Spurs late game defense

[Mel_13]

I apologise. There was a filtering error and that screwed up calculations for 2FG.

This is the accurate one -


Qualitatively speaking, these numbers show very little because there is a lot of noise and the sample size is small - only 21 games where the criteria fits...that is about 105 minutes of play.

However, one can try to make out performances against certain matchups. The Clippers, T'wolves, and the Kings have done the best in clutch situations against the team. It is a case of three point shooting for the Clips, and perhaps frontline depth for the T'wolves and some good interior play for the Kings.

Thanks

[timvp]

I agree with this, but I wasn't suggesting that the Spurs were conceding layups or dunks (although with this small a sample size a few conceded shots could impact the numbers). I was suggesting the possibility that the offense was taking a much higher percentage of their 2pt attempts right at the rim in these late game situations rather than at other points in the game, and a higher % of their jump shots from beyond the arc than normal. If the ratio of close-in shots to 2pt jump shots, and the ratio of 2pt jump shots to 3pt jump shots, is much different in late game situations, that could help account for the strange combination of stats (high 2pt%, low 3pt%, low pts per possession)

I see where you're coming from but I don't see that fitting the actual numbers we're presented. The Spurs allow ~18 three-pointers per 48 minutes on the season. During clutch situations, they allow 20.9 three-pointers per 48 minutes. While that rise in three-point attempts should cause the expected three-point percentage to drop from the typical 36%, I can't see how a drop to 18% could be viewed as sustainable.

And if teams are able to shoot 50% on two-pointers against the Spurs simply by deciding to take more shots at the rim, then that is a whole 'nother issue with San Antonio's defense

Basically, everything is halfway explainable except for that drop in three-point percentage. Going from 18 per 48 minutes to 20.9 per 48 minutes just doesn't explain a 50% drop in percentage, IMO.

[Mel_13]

I see where you're coming from but I don't see that fitting the actual numbers we're presented. The Spurs allow ~18 three-pointers per 48 minutes on the season. During clutch situations, they allow 20.9 three-pointers per 48 minutes. While that rise in three-point attempts should cause the expected three-point percentage to drop from the typical 36%, I can't see how a drop to 18% could be viewed as sustainable.

And if teams are able to shoot 50% on two-pointers against the Spurs simply by deciding to take more shots at the rim, then that is a whole 'nother issue with San Antonio's defense

Basically, everything is halfway explainable except for that drop in three-point percentage. Going from 18 per 48 minutes to 20.9 per 48 minutes just doesn't explain a 50% drop in percentage, IMO.

Thanks for the extra details. I don't think we can know too much for certain given the small sample size.

As to the bolded part, I'm suggesting that the opposition was replacing 2pt jump shots with 3pt jump shots, thus increasing the 2pt % by avoiding the lower % 2pt shots. Over the course of the game that strategy wouldn't work unless you make a very high % of your 3pt shots. Just looking for possible ways to explain a seemingly incongruous set of data.

[GSH]

After some begging, got the numbers:

115 minutes of "clutch" defense
224 defensive possessions
77-187 on field goals
9-50 on three-pointers
42-64 on free throws
205 points

I also asked if any of the fouls were of the hack-a-shaq variety and there were six free throws by Ben Wallace. I looked at the play-by-play and Wallace went 3-for-6 in crunch time that game.

Very interesting numbers.

So the Spurs allow opponents to shoot 49.6% (68-137) on two-pointers during clutch situations, which is even worse than their normal allowed two-point percentage of 48.2%. That's not so good, tbh.

Free throw wise, though, if you take out the Ben Wallace attempts, opponents are 39-58 for 67.2%. That's really not too much of a fluke. Add in three more makes and that percentage is up to a normal-ish 72.4%. Looks like I was wrong about the free throw numbers skewing the numbers ... didn't really make much of difference.

But then that three-point percentage of 18% still looks like a fluke, especially since the two-point percentage is so high. A more reasonable number would be 16-for-50 for 32% (the Spurs usually give up 36% on threes but that's factoring the added pressure). So that's seven made three-pointers for a total of 21 points.

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Damn, so yeah, unfortunately it doesn't look like the Spurs improve defensively in the clutch. I mean, unless you want to argue that 18% on three-pointers is somehow sustainable, it looks like the Spurs defense remains pretty much the same.

Anyone else have a different opinion regarding those numbers? Hopefully I'm missing something when figuring whether or not this is sustainable . . .

There are a couple of things that may be wrong (maybe "misleading" is a better word) with those numbers, and maybe with the logic. I'll put the boring ones in this post, and the really boring ones in a follow-up post:

The easiest is the opponent's 3P%. For example, in the NO game, the Hornets were down by 3 with a few seconds left. They chucked up a desperation 3-pointer at the buzzer, which missed. Those shots probably occur in most "clutch" games, and they add up enough to skew the opponents' shooting percentages. I don't think it's any kind of fluke that opponents are shooting less than well in those clutch situations - especially since we have been leading a lot of them. (Which is why we have won a bunch of them.) I know it also happens at the ends of quarters, but not with anything like the regularity of the ends of clutch games.

"Clutch" time is defined as the last 5 mintues of a game, with the lead being 5 points or less. That means that not all of the possessions inside of 5 minutes will be "clutch time". Your numbers show 115 minutes of "clutch" defense, which sounds like the last 5 minutes from 23 games. Why does it matter? Well, for instance, against OKC, the score was within 5 points at the 5-minute mark, but for the entire last minute the margin was higher than 5 points. Why does that matter? Well, if you include the last minute, OKC chucked up two desperation 3-pointers because they were way behind. Those shots skew the opponent's 3P%. Had they still been within 5 points, they probably wouldn't have taken those shots.

I took a quick look at the NO and OKC games. The Hornets had 10 possessions in the last 5 minutes, and the Thunder had 11. Those would represent game paces of 96 and 105.6, respectively. It just seems odd to me that the Spurs opponents' game pace would be 93.5 overall in those clutch situations. One possibility is that the Spurs are defending against the shots well (low FG%), but not rebounding worth a damn (Offensive rebounds, creating extra-long possessions for their opponents).

Finally, the Spurs have played significantly better in the last 15 games. I count only 3 games in that stretch that had "clutch" minutes at the end of the game. (The margins of victory have been much more than 5 points). Since your numbers include at least 23 games with clutch endings (115/5=23), it stands to reason that the first 20 clutch games occurred in the first 35 games of the season, when they weren't playing as well.

BTW - I also noticed from the NO game that Jarrett Jack chucked up a 3-pointer at the 4:06 mark of the game. But it was also right at the 24 second mark of the possession. Against OKC, Danny Green had 2 steals in the last 5 minutes. Against NO, Jackson and Green both got steals in the last 5 minuts, and we forced Jack to travel. And against Denver, Faried and Anderson missed a bunch of FT's in clutch time, but Anderson is a crappy FT shooter, and Faried is a rookie who you would expect to struggle in those kinds of pressure situations. Don't be too quick to believe that all of the poor shooting against the Spurs in clutch time is a fluke.

[GSH]

Okay - now for the really boring ones:

Look at those desperation shots at the end of clutch games vs. the shots at the ends of other quarters. Aren't those lousy shots at the ends of other quarters averaged into opponents' overall FG%'s? Yep - but there's a difference. Assume that there are an average of 24 shots in most quarters. Those end-of-quarter bricks are averaged in with 23 other "real" shots. BUT... the bricks in clutch time are only averaged in with the other shots in clutch time. Probably about 9-10 other shots. So a missed 3-pointer in clutch time will bring down the clutch-time FG% by a much bigger amount.

Here's an easy example:
Suppose a team was 12/23 for the 1st quarter, and threw up a court-length shot at the buzzer. That miss would take the team from 52% for the quarter, down to 50% for the quarter. (12-23 vs 12-24) NOW - suppose a team had been 5-9 in the last 5 minutes of a game (clutch time), and throws up a prayer at the final buzzer. That miss would take the team's FG% in clutch time from 55.5% down to 50%. (5-9 vs 5-10)

In other words, a desperation shot missed in clutch time reduces the clutch time FG% by a lot more than a "normal" desperation shot missed will reduce overall FG%.

[Brazil]

Great thread !

I have the following feelings when I watch the spurs in that kind of situation but I have no clue if it's just an impression. It seems to me that we have more steals and we allow less offensive rebounds in the clutch situation. Am I dreaming ?

[Spursfanfromafar]

Just to substantiate gsh's point.

My data shows 10 clutch games in january, 6 in february and 5 in march.

[ElNono]

In other words, a desperation shot missed in clutch time reduces the clutch time FG% by a lot more than a "normal" desperation shot missed will reduce overall FG%.

Sure. But 9-50? 1-13? Over 21 games?

Thanks both timvp and Spursfanfromafar for the numbers.

Besides of the sampling amount, there's congruence in that the Spurs would "allow/prefer" to give up 2 pts over 3 pts in such clutch situations when up... thus not surprised to see 2pt % in the clutch to be perhaps higher than normal, and conversely, 3 pt % sinking a bit due to the attention to guarding the perimeter... but those 3 pt % percentages are just too outlandish to be attributed to anything but luck.

[GSH]

Sure. But 9-50? 1-13? Over 21 games?

Thanks both timvp and Spursfanfromafar for the numbers.

First of all, it's 23 games and not 21. And I never said that one thing accounted for all of the low shooting percentage. For one thing, I think improved clutch defense accounts for part of it.

I just quickly went back over the last 10 close games the Spurs have been in. And the team that was losing chucked up a desperation 3 in the closing seconds in 9 of them. And THAT will skew the numbers. [edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

When the Spurs were losing THEY were the ones chucking up the bricks. (One of them was from Duncan.) So that 9-50 could easily be something more like 9-32, if you discount the ones that didn't have a prayer. And if the Spurs have been closing out on 3's even a little bit better in clutch time, that wouldn't be unreasonable.

You can argue my opinions all you want. But this isn't the political forum. My numbers are usually pretty damned good.

[GSH]

Just to substantiate gsh's point.

My data shows 10 clutch games in january, 6 in february and 5 in march.

Thanks, Spursfan. That fits.

And it makes a big difference whether your team is winning the close game, or losing. The team that is behind by 5, with the clock winding down, is a lot more likely to throw up desperation shots. That's going to skew their clutch-time FG% downward. Sometimes by quite a lot, if they chuck multiples. (Remember, it's only 115 total minutes.)

I think it's pretty obvious that the Spurs are playing better defense down the stretch, over the last month or so. And the Spurs have come out on top of most of those, because they were the team winning during clutch time. That, plus the other things I mentioned, would tend to cause the other teams' FG% to be lower in those situations.

[Mel_13]

GSH,

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say last night.

[GSH]

GSH,

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say last night.

Heh... thanks for waking me up, and giving me a chance to delete that stupid comment. I catch enough flak, at the best of times. I'd never hear the end of that one.

BTW - a little sleep went a long way.

[GSH]

.
.
.Timvp - one more thing about this calculation:

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

I'm almost certain that the season Points Per 100 Possessions (Def EFF) is calculated using a formula, rather than counting actual possessions. It's because of the difficulty in counting possessions after the fact. (Here's a very short article, if it matters: http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/ins...on-pop-up.html)

Your calculations appear to use actual counted possessions, during clutch time. Neither way is wrong. (Your way is obviously more accurate.) But it's a problem comparing them to each other. It's almost assured that you will get some variation.

If you use the same calculation on those clutch minutes that is used on the season number, it would probably yield a better (lower) Def EFF than the one you used. (It would tend to give more possessions, when used on those minutes.) Just using a rough estimate, I would guess that the calculated method would show a Def EFF more like 97-98 for those clutch minutes. Since the purpose is just to compare how the Spurs have been defending in the clutch to how they've defended the rest of the time, it's probably valid.

And, remember, you already adjusted the clutch-time Def EFF for what you thought was a more normal FG% and 3P%. I think you went too high with that, because of the last-second bricks I talked about above.

The Spurs are playing better defense in the clutch lately. How much is up for debate... but better.

[mathbzh]

Doing the math, 205 points allowed + 3 for the free throws + 21 for the three-pointers = 229 points when adjusted. 229 points allowed in 224 defensive possessions = 102.23 points allowed per 100 possessions. On the season, the Spurs allow 101.4 points per 100 possessions.

Just nitpicking here but if you adjust FT and 3P shooting you should also adjust 2 pts FG% (luck goes both way)

137*0,482=66

So.. 205-4+3+21=225 points in 224 possessions=100.4 points per 100 possession.

But I am not sure it is relevant to look at these details. As GSH stated, the number are skewed in the first place by the fact we were leading in most games (desperation shot, no need for us to stop the clock...).

[therealtruth]

Another metric would be the number of open shots giving up late in games. I think 82games or some other site used to keep track of open, partially contested, and heavily contested shots.

[ElNono]

First of all, it's 23 games and not 21. And I never said that one thing accounted for all of the low shooting percentage. For one thing, I think improved clutch defense accounts for part of it.

I just quickly went back over the last 10 close games the Spurs have been in. And the team that was losing chucked up a desperation 3 in the closing seconds in 9 of them. And THAT will skew the numbers. [edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

When the Spurs were losing THEY were the ones chucking up the bricks. (One of them was from Duncan.) So that 9-50 could easily be something more like 9-32, if you discount the ones that didn't have a prayer. And if the Spurs have been closing out on 3's even a little bit better in clutch time, that wouldn't be unreasonable.

You can argue my opinions all you want. But this isn't the political forum. My numbers are usually pretty damned good.

Did all those 9 prayers came when the score was within 5? Because that shooting percentage isn't just the last 5 mins, it's also when the score difference is 5 or less.

For example, your Toronto hypothetical wouldn't apply (the score differential was +7).

Also, not all prayer shots are missed shots...

Don't know if there's interest, but I could go back look at some of the games/boxscores and try to determine how many of those actual attempts were prayer shots (what would you use as the criteria? Last 30 secs or within the last 4 secs in the shot clock?).

It's a lot of work, so I rather gauge the interest first...

I think everybody's numbers are "damn good" here. We're all working with basically the same data set...

[GSH]

Did all those 9 prayers came when the score was within 5? Because that shooting percentage isn't just the last 5 mins, it's also when the score difference is 5 or less.

If you check the thread, I'm the one who pointed that out. And the 115 minutes of clutch time in the example is wrong because of it. Tell me what I've already told everyone else. Nice trick.

For example, your Toronto hypothetical wouldn't apply (the score differential was +7).

Excellent analysis. Except for the fact that it was a 3-point game when he took that 3-pointer with a second left on the shot clock. So, except for that being a totally meaningless comment, it truly added a lot to the discussion. You really NEED for me to be wrong, don't you?

Also, not all prayer shots are missed shots...

All of those were.
Ten games was enough to prove the point, but I'll go back farther, if you need the nail driven in deeper.

Don't know if there's interest, but I could go back look at some of the games/boxscores and try to determine how many of those actual attempts were prayer shots (what would you use as the criteria? Last 30 secs or within the last 4 secs in the shot clock?).

It's a lot of work, so I rather gauge the interest first...

I think everybody's numbers are "damn good" here. We're all working with basically the same data set...

The fact, Nono, is that in close games (5 or less points), the team that is trailing usually winds up jacking up bad shots in the final few seconds. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that they almost always do. If they need 2 scores, they have to start a little earlier, and they have to jack the shots up quicker (earlier in the shot clock) to try and have a shot at gettting the second shot opportunity.

That's going to hurt their shooting percentage. And when you're only looking at the last 10 or so shots (last 5 minutes), it's going to hurt that shooting percentage A LOT. I think most people can understand that.

Maybe you just don't want to.

[GSH]

BTW - has everyone seen the NBA's Advanced Player Stat page recently?

http://www.nba.com/advancedstats/pla...splitValue=all


Nearly all of the Spurs players Def EFF gets better in clutch time. If the individual players' defense gets better, it sort of follows that the teams defense gets better.

If you believe that the other teams all sort of go blind, and start missing shots for no reason, then you can say it's just luck. But I think the Spurs have actually played somewhat better D down the stretch.

[TheSkeptic]

BTW - has everyone seen the NBA's Advanced Player Stat page recently?

http://www.nba.com/advancedstats/pla...splitValue=all


Nearly all of the Spurs players Def EFF gets better in clutch time. If the individual players' defense gets better, it sort of follows that the teams defense gets better.

If you believe that the other teams all sort of go blind, and start missing shots for no reason, then you can say it's just luck. But I think the Spurs have actually played somewhat better D down the stretch.

You're right.

I don't know whether to be relieved or annoyed. I get how this gives the Spurs a chance to win games against most teams but I'm not fully convinced this strategy will work against teams like Chicago or Miami.

If the team is using its offense to stay in games and then clamping down at the end, couldn't that backfire against teams that play elite defense from start to finish?

Am I missing something?

[ElNono]

If you check the thread, I'm the one who pointed that out. And the 115 minutes of clutch time in the example is wrong because of it. Tell me what I've already told everyone else. Nice trick.

You can stop patting yourself in the back. The criteria was clearly spelled out in the linked article.

Excellent analysis. Except for the fact that it was a 3-point game when he took that 3-pointer with a second left on the shot clock. So, except for that being a totally meaningless comment, it truly added a lot to the discussion. You really NEED for me to be wrong, don't you?

My comment on the Toronto game was about this part:
[edit: in the other game, Toronto was down by 7 at the end, and just didn't bother to throw up a brick. You could argue that it happens in almost EVERY clutch game.]

Please clearly state next time around that you don't want to discuss your findings or opinion, I'll give you the courtesy of not doing so.

BTW, as I told Mel last night, this isn't about winning, but about having a clearer picture of what we're talking about. We all win when we know what we're looking at. If you're right, you're right. I have no beef at all with that.

All of those were.
Ten games was enough to prove the point, but I'll go back farther, if you need the nail driven in deeper.

What criteria you used for prayer shot?

The fact, Nono, is that in close games (5 or less points), the team that is trailing usually winds up jacking up bad shots in the final few seconds. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that they almost always do. If they need 2 scores, they have to start a little earlier, and they have to jack the shots up quicker (earlier in the shot clock) to try and have a shot at gettting the second shot opportunity.

I would argue that if this is such a natural occurrence, why is it just the Spurs that are singled out for holding opponents to such percentages?
Wouldn't the league overall have similar numbers under the same cir stances?

That's going to hurt their shooting percentage. And when you're only looking at the last 10 or so shots (last 5 minutes), it's going to hurt that shooting percentage A LOT. I think most people can understand that.

Maybe you just don't want to.

If you don't like your argument questioned, just simply state so. I have no problem with that. My questions shouldn't bother you at all, IMO. It gives you another opportunity to present how right you are.

Also, if you want me to add coloring or bolding to my posts, let me know. Thanks.

[GSH]

I would argue that if this is such a natural occurrence, why is it just the Spurs that are singled out for holding opponents to such percentages?
Wouldn't the league overall have similar numbers under the same cir stances?

They probably do. The Spurs seem to jack up a lot of quick 3's when they are behind at the end of a close game. Maybe there are articles on it, or maybe nobody bothered to look at it that way before, or write it up.

If you don't like your argument questioned, just simply state so. I have no problem with that. My questions shouldn't bother you at all, IMO. It gives you another opportunity to present how right you are.

You didn't question it - you dismissed it out of hand. (No - it's just luck.) Only you know why.

Also, if you want me to add coloring or bolding to my posts, let me know. Thanks.

I don't care what you do with your posts. I added the color to make it easy to see my answer, in between your comments. Just like I'm doing now. Bold because I wante to emphasize something. Again - I think most people figured that out.

There's no way to compute clutch defense down to perfection. It's pretty obvious that the less-than-5 point-difference doesn't even get used by everyone. (What do you do when the difference is 5, then goes above 5, then goes below again? It happens often enough.) Even Timvp's examples appeared to use 5 minutes, even when the final difference was more than 5 points.

There's no perfect definition of a "prayer" shot. The point is simply this: the team that is behind at the end of a close game is going to tend to jack up more bad shots than normal - especially if they are behind by more than 1 possession. Sometimes a prayer is a shot taken extra-early in the shot clock, to try and get two possessions. Sometimes it's just a 3-pointer taken, because only a 3-pointer will help. You can't spot that from a box score, or a play-by-play.

The real question is: Are the Spurs simply lucky that their opponents are missing so many shots late in close games - or is there some reason for it? (Or reasons.)

Agreed so far?

So here. I went to as many close games as I could find easily. You're going to see that a LOT of 3-point shots get jacked up by the team that is behind in close games. And a large percentage seem to be less than good shots, and miss. And when you add them all up, they put a significant dent in the opponents 3P% in those clutch minutes. (Without those shots, they would be shooting much closer to a normal percentage. If the Spurs really are defending better, that could account for the rest.

That's the best I can come up with - take it or leave it. Again, I think most people will understand how many missed 3's it represents relative to the number taken in clutch time.

Rockets - Spurs ahead 97-95. Rockets inbound (their end) with 5.3 and take shot at 1.3.
Golden state - Spurs up 99-95 with 27.5 left. Ellis misses a 3 with 16.9. Ellis misses a 3 with 4.9. Lee misses a put-back with 1.8.
Denver - Spurs lead 119-113 with 14.5 left. Nuggets intentional foul. Then they get the ball with 9.9 left and shoot a 3 with 7.6 left. (Made it.)
Milwaukee - Spurs trail 103-106. Jefferson takes a 3 at last instant. Clock reads 0:00 before it gets there.
Rockets - Spurs lead 99-95. Scola takes a 3 with 3.9 left.
Orlando - Spurs lead 85-83. Anderson takes a 3 with 2.9 left.
Kings - Sac leads 88-86. Green takes an infamous runner in the lane with 1.0 seconds left.
Houston - Spurs trail 102-105. Neal takes a 3 with 4.8 left.
Hornets - Spurs lead 104-102. Jack takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00
Dallas - Spurs trail 100-101. Green shoots a 3 with 0.3 seconds left.
Houston - Spurs lead 96-91. Lowry jacks a 3 at 20.9 seconds left, and another at 1.0 seconds left.
Memphis - Spurs lead 87-84. Gay takes a 3 with 8.9 seconds left. Spurs lead by 5, and Mayo takes a 3 with .9 left.
Philly - Spurs lead by 8 with 1:46. Williams take a 3 and makes. Spurs lead by 5. Iguodola takes a 3, 2 seconds into the shot clock.
Detroit - Spurs lead by 3. Gordon jacks a 3, just 2.3 seconds into the shot clock. Spurs leading by 4, Knight shoots a 3 with 2.9 left in the game.
Clippers - Spurs lead by 3. Paul takes a 3 with 1.9 seconds left.
Utah - Spurs lead 106-102. Utah gets the ball with 2.1 seconds left. Milsap shoots a 3 with 1.5 seconds left
Chicago - Spurs trail 86-94. Jefferson jacks a 3 just 3 seconds into the shot clock. (makes) Duncan shoots a 3 with 14.9 left.
Denver - Spurs trail 97-94. Neal takes a 3 with 6.9 left. Neal takes another 3 with .9 left.
OKC - Spurs lead 112-105. Harden takes a quick 3, with 24.9 left. Westbrook takes a quick 3 with 13.9 left.
Dallas - Spurs trail 94-100. Manu takes a quick 3 with 1:29 left. Spurs trail 106-96, Green makes a quick 3 with 35.9 left. Manu takes a quick 3 with 14.9 left.
New Orleans - Spurs lead 89-86. Bellinelli takes a 3 as the clock goes to 0:00
Phoenix - Spurs lead 107-100. Brown takes a 3 with 8.9 seconds left.
Kings - Spurs lead 110-100 with 1:07 left. Thomas jacks a 3 with 1:01 left. Thornton shoots a 3 with :55 left. (makes) Greene makes a 3 with 0.2 seconds left.
Pacers - Spurs lead by 9. West takes a meaningless 3 with 3.0 seconds left.

[timvp]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono?

[GSH]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono?

Nono is one of my favorite people here. Still is.

I said something very unpopular in the political forum. It seems to have made things less... cordial here. It's disappointing.


Edit: Okay. Several unpopular things. But I try to say them in a nice way.

[ElNono]

I got some stuff to add later but what thread did I miss that birthed this animosity between GSH and ElNono?

He probably skipped almost all I wrote last night... it's the only reason I can fathom that he would come to the conclusion that my complete argument is simply "it's just luck" and that I didn't back up the reasoning for that.

Should he have bothered to read, he would realize I already agree with his contention that the Spurs seemingly do try and do better on defense in the last quarter...

But seeing it's very important for him to "win" this argument, he can have it. It really isn't THAT important. Whatever it is, hopefully the Spurs can sustain it. I think it's unlikely, but whatever...

[ElNono]

Nono is one of my favorite people here. Still is.

I said something very unpopular in the political forum. It seems to have made things less... cordial here. It's disappointing.

Edit: Okay. Several unpopular things. But I try to say them in a nice way.

What was that? I don't recall, tbh... You're actually one of many guys I still can have a cordial discussion with, even though we definitely don't agree in a lot of things...