Why Pop Why?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You'd have me if Horry hadn't also started Games 5 & 6 vs. Sacramento and if that decision hadn't been predicated almost exclusively on how poorly Rasho and Nazr were playing by the end of that series. In Game 1 of the Dallas series, Pop just carried over the lineup and rotations that he had been using at the end of the Sac series. That exclusion of Rasho and Nazr from that lineup and that rotation were, IMO, the product of the complete ineffectiveness of either Rasho or Nazr.

What the remainder of the Dallas series showed was that Robert Horry was also unable to play effectively.

FWD,

Again, Pop never even tried to see if it would work in the Dallas series. As you noted, it was clear that Horry was completely ineffective in the Dallas series. I guess you can call it the old college try on that if you want, point is we never will know because Pop never tried.

As to your other comment, I don't think it's that Pop puts his ego ahead of the team, it's about him being stubborn in his ways. To me there's a difference between ego and stubborness, and Pop's problem is the latter, not the former.

[greyforest]

malik blows

i call him foulik

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD,

Again, Pop never even tried to see if it would work in the Dallas series. As you noted, it was clear that Horry was completely ineffective in the Dallas series. I guess you can call it the old college try on that if you want, point is we never will know because Pop never tried.

I can see that. I certainly understand and, as always, respect your argument, even though I disagree with its premise. I'm still convinced that Pop never tried because he had plenty of reason to believe that he already knew what the result was going to be.

I think it's plausible that if Pop had gone with big ball, the Spurs would have never seen Game 7, because they might have been eliminted by Game 5.

At the same time, I have no way of proving conclusively that the Spurs wouldn't have swept the Mavericks and romped to another le.

r other comment, I don't think it's that Pop puts his ego ahead of the team, it's about him being stubborn in his ways. To me there's a difference between ego and stubborness, and Pop's problem is the latter, not the former.

I take Pop's actions during the 2006 playoffs as something other than stubborn. Had Pop been completely stubborn, he would have never made changes at any point along the way. I thought Pop was constantly working during both series to find solutions to a series of problems that his roster was ill-equipped to handle. It may be that his solutions were, in the end and by some objective criteria, not the best choices available; but I'm content that the actions taken were the best choices that could have been made, all things considered.

On a personal note -- I've tried to avoid characterization around here and tried to stay fairly objective whenever possible. As such, I hadn't ever really thought about it before, but this offseason has proven that I'm an unabashed Pop backer. I think in the vast majority of situations this franchise has faced over the last 10-12 years, Pop has done a magnificent job of getting the right things done to put banners in the rafters. I hadn't really considered my own loyalty to Popovich before this summer, but I'm obviously outing myself as a Pop loyalist here and now.

[STEVEYCU]

The Mavs didnt want to win the le they cared more about beatin the Spurs that was as Cuban said there greatest acomplishment in the teams history, so every player on the team tried harder aginst the Spurs, and thats why Miami pretty much swept the Mavs outa a lousy finals and why Dallas wont win a championship. They only care about beatin the Spurs

[FromWayDowntown]

FWD,

I agree with you that rebounding was the big issue in both the Sacramento and Dallas series. What I completely disagree with you is that Nazr or Rasho were the problem, and furthermore, that Horry, Finley, Barry and/or Bowen playing PF was the solution.

Let's take a look at this issue more closely. The following is the list of best defensive rebounders in the playoffs, sorted by defensive rebound percentage, i.e. the total number of defensive rebounds they got as a function of the total number of rebounding opportunities.

Player   DR     DRC       DR%*
Duncan	104	424	24.5%
Rasho	 23	116	19.8%
Nazr	 16	 93	17.2%
Horry 	 29	217	13.4%
Finley 	 48	367	13.1%
Gino	 50	388	12.9%
Barry	 29	277	10.5%
Bowen    22	400	 5.5%

DR: total defensive rebounds
DRC: total defensive rebounds chances
DR%: percentage of defensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com

The best defensive rebounder is, not surpringsinly, Tim Duncan. The second and third best are Rasho and Nazr, in that order. Perhaps more telling is that neither Horry, nor Finley are exceptional defensive rebounders, in fact the rebound at almost the same rate than our starting SG. That is horrid for our PF and SF, and we got beaten badly on the glass precisely because of this. Lastly, but not least, it is imperative for the Spurs system that they get size and rebounds in the paint to compensate and balance the team because our starting SF is one of the worst defensive and offensive rebounders in the league, and he gets a significant amount of playing time (this is not a knock on Bruce, he is what he is and he brings other positive aspects to the game, but it forces you to compensate and balance the team out).

Rick -- those numbers don't really surprise me, but I also find from my own rewatching of games and the numbers reported in boxscores that the numbers for Rasho and Nazr during the 2006 playoffs are somewhat skewed because of when they played. Nazr's rebounding percentages look decent enough, but you'll note that he grabbed a significant number of his rebounds (11 of 25) in garbage time in Games 4 and 6 of the Sacramento series. Indeed, if you rule out Game 1, where the Spurs shooting percentage was astronomical and the Kings had yet to begin crashing the boards, Rasho and Nazr were downright invisible as a rebounding tandem. The number of rebounds relative to the chances available is interesting to a degree, but it doesn't account for the number of times that Sacramento wings were able to grab offensive boards when Rasho or Nazr were nearby and were out-hustled or out-muscled for rebounds. That number doesn't show up in the 82games calculation and it is, I think, the number that resulted mostly in the extinction of Rasho and Nazr as rotation players during the 2006 Playoffs.

Could they have done more than Horry did? Perhaps -- but at least against Sacramento, the Spurs defensive rebounding percentages went up as Rasho and Nazr's minutes dipped. Here is a rough calculation of the game-by-game defensive rebounding percentages (calculated as DREB/(DREB+Opp OREB)):

Game 1: 39/52 = 75.0%
Game 2: 27/41 = 65.9%
Game 3: 29/44 = 65.9%
Game 4: 24/35 = 68.6%
Game 5: 33/44 = 75.0%
Game 6: 29/39 = 74.4%

The number of Spurs' defensive rebounds relative to all rebounds available at the Spurs' defensive end of the floor improved by a fairly significant margin in Games 5 & 6. Is there any way to prove that the increase is dependent on the absence of Rasho or Nazr? I don't know, but the simplified proof would suggest at the very least that for some reason, the Spurs did a better job in percentage terms of keeping the Kings off the offensive boards without the centers.

Let's take a look now at how the Spurs attack the offensive glass and created further opportunities in the playoffs.

Player  OR      ORC      OR%*
Nazr	15	 80	18.8%
Horry 	19	192	 9.9%
Duncan	33	398	 8.3%
Rasho	 7	100	 7.0%
Gino	 9	341	 2.6%
Bowen    6	363	 1.7%
Barry	 3	254	 1.2%
Finley 	 1	317	 0.3%

OR: total offensive rebounds
ORC: total offensive rebounds chances
OR%: percentage of offensive rebounds

* Source: http://www.82games.com

The first thing you notice is how good Nazr is on the offensive glass... his percentage doubles the second best in the team. The second point is that Horry is still pretty good on the offensive glass, even better than Tim and Rasho. The last point worth mentioning is that Finley, Barry and Bowen are horrid offensive rebounders, and they managed to combine for one more offensive rebound that our starting SG.

Ultimately, I think Pop's decision came down to evening out the defensive glass and I don't know that he was going to be swayed by the prowess of either Rasho or Nazr on the offensive glass if neither was aiding in controlling the other end. I certainly see your point and think you make a persuasive argument, but I can understand why Pop didn't see it that way.

[CaptainLate]

Answer: Money.

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.

So we waste the primes of Tim and Manu. Parker has a ways to go but if this continues, he will get disgruntled and ask to leave.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.

So we waste the primes of Tim and Manu. Parker has a ways to go but if this continues, he will get disgruntled and ask to leave.

If the Spurs get the same production out of Butler and Elson that they got out of Rasho and Nazr for half the cost, how does that make them cheap?

[Obstructed_View]

Exactly. Same reason Rasho was shipped off. Fiscally conservative (read cheap) Peter Holt will never be mistaken for Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, the Maloof bros, et al.

And thank almighty Jesus for that. For all their spending, the above have a total of one WNBA le.