Why wasn't Timmy in that last defensive sequence to secure rebound?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is a post that shows sound basketball knowledge, as well as rationalism.
And it is NOT Pop homerism, dispute what some will try to spin it to.
I commend you!

For the most part that is not rationalism. I am talking about basing decisions on empirical findings, not deducing anything.

Using 'big words' that you do not understand by your definition is.....

[Obstructed_View]

My issue is people talk about this like he was almost trying to lose the game.. Obviously that lineup in that situation worked for him in the past or he would not have used it.. Pop did not pull that one out of his ass and just say out of blue

Bench Duncan why not??

To an extent I agree with you, insofar as I'm sure he wasn't trying to lose the game, but here's the thing: Pop plays this "Aw shucks I'm just a lucky idiot with good players" routine with the reporters, but based on some of these lineups, you get the idea that he reads the stories where people say what a brilliant coach and tactician he is. Then he feels the need to put his imprint on the game, like putting Richard Jefferson in with five seconds to go guarding Amare in the post when the Spurs are up by 1. Coaching in the NBA is the most unimportant of the major pro sports because historically the team with the best players wins. Getting cute when you have an advantage is stupid. I can't get away from that conclusion.

Looking back from now, Pop has no history of success replacing Duncan with Diaw in crunch time. What he has instead is a history of making questionable lineup and personnel decisions that cost his team. The 2006 Spurs with their centers in the rotation were the best team in the league. The 2006 Spurs after he benched them were barely over .500 and lost a game seven at home. Pop suddenly decided to take a 63 win team and go small with no past success doing it. Sound familiar?

[anakha]

Looking back from now, Pop has no history of success replacing Duncan with Diaw in crunch time. What he has instead is a history of making questionable lineup and personnel decisions that cost his team.

Dunno if this totally answers your question, but I did post an article that suggests that Pop may have statistical basis (and results) for going without Duncan to defend a lead in the final seconds:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...s-sans-duncan/

[Obstructed_View]

Dunno if this totally answers your question, but I did post an article that suggests that Pop may have statistical basis (and results) for going without Duncan to defend a lead in the final seconds:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...s-sans-duncan/

I stand corrected on that point. That's a good article.

[anakha]

I stand corrected on that point. That's a good article.

It's all good. I was surprised myself that sitting Duncan to defend a lead was that established a practice already.

[Seventyniner]

I see this as a battle between results-based thinking and decision-based thinking.

Let's say you are playing blackjack and are dealt a beautiful 7-4 from a freshly shuffled shoe with the dealer showing a 5. Doubling down is clearly the correct play.

Now pretend that you have faced that exact situation 12 times before. In the first 11, you were playing $25 a hand and won 9 of them. In the 12th situation, you decided to bet $2000 on the hand. On that hand, you doubled down, pulled a 9 to make 20, and watched in shock as the dealer flipped over a 9 of his own and proceeded to get a 2 and a 5 in that order, making 21 to beat your 20.

Would that turn of events cause you to just hit in that situation from that point forward? Or would you write it off as a fluke?