Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26
    Elbows of Fury TonyParkerSux's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    194
    How much bigger would the impact of both these plays be if both teams who were the beneficiaries actually went on to win the championship.


    I think Horry's game 5 shot against the Pistons is a bigger deal than both .4 and the game 7 ginobili foul since Horry's shot gave his team the ring.


    While people will argue we would've been going for a 4 peat had ginobili not fouled and the .4 shot never happened, I still think the impact of both those plays is slightly lessened since neither team won it all the years that each of the respective plays took place. (which isn't to say that neither plays were not huge)


    thoughts?
    .4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.

  2. #27
    Realistic Spurs Fan Amuseddaysleeper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    17,732
    Well then what about Jordan's shot in game 5 against the Cavaliers? they didnt win the le that year, but its one of the most famous and legendary shots of all time.


    yeah I agree with that as well as what SRJ said earlier


    also, in regards to .4, the only thing that makes it slightly acceptable is that the lakers did deserve .8 on the clock and not .4, as when the ball went through the hoop there was .8 left

  3. #28
    Steele Curtain cherylsteele's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    3,315
    .4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.
    It is hard to say what would have happened if we were to have won that series. If the Spurs would have gone on to win the series it could have been a major boost and they could have made the Piston cannon fodder.....or....that series could have drained them so much that playing the Pistons in the finals would have been a non-contest....we will never know.

  4. #29
    Stomping on Laker haters Purple & Gold's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    2,922
    The .4 shot was a clean shot they even changed the rule after that. The story of the series was the disappearance of Tony Parker after we started roughing him up a little. He was killing us in the beginning and then disappeared at the end. Also Karl Malone's defense was key.

  5. #30
    Veteran dbreiden83080's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Post Count
    20,159
    .4 was a very interesting series. I expected the Lakers to lose that series from the beginning. The Spurs were a much better "team" that year. That Laker team was a circus. One of my least favorite in a long time. Them getting crushed by a much better Detroit squad in the Finals just confirmed it. I believe that the Spurs would have still lost to Detroit that season, but would have taken it to seven games.
    Spurs lost that series in LA in games 3 and 4. We were better than the Lakers that year and after 2 great games we played in SA they were awful back in LA and let the Lakers right back in the series. Spurs played badly for most of game 5, Duncan hit a miracle shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss. Then Fisher hit a shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss.

  6. #31
    Realistic Spurs Fan Amuseddaysleeper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    17,732
    Spurs lost that series in LA in games 3 and 4. We were better than the Lakers that year and after 2 great games we played in SA they were awful back in LA and let the Lakers right back in the series. Spurs played badly for most of game 5, Duncan hit a miracle shot that 9 times out of 10 he would miss. Then Fisher hit a shot that 999 times out of 1000 he would miss.
    fixed it

  7. #32
    Stomping on Laker haters Purple & Gold's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    2,922

  8. #33
    Corpus Christi Spurs Fan Phenomanul's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Post Count
    10,363
    I've come to the realization that our own timekeeper screwed us in the "0.4" game. He should have started the clock as soon as he saw the ball leave Payton's hands. Factoring in his reaction time it would have syncronized a little better with Fisher's catch, turnaround and shoot. The buzzer would have definitely sounded before his release.

    Anyways.... what could have been....

    On to the future.

  9. #34
    Hedo Layup Drill ShoogarBear's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    39,519
    Actually, I believe during the playoffs the timekeepers are not the usual team employees hired for the regular season but special ones hired by the league.

  10. #35
    Take It Strong TwoHandJam's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Post Count
    3,300
    I've come to the realization that our own timekeeper screwed us in the "0.4" game. He should have started the clock as soon as he saw the ball leave Payton's hands. Factoring in his reaction time it would have syncronized a little better with Fisher's catch, turnaround and shoot. The buzzer would have definitely sounded before his release.

    Anyways.... what could have been....

    On to the future.
    Most human reaction times are granular to about .7sec. It is a bull rule that shouldn't even be on the books. Anything less than about .7sec can't be reliably timed by humans.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •