Reply With Quote
I could understand Popa screwing up one game trying small ball just to see how it goes, but for the entire series? This guy had his head between his legs to not see what everyone else does.
That's not by definition. Your logical thinking is very bad.
If you have 84, 48, 65, 80, 72 selected.... and you could choose between additional numbers 54, 51, 30, 18, 10, 40 - what would give you the highest sum of 5 numbers? Certainly not replacing all five of 84, 48, 65, 80, 72, right? If some further calculations need to be done, let me know.
I could understand Popa screwing up one game trying small ball just to see how it goes, but for the entire series? This guy had his head between his legs to not see what everyone else does.
The guys we played during the regular season won 63 games. The guys we played last year in the Finals won an NBA championship.The guys we played didn't win, so by definition the guys who didn't play are better? By that logic, we should have started Beno, Kiwi, and Oberto side by side with Rasho and Nazr.
With a lineup that big, we could dominate.
By all accounts, most people with half a brain would consider those two facts as proof positive that what we had was working.
Ever heard the saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'?
It wasn't broke. Pop was a dumbass for fixing it.
Stick to Window Shopping.
OK fine, I'll give you Nazr...that dude seriously is worthless, he can't catch for .
But Rasho could have helped in most series. Which centers around the NBA would you want on the Spurs that would have helped the Spurs a lot against Dallas?
It was a tough situation, Dirk creates so much trouble for the defense that we have to go small, and Tim obviously has to cover the center in the game.
How would you approach the situation?
Putting Tim on Dirk and having out worthless centers on Dampier/Diop, resulting in an early Tim Duncan foul trouble? or, would you have tried one of the worthless centers on Dirk, straight up, and let Dirk torch them?
If vampires really existed, would they live on the moon?
This isn't a question of replacing one or more known values with others. It's a problem of counterfactual conditionals, and unless we start travelling to alternate universes, we will never know what might have happened if we had tried different strategies.
Saying it must be better or that it couldn't possibly be worse is just foolish.
To see how it goes?Small ball is his new religion! You can't get away from it, that would be sin.
You started with this "absolute" crap and replacing all of our starting five...
If something doesn't work, you are supposed to try something different. Pop didn't do that and this is his mistake. If he would switch to our normal game for 15 minutes and it wouldn't help - fine. But he didn't do that so why don't you talk about "alternate universes" to him?
My point all along was that anybody who says that they know exactly how an different lineup would have done is full of crap.
What about Nazr's 11-minute, 4-foul performance in Game 2 did you think required further scrutiny?
And we even have three guys that could pretend to defend Dirk. Dirk would score the same amount of points (I think so because of FT's normally have bad influence on team's/player's tempo + no 3-pointers) but we would have much better situation in rebounding. Even without the defender in the paint, with tactics like that, there would be less chance for missed shot + offensive rebound after (missed !!) second FT.
That was Game 2, check some other stats for our team... You would just put Nazr in the game and tell him to bang Dirk. Let him shoot FT's, he's good at hitting them but I wrote in the previous post, why I think it would be better for us to play like that. And before someone jumps at me "Dirk shot a lot of FT's and it was baaaad" - the fouls were done by guys that we really need doing other stuff: Manu, Tim even Bowen. these guys got fouled out or came into huge foul troubles and you can't play your A game with 5 fouls (or 4 earlier on). If Rasho or Nazr get 5 fouls - who gives a ? Replace him with the other one and there is still Fabricio, he would be a good Dirk banger.
Your plan is to give a 90% FT shooter a free pass to the line all night?
Read the whole post(s) what would other benefits of this be. And obviously he wouldn't be fouled at every shot. Instead some shots would be heavily contested (even our big guys would make a successful defense from time to time, that's obvious) and resulted in easy miss. Also Dirk is 55-60% from the game, whish is a lot. Not to mention that half of his missed shots were rebounded and scored. Also how many and-1's Dirk had? Seemed like 5 hundred to me.Your plan is to give a 90% FT shooter a free pass to the line all night?
And there is always psychology. Dirk wouldn't be happy about banging him all the time. Also other Mavs players get better momentum when Dirk (or anyone else) scores from the field (esp. driving in and/or dunking) comapred to making FT's.
Our whole team sucked in game 2. Using your logic, we should have finished the series with Marks, Beno, Oberto, Barry, and Bowen.What about Nazr's 11-minute, 4-foul performance in Game 2 did you think required further scrutiny?
OK, but a strategy predicated on fouling a lousy free throw shooter like Shaq rarely works. Even if there are ancillary benefits, trying it on one of the best FT shooters in the league just seems suicidal.
It's seems a lot like a team deciding that they won't contest any of Duncan's shots in the post, in the hopes that Duncan will get tired and our perimeter players will get cold without some shots.
The point isn't to put Dirk on the line. It's to knock the out of him when you have to foul him instead of having to have Duncan step aside while he goes in for a layup because TD can't afford to get in foul trouble.
Yeah, that's never worked before, LA only did it to us twice and now the Mavs did the same :/ After seven years, you'd think Pop would figure it out.It's seems a lot like a team deciding that they won't contest any of Duncan's shots in the post, in the hopes that Duncan will get tired and our perimeter players will get cold without some shots.
Dirk shot a lot of FT's during the series. Did we play hack-a-Dirk tactics? I don't think so. He would have gone to the FT line a couple of times more. The difference would also be that our important players would not be in foul trouble. Plus the other benefits I wrote before.
The bottom line I wrote like 50 times is, that they couldn't do worse on Dirk, he was killing us.
Well, RC's a fellow Aggie, so maybe if you submit your resume, we'll finally get a coach that understands basketball.
Maybe so, because it looks like our coach is regressing.
Here is the stat to end all conversations on this topic.
They had 25+ More Offensive Rebounds in this series...
Do the math.
The math says that's a lot of second chance points. The math also says the small ball sucks.
Wait - there were also some third chance points, the math apologizes.
Yes - Pop was a moron for giving his team with a good chance to win every game (except #2). What a jackass for thinking his experienced, playoff-tested team would be able to pull out a victory in crunch time! What have the Spurs ever done to make him think they were capable of that?!
PLEASE FIRE POP!
Cubes is always on the lookout for our 28th assistant coach...
Like Pop said, if there was a Game 8, Spurs probably win. Cut the guy some slack.
After all, any idiot can make a team the winningest in basketball for a decade, but it takes a supergenius to refuse to make any adjustments in the playoffs.
The team he was playing 48 minutes per game actually nothing, you got that right. It was some other team that had 63 wins in the regular season, and a couple of les.What have the Spurs ever done to make him think they were capable of that?!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
