot of gambling for steals and they don't have a true rim protector either. If they are not scoring at a high clip (like at least 50%) they will give up leads, count on it. Martin is probably the better fit for a glass cannon.

I think Anderson is really the odd man out and that's a shame bc we kept a winning record with him playing over 20 minutes per game and yet we have been close to loosing and have lost a game already with a lot of Manu/Martin mixes.and we lost the Pacers game that Manu played 20 mins and Anderson played about 9 and was aggressive.

[midnightpulp]

Feel like Mid is fastly becoming a caricature of himself due to all his previous threads backfiring. Spurs lost to the Hornets. Sucks, but it's not a big deal. Charlotte is better than any team Golden State has lost to this season besides the Spurs. This doesn't point to critical issues with SA any more than GS almost losing to Minny point to their issues. It's just a game.

None my threads have backfired.

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game. When LMA and Kawhi aren't combining for 45-50, the team's offense is a disaster since every role player is an inconsistent gamble offensively. Are we getting 3 points tonight from Manu or 15? Is Danny Green going to hit a shot or not? What's Boris, Patty, going to do? Will Duncan have a throw back or get "skunked?" You might say, "They're role players. What do you expect?" Well, guess what, role player consistency (and how they play on the road) is a major, major factor in playoff success.

And it's not just one game. This top heavy scoring trend has been bothering me for a month. What's going to happen when LMA and/or Kawhi struggle for a game(s)? Who's going to step up?

[SAGirl]

None my threads have backfired.

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game. When LMA and Kawhi aren't combining for 45-50, the team's offense is a disaster since every role player is an inconsistent gamble offensively. Are we getting 3 points tonight from Manu or 15? Is Danny Green going to hit a shot or not? What's Boris, Patty, going to do? Will Duncan have a throw back or get "skunked?" You might say, "They're role players. What do you expect?" Well, guess what, role player consistency (and how they play on the road) is a major, major factor in playoff success.

And it's not just one game. This top heavy scoring trend has been bothering me for a month. What's going to happen when LMA and/or Kawhi struggle for a game(s)? Who's going to step up?

I completely agree with you in the committee problem. The issue is that it is unsolvable bc no one else, no third cog has stepped up. Tony cannot do it consistently. He tries but just can't. Manu really was the 3rd cog in scoring. Sometimes it was a mix of Manu and Patty. These two are just as unreliable as Tony or worse.

It's as simple as we don't have a third wheel right now and are not going to have it. Maybe we get someone new next season, maybe Anderson develops into that guy... but this team right now is a bunch if old dudes and 2 prime alpha dogs. Either the committee steps up or we are through.

I think it's a definite concern and that is why Pop went after Martin and let Butler go, a guy who he had really grown to trust to even close our a couple of games. The scoring situation is that dire.

[dabom]

Feel like Mid is fastly becoming a caricature of himself due to all his previous threads backfiring. Spurs lost to the Hornets. Sucks, but it's not a big deal. Charlotte is better than any team Golden State has lost to this season besides the Spurs. This doesn't point to critical issues with SA any more than GS almost losing to Minny point to their issues. It's just a game.

Dude has crossed into the tholdren territory. He is obsessed and he keeps making it worse.

[Chinook]

None my threads have backfired.

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.

I'm being proven right about the flawed committee idea nearly every game.

Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Re struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

[dabom]

Chinook going in raw.











midnightpulp needs to call 911.

[Proxy]

the way midnight writes stresses me out. I can't even finish reading the paragraph... it's like seeing that crazy homeless person screaming about how the end of the world is coming.

I'll take the long way home, thank you

[SAGirl]

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.



Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Re struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

This is actually a very well developed point and its true. At the end of the day the bench underperformed but the game was within hand. Its your stars that are supposed to take you home. Still Kawhi was benched to test out Martin in different lineups and IMO Pop made an effort to get TD rolling, who had been underperforming offensively in several games. There was a lot of Tony/TD PnR and unusual emphasis on playing inside out. I think Pop was testing thins/guys out.

That would be highly unusual in a playoff game. Kawhi would plsy more and get more chances to get in rhythm and one of Anderson or Martin will sit. No way both play, at some point Pop will make up his mind.

In no way was that game typical or representative of our ultimate play. If anything guys in the bench learned they have to step up.

[TD 21]

The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative.

The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Re struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

[EVAY]

Frankly I can't believe no one is going to mention the team staying BIG the entire game and running a lot of offense through Tony to get TD rolling. TD struggled against GSW and was sat down bc he could not handle the matchup, was slow making rotations on one end, could not punish them offensively on the other. I saw a distinct effort to get him rolling this game. He got a lot of plays and a lot of PnR. That is not to say we are going to be playing like this in the playoffs, but Pop wanted to get TD confidence rolling. That is why Kawhi was frozen out for a good chunk of the game at times and the ball in Tony's hands a lot. When you play TD offensive sets have to take advantage of the bigs bc otherwise they just clog the lanes for dribble penetration.

Pop IMO was trying out his BIG man based offense and seeing what they could do against a team that was playing small/perimeter ball for a good chunk of the time. Charlotte was able to put on display why this BIG man line-up can get killed in the playoffs. They cheated, playing passing lanes as everything is more congested with two big men in the paint, were very active defensively and killed us in transition off our TO.

Dwest was our worst big against this team. Fouled a 3 pts shooter for a 4 point play, was passive, passing up good looks for himself, didn't want to man up inside, TO the ball, and was very slow getting back on transition. His assigned big outran him for easy buckets couple of times and he can't defend in the perimeter.

Make of that what you will. Pop wanted to see the big men step up against a perimeter team and it was a disaster. CIA Pop.

Extraordinarily cogent observations. Terrific!!! Especially the part about getting Duncan going. It was totally obvious, imo. It was like Pop was 'making it up" to Tim for the GSW game. Not saying that he was, but something was going on with the over-reliance on Tim in this game, and your analysis sure beats anything I came up with.

[EVAY]

If you want to keep telling yourself that, it's fine.



Not really. The idea that teams will struggle to win if their top guys struggle to score isn't new, and it isn't informative. The Warriors barely beat the Wolves with Curry and Thompson combining for 36 points. The Spurs barely lost with Kawhi and LMA combining for 33. The Warriors' had Green and Barbosa to round out their top four scorers, and they combined for 33 points. Duncan and Parker were the next two for the Spurs, and they combined for 35 points. Warriors top four got 69 points to 68 from the Spurs' top four. And the Warriors used 115 possessions to get that while the Spurs used 108. So the Spurs' guys were able to score at a slightly better rate than the Warriors' guys. Difference was that the Spurs had a defensive collapse while the Warriors were able to hold off a much worse team.

This game didn't demonstrate anything, and it's frankly shocking that you consider such a well-balanced scoring game as an example as to why the Spurs can't win with just two scorers.

It's the same problem as your Green take. Yes, it would be nice if the Spurs had more consistent scorers, and it would be nice if Green could dribble and dunk over people and all that crap. But you're trying to concatenate the very safe (to the point of triviality) truths of those statements with assertions that the absence of those things either explain or predict outcomes. They don't, and you don't put in the work to demonstrate why we should believe they do. Green is struggling because he can't hit his open shots, not because he can't dribble. The Spurs aren't going to struggle without their top guys any more than Golden State will and has without theirs. This is just a reality of teams. Cleveland won't win if James and Irving don't score. OKC is nothing without Durant and Westbrook. Toronto needs Lowery and Derozan. If two of Paul, Griffin and Re struggle, the Clips won't win either.

You're not wrong because you think the Spurs need their top guys to score. You're wrong because you believe that's a unique disadvantage.

Analysis of the argument. What a pleasant approach in this forum. Well said and well reasoned. Thank you. I think it could have been said slightly more graciously, but your points are extraordinarily valid and clearly backed up with evidence.

Again, thank you.

[SAGirl]

Extraordinarily cogent observations. Terrific!!! Especially the part about getting Duncan going. It was totally obvious, imo. It was like Pop was 'making it up" to Tim for the GSW game. Not saying that he was, but something was going on with the over-reliance on Tim in this game, and your analysis sure beats anything I came up with.

Well I think you are being sarcastic since we have disagreed on a lot but I don't consider you a troll. In my observations about the bigs based offense I made no mention of Anderson. Frankly he was a blip in this game. He played only to finish the 1st Q and start the 2nd, wasn't very impactful, but the game wasn't lost there. There was still a lot of game to be played after he sat. My comments were more general. I do feel Pop was making an effort to get TD rolling, then after that testing Martin out in the game with different guys. He wanted to win but not at the cost of seeing the results of his tests.

[dabom]

I've never known a poster to get on in his own threads as much as OP.

[EVAY]

Well I think you are being sarcastic since we have disagreed on a lot but I don't consider you a troll. In my observations about the bigs based offense I made no mention of Anderson. Frankly he was a blip in this game. He played only to finish the 1st Q and start the 2nd, wasn't very impactful, but the game wasn't lost there. There was still a lot of game to be played after he sat. My comments were more general. I do feel Pop was making an effort to get TD rolling, then after that testing Martin out in the game with different guys. He wanted to win but not at the cost of seeing the results of his tests.

Well, I was NOT being sarcastic. If I am being sarcastic, I put it in blue. The fact that we occasionally disagreed does not relate to you making good points. I am very sorry that you think that. I am aware that there are "krews" in this forum that always disagree or agree with another poster just based on whether or not they are in agreement regarding the relative merits of a particular player.

I never mentioned Anderson whatsoever in my post, and I am at a loss as to why you referenced him in your response. If you check out my postings in general, I have made very very few comments regarding Anderson at all, mostly because I am neither as high on him as some folks are, and not as low on him as others. So I mostly withhold observations about him because my mind is still open about it.

I honestly am a bit taken aback by your response. I was trying to give you props for what I thought was a particularly well-written piece.

I am never trolling, tbh. I'm not even sure how to or exactly what it means.

[SAGirl]

Well, I was NOT being sarcastic. If I am being sarcastic, I put it in blue. The fact that we occasionally disagreed does not relate to you making good points. I am very sorry that you think that. I am aware that there are "krews" in this forum that always disagree or agree with another poster just based on whether or not they are in agreement regarding the relative merits of a particular player.

I never mentioned Anderson whatsoever in my post, and I am at a loss as to why you referenced him in your response. If you check out my postings in general, I have made very very few comments regarding Anderson at all, mostly because I am neither as high on him as some folks are, and not as low on him as others. So I mostly withhold observations about him because my mind is still open about it.

I honestly am a bit taken aback by your response. I was trying to give you props for what I thought was a particularly well-written piece.

I am never trolling, tbh. I'm not even sure how to or exactly what it means.

Sorry that you were taken aback. It's just difficult by the nature of this forum to tell when ppl are being sarcastic or not.

Lately everyone thinks all my points have to do with Anderson and they all do not, so I guess I am already very defensive stating up front that my comments had nothing to do with him.

[EVAY]

Sorry that you were taken aback. It's just difficult by the nature of this forum to tell when ppl are being sarcastic or not.

Lately everyone thinks all my points have to do with Anderson and they all do not, so I guess I am already very defensive stating up front that my comments had nothing to do with him.

It's all good.