the shockng revelation came at the end of the preview when you counted the spurs out despite Tim's most positive looking game in months having just elapsed and the Spurs earning homecourt. giving us a 35% chance when we have HC advantage? a 35% chance when Tim just said the pain is basically gone and played like it? ....
HCA means very little.
Spurs have won nearly as many games on the road as in S. Antonio this year.
Probably more close games than at home.
I would have loved to get Portland, so inexperienced, so green. The only player with any tyaste of serious basketball being Fernandez.
Besides just making the playoffs, why do teams win during the regular season?
Oh yeah. For HC advantage since, besides health, it is the single most important non-basketball related factor in winning.
Not having homecourt advantage in a series automatically puts the odds against you, which is why Timvp giving the spurs a 35% chance means he'd be giving the Spurs maybe 25%? 15% chance of winning? if they had to face the mavs without HC.
In the West, the only reason for winning in the regular season was to avoid the Lakers.
HC is important for a young team, not much for a team of veterans like the Spurs.
Spurs had HC in 2006, last time I recall.
1-4 answer is no and 5 answer is nothing. Mavs in 6.
We have no one to guard Dirk so I see no reason to run away from our strengths in trying to stop him.
We do have hope for guarding Terry with Bowen or Hill, but Hill has greater quickness and stamina. Pop would be foolish not to give Hill a chance. If he fails then let him sit, but there's no reason not to try. We have to take a reasonable risk, and Hill is a reasonable risk.
Everyone knows that we need Gooden to play big this series if we're going to win. He's another reasonable risk we'll need to take a chance on. As many have said, he and Duncan should be given time together to make Dirk play D. And if they go large and put Bass out there as well, then we've already taken them out of their game.
Bonner looks to be completely useless in this series. His advantage as a long-distance shooting big is that he takes big players out of their comfort zone in the paint. Dirk's comfort zone is hiding out on the wing. Allowing Dirk to guard Bonner is basically allowing Dirk to rest. That is the opposite of what our strategy should be.
Mason could be exposed at the backup PG if he's expected to keep up with Barrea. Mason already has problems initiating the offense (as in, an offense that isn't just him shooting a long jumper from the top of the circle). Mason, not Hill, could become the "Beno 05" backup PG disaster that Pop worries about. If teams look to aggressively trap Mason, things could get ugly. It was already "not great" against regular season defensive schemes. For us to beat the Mavs, Mason can't become a liability at the 1.
So homecourt means nothing? Gotcha, you have no clue what you're talking about.
And if they hadn't earned it, how bad would they have lost in that series, especially down 3-1?Spurs had HC in 2006, last time I recall.
Without HC the spurs dont pull out a 1 point victory in Dallas come Game 5 to push the series back San Antonio. And the Mavericks would have kept a 20 point lead at home in Game 7.
Your logic is very flawed, HCA is always important no matter who is on the team or who you're playing.
What would have happened in the Waterloo battle if Blucher's army would have showed up one hour later?
I guess you know that too.
Your logic is very flawed, HCA is always important no matter who is on the team or who you're playing.[/QUOTE]
My logic is never flawed.
My opinion might.
I agree, except for Mason. The Mavs have not been trapping anyone this season.
i don't agree that the spurs only have a 30-40% chance of winning. i think it's more at 50%. mavs and spurs are evenly matched this time around. before ginobili's season ending injury i would put the lakers at the top, the spurs at the second level, and every other playoff team in the third level. in other words, spurs would only be one step behind the lakers while the rest of the west are two steps behind them. now with ginobili's injury, spurs are in the same boat as everyone else.
if the mavs played any other team, it would result in a pretty assured first round exit. but because of matchup problems, the spurs would definitely have to try harder than other teams. any other team not named the lakers would probably have a 60-70% of defeating the mavs. spurs are just as good as those teams but again, due to matchup problems, spurs only have 50% chance with HCA.
Pretty much this:
You wrote an article on how we could and all, but why would you count us out of it? I mean you say in one way that we have a 40% chance to make it out of this series, but you say that you're not counting them out. I don't get it. Anything more than 50% means they're out of it, logically. That gives the Mavericks, in your logic, the edge to win the series. So you're admitting defeat before game 1. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying you're right, but you can't give the Spurs a 40% chance to win and still count them in it.
Last thing: I have seen Dallas play zone (an old-style 2-3) in more than one game.
In a Lakers game, they were being smashed in all aspects and they got back into the game with this zone. Lakers blew a 15 points lead, but eventually won.
I have seen them play a zone with Denver also, after they were being heavily out-rebounded.
If they can't stop Parker' penetrations, I bet they switch to that.
Precisely. He received the thigh injury when he was in at the end of a game (because Pop didn't trust Beno) and Ron Artest fouled him hard. Like I said, it worked great that year because Parker was never healthy enough to get past Harris. He gutted out game 1 and then Pop decided to pull all the centers to allow the Mavs an easier path to the rim after they got past Parker, presumably because nobody but Duncan showed up for game 2.
The Ron Artest foul actually resulted in a hip-strain injury.(or something to that effect)
Tony later took a pretty bad knee to the quad, after Devin Harris drew a charge in the open court,IIRC, which was in game 1 or 2.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. The Artest foul caused the original injury, and it was exacerbated in the Mavs series. Call it what you want, but the chronology and the situations are correct. If memory serves, the contact from Artest that hurt Parker was actually after the whistle.
My point was there were two different injuries, to two different parts of his body. I wasn't trying to be some know-it-all ass, by the way.
I can't recall if the Artest foul was after the whistle or not, but I'm pretty sure it was excessive/unnecessary.
Either way, Tony was pretty jacked-up going into that series, and got jacked-up in game 1 or 2. (Now that I think about it, I seem to remember Tony joking with the reporters, after the knee from Harris, about how he was just evening out the injuries to each side of his body.)
I didn't think you were, but when one part of your leg is killing you, anything to any other part of either leg is going to compound it. Just when Parker might have had a chance to turn the corner on the first one, he got the second one. It's too bad that the Spurs had to spot the Mavs a couple of games while the rest of the guys figured out how to play out of position on-the-fly. They almost had enough time.
I haven't looked it up, but I seem to remember that Artest got suspended for a game in which he hit Duncan, Ginobili and Parker at different times, maybe game 2, which could mean that Parker got the first injury in garbage time of that blowout in game 1.
Yeah, once the Mavs started taking using their speed and taking advantage of the Spurs' lack of shot blocking, it was pretty much over.
First off, a fantastically, well-written, synoposis overview of the series. If I wasn't worried before, and I was, I'd be worried now.
This is a roster deficiency that many on this board, myself included, have been ing about since even before that epic 2006 series. This has been and continues to be a big hole that, in my opinion, has contributed to the Spurs defensive inefficiency against players of Nowitzki's size and shooting skill. It's very frustrating to see other, more inferior teams, have the luxury of throwing a taller, longer defender at him and frustrate him. The Spurs cannot. I wonder why that is?
This is the 30,000 question. Watching the games the Spurs played here in Dallas this season, it seemed the Spurs did struggle trying to corral the Mavs many offensive weapons. No longer are the Mavs strictly the half-court, isolation-only, type of offense they once were. The presence of Kidd means the ball moves around the perimeter more crisply and they get a lot more cheap baskets off turnovers and opportunity breaks. This makes it even more troubling because the Spurs are simply not as defensively efficient as in years past, and they struggled even then. Being that the Spurs pride themselves on their superior defensive philosophies and considering how the Mavs exposed them defensively in that epic series 3 years ago, why the Spurs STILL do not have the adequate personnel needed to counter this team, yet again, is a mystery?
Personally, I thought that Pop should've stayed with his traditional lineup 3 years ago. We'll never know if that would've been successful. Still, there's no better indication as to why the Spurs have habitually struggled with the Mavs than the reboudning differential. In the past, the Spurs have habitually given this team numerous second-chance opportunities due to their failure to box out on the glass, careless passes, and sloppy ball-handling. All of which lead to extra possessions, which usually lead to points for the opposition. As always, the Spurs margin of error is very slim playing against this team. They MUST take care of the ball, reduce turnovers and more importantly, box out and hit the glass relentessly. I believe they have to win the rebounding battle agaist this team.
Ouch. Sad, but very true. No matter the records of either team, these games are always very evenly matched. Ginobili's absence is an absolute killer for the Spurs. I am hoping they can mask it, at least for one series.
They can thank Avery for that.
Ya know, had the Spurs not got screwed with the schedule, having to play in less than 36hrs. after a flight from Sac to S.A., there isn't a doubt in my mind that the Spurs hold home-court in games 1 and 2.
I've said it before, but the start of that series and the start of the Lakers series from last year were almost identical, impossible, situations for a team as veteran as the Spurs.(Alright, old) The only difference being, when they ran out of gas in game 1 against Dallas, they were able to feed off the crowd and barely hold on, as the legs were giving out.
Game 2, in each series, they got rolled because they weren't able to "fill the cup"(as Pop likes to say) either emotionally or physically.
The Artest foul on Tony happened in Sac. (Game 4? 6?)
The Artest suspension came after an elbow to Manu's head in game 1, IIRC.
It just wasn't in the cards that year.
I'll forever be one bitter son because of all the cir stances that conspired against the Spurs in that series.
It should have been #4, and the back-to-back.
I don't think homecourt advantage means much in a series against the Mavs. Mavs fans pack the AT&T Center (they'll probably pack it even more this year considering Spurs fans aren't buying playoff tickets) and the Mavs are extremely comfortably in the AT&T Center as it is. They are easily the most comfortable team in the league when in San Antonio. This is their second home ... they love playing the Spurs. They have an extra pep in their step every time they play against San Antonio. Homecourt advantage is useful if the other team gets intimidated or is prone to play worse. The sad fact of the matter is the Mavs play better at San Antonio than they do at home against most teams. Why? I'm not exactly sure.
The Spurs, on the other hand, don't play that well in Dallas. They tend to make mistakes and the crowd goes wild when the Spurs are the opponent.
Combine both aspects and the difference in the Spurs having HCA isn't too huge. If the Spurs didn't have HCA, I'd give them about the same chance to win the series because winning one of the first two games could put them in the driver's seat and the Mavs could implode. As it is, the Spurs REALLY need to win both home games to keep the momentum in the series.
"Counting them out" would be 0% or something close two it. 35-40% is a weighted coin flip.
I think the Mavs, for the reasons stated, have the advantage in this series. But the Spurs surely can win it.
And I'm not admitting defeat. I'm admitting that the Mavs are more likely to win the Spurs.
What percentage chance do you give the Spurs to win the championship? And given that percent, does that mean you are counting them out? Does that mean you have admitted defeat?
Thanks in advance.
if both teams play to their full potential then the mavs in 6.
if it comes down to heart and mental toughness, then the spurs should win in 6.
timvp, that's all dandy but its hard to preach Believe when you don't believe yourself...
Sure. I say the Spurs have a 50% chance to win the championship. No, I am not counting them out, and I have not admitted defeat.
You, on the other hand....
edit: christ, finally, someone gets it.
Paraphrasing Pop, HCA is nice to have but not mandatory. Personally, aside from a game 7 situation, I don't really care about HCA. I guess I'm in the minority but I actually like the idea of the Spurs starting a series away from home and stealing a game or two on the opponent's court. But in a game 7, HCA is nice but I'd trade it in a minute for a 80% healthy Manu.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote