Reply With Quote
Manu role. But this is next year.
And what do you propose to do with our 2nd most important player?
Manu role. But this is next year.
Murray isn’t a playmaker. He doesn’t have White’s skill or DeRozen’s skill as a playmaker in the half court.
I agree. Does anyone have a delusion that he was a playmaker last year? At best, he's as good as Derozan as a playmaker. But nowhere close to White's skill.
Murray elite skill was guarding guys like Westbrook.
Well...!
I would give CJ an A.
Pop should get an F for standing pat at this trade deadline.
Thank for the grades! This was another tough loss. I was looking hopeful in the 3rd when Gay went off, but TO's and D killed us. Let's indeed hope SLC sees the team playing with all they got!
Wow!
Absolutely zero mention of Pop pulling Gay out of the game when Gay was scorching red hot?
That was when the game went to . It is a cardinal sin to pull a player in the middle of one of his hottest streaks of his career?
WTF?
You mustn't mess with MY rotations.
X 5
If Pop had LeVert, Dinwiddie and Russell (plus maybe an LMA), that would be a substantial upgrade over this roster. And if he was coaching the Nets in the lEast, they'd be like the 2 or 3 seed
instead he's equipped with a 50 year old Gasol, Quincy Poindexter some paper clips and a used napkin.
I know Reggie Millr harped on that but it was a pretty dumb point, per usual.
1) Gay had just picked up his fourth foul in the third quarter. That's an automatic sit for most coaches, including Pop.
2) It was already beyond the point he's usually taken out. Gay's not someone to push health- and rest-wise.
3) He twisted his ankle during his explosion. In fact, when Pop took him out, the trainers were working on his ankle until the fourth quarter.
This team has no resilience for the most part and I still can’t figure out how this team falls being double digits nearly every other game?
Pretty resilient last night, tbh.
Bad defense + explosive offense + higher scoring games = Not surprising or a big deal to fall behind double-digits in today's NBA, IMO.
Falling behind by 10 points these days is like falling behind by five points back in '99.
The problem with grades is that they evaluate individual effort and skill sets on display in a particular game. That's well and good and offers something of a statistical point of view. However, this team has to be rated as how the units or lineups play together to get a really good evaluation of the team. The fact is that with White out due to injury, the team, as currently evolved, has no defensive glue and has to include at least two or more players on the court who have serious defensive liabilities.
Terrible defenders: Gasol, Forbes, Bellinelli, Mills, Walker,
Marginal defenders: Cunningham, DDR, Gay, Poertl
No offense put on the floor with these players can overcome another decent team since collectively they can't defend at a reasonable NBA level.
I’m not talking about one quarter. I’m talking about the fact that they are like 6-24 in games they fall behind 10+. Is the fact they fall behind so much the issue? Or that they can rarely right the ship other than a few runs now & again.
They have 3+ 30 point losses and routinely fall behind by more than just “10”. They either win or can’t compete. It’s bizarre.
I'd like to know what the record is in those game with White or without White/when he's gotten into foul trouble. They just can't stop penetration on the perimeter when he isn't on the floor.
Serious questions:
1) Do you know where to find the stats for all teams for how often they fall behind by 10+ and what their records are in those games? I'd be interested to see how the Spurs compare. My instincts tell me the Spurs would be within a normal range for both categories but I could be wrong. I think we just be spoiled from 20+ years of greatness and this is what normal NBA teams deal with. But if you could point out those stats for other teams, that'd be some interesting digging.
I looked but didn't find it. Closest I found was this: http://www.nbaminer.com/leading-and-winning/ ... and the Spurs 20% win percentage when trailing by 10+ (according to you) seems to be in line but it's not comparing apples to apples.
2) Are the Spurs really 26-1 in close games (games they haven't trailed by 10+)? That'd be a pretty damn impressive stat, tbh.
3) If number two is accurate, what was the game they lost?
TIA.
So SA is actually 6-23 in those games (not 6-24) per Paul Garcia. I Don’t know 1, but just from watching spurs seem to be down more than most (especially west playoff teams or the top 4 east teams). I will ask Paul tho.
I believe that would make them 25-2 in the other games one of the losses being Bulls.
The other one was the Memphis game at home iirc.
timvp is right. Dammit.
So unfortunately it’s a manual process and not one done by team
When did it become acceptable to get embarrassed? Not once. Not twice. Not three times. But numerous times?
Tbh, I don't see many teams losing games in which they never trail by double figures these days. With more teams relying on three-pointers and scoring way up, that has naturally made games streakier and naturally increased the odds of going down double figures.
Sure, the Spurs these days get down more often by 10+ ... but it's a product of the era and a product of the fact that it's not one of the historically great Spurs teams of the past 20+ years.
The Spurs being 25-2 in games in which they've never trailed by more than 10 might be more statistically impressive than being 6-24 in games they've trailed by 10+, tbh.
Too bad. Good job finding out, though.
My guess is that there's nothing too out of the norm with these stats:
1) That the Spurs have trailed by at least 10 points in 24 of their 26 losses.
2) That the Spurs winning percentage is 20% in games in which they've trailed by 10+ points.
Which of these two stats has you concerned?
A team like the Warriors would have a much higher winning percentage in scenario number two but my guess is that league wide that percentage can't be much higher than 25%.
What does this have to do with the numbers being discussed, tbh?
Everything to do with it? I am not so sure that Spurs are in the norm with how many huge deficits they face and it to me is a symptom of a team with no leadership, resilience and major flaws.
Like, losing on the road is no big deal. But getting your ass whooped and embarrassed on a semi regular basis is something that should make you seriously evaluate what type of team you have built.
What has me concerned is the fact they get down so big, so often. I don’t think many good teams could get out of deficits that big; I also think most good teams dont face them as frequently so that is my concern.
Beyond that, it’s about what does getting down like that mean? I know a loss is a loss, but it has to say something that the team can’t lose compe ively.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
