Why was Kidd on the bench at the end?

[Obstructed_View]

Regular season results don't matter, right?

When you fundamentally change the way you play with only part of your lineup having to learn to play out of position on the fly against good teams, you sure hope nobody notices the regular season record.

If I remember correctly, they split the season series 2-2 that year, each team getting a W on the other's court. Pop goes small against the Mavs because he doesn't feel he has anybody that can consistently guard Dirk well, and he doesn't want to risk Timmy getting into foul trouble by doing it himself, plus Dirk can take him out to the elbows or free-throw line extended and away from the basket. Against Dallas, surrounding Duncan with four wings leads to the best results offensively.

If I remember correctly, the second to last game between them was the big one, where the Mavericks and their fans had decided it was going to be the test of whether they were ready to beat the Spurs. The Spurs beat them pretty easily with their traditional lineup. The decision to bench the centers had more to do with Nazr hitting that three in garbage time against the Kings or Bonzi Wells playing for a contract than it did about anything basketball related. Pop had started trotting those stupid lineups out before the Mavericks or Spurs advanced to the second round. The Spurs scored 115 points per game in the first two games of the series against the Kings, and that was with their center rotation getting full minutes. Pop reduced their minutes as the playoffs went along.

Dirk might score 40 points but if the defense can keep everyone else from going off, blocking shots in the paint and not having to double team every single ball handler in order to keep them out then the Spurs have a chance. Smallball doesn't do that. Period. Therefore the Mavs shoot 75 percent in the first quarter and build an insurmountable lead. The only upside for the Spurs now is that they have experience playing small lineups and can play decent defense with it. There's really not any excuse for their having lost in 2006, but there's certainly none now if they should meet up in the playoffs.

And about your "best results offensively" comment, check to see who was in the rotation when the Spurs started the year 17-3 and were scoring a lot of points. Either Elson or Oberto were on the floor the vast majority of the time.

[Findog]

When you fundamentally change the way you play with only part of your lineup having to learn to play out of position on the fly against good teams, you sure hope nobody notices the regular season record.

So we get a ring now for the regular season. Good.

If I remember correctly, the second to last game between them was the big one, where the Mavericks and their fans had decided it was going to be the test of whether they were ready to beat the Spurs. The Spurs beat them pretty easily with their traditional lineup.

That game went down to the final two minutes, the game where Robert Horry went Mike Tyson on Jerry Stackhouse. We beat your traditional lineup the next month in San Antonio. The reason Pop went small against the Mavs was the combination of Josh and Dirk. Stick Bowen on Howard, and you risk Duncan getting into foul trouble going up against Dirk and being drawn away from the basket. If I remember correctly in that April game, you guys were killed by having Josh endlessly receive passes from Dirk at the elbow on baseline cuts. And the way it worked out, with Bowen on Dirk, Rasho/Nazr on Dampier, Manu on Terry and Parker on Harris, that left a mismatch of Duncan on Howard. The Spurs went small to match Dallas being small, because we were more athletic. Pop essentially decided that the only way he was going to beat Dallas was to outscore them.

The decision to bench the centers had more to do with Nazr hitting that three in garbage time against the Kings or Bonzi Wells playing for a contract than it did about anything basketball related.

The decision to bench the centers was because that Spurs team didn't have answers for both Josh AND Dirk, and Pop essentially went with a let's try to outscore them approach. But hey, what does Pop know? He only has four rings.

And about your "best results offensively" comment, check to see who was in the rotation when the Spurs started the year 17-3 and were scoring a lot of points. Either Elson or Oberto were on the floor the vast majority of the time

I wasn't talking about this year's Spurs team. I thought I made it clear, that against that 06 Dallas team, anyway, the Spurs were at their best offensively with Duncan and four wings. Honestly, more than Harris and Diop playing in the Least now, Udoka being a lanky forward that is the Dirk-stopper prototype and being able to stay on the floor offensively by being a good 3-point shooter, that equalizes your team against us more than anything else. Bowen is much more effective on Josh than Dirk, because his biting, kicking, flopping, slapping tactics aren't as effective on a 7-foot wing player that can shoot over him than they are a hot-headed small forward that sometimes acts like a mental midget.

[Findog]

However, that will never happen since he has never shown evidence of being a killer.
.

Whatever else can be said of Dirk's shortcomings against Miami and Golden State, Spurs fans of all people can't possibly make this claim. His anti-clutch reputation is there for a reason, but it's vastly exaggerated. Never shown evidence of being a killer? You want to rethink that a little bit?



The guy who dropped 50 on the Suns when his team was in danger of losing the pivotal fifth game in the conference Finals, then followed it up with a good performance in a close-out game on the road to clinch a Finals berth? Not a killer? The guy who is 5-0 in Game Sevens, and he came up clutch in four of those, that guy is not a killer? There's no getting around that he came up short against Miami* and Golden State, but that is nothing more than cherrypicking.

* He actually played very well in the final two games of the Finals and did what he was supposed to do to win games for his team. You're talking about a series in which the Heat won 3 games by a grand total of 6 points. I'm not making excuses, ultimately Miami made more plays than the Mavericks, but you're literally talking about one or two different bounces of the basketball from that series turning out very different.

I don't mind people referencing the last two playoff exits and questioning whether or not he'll ever lead his team to the promised land, but nothing gets me on the soapbox quicker than statements such as yours, which are foolish and stupid.

[DAINTX]

Dallas has at least 5 better shooters and had no problem getting looks.

[SenorSpur]

During the Mavs press conference to announce Kidd's arrival, Avery went to great lengths to "beat everyone down" with all of Kidd's attributes. He even resorted to using football analogies to describe his attributes.

"Kidd is gonna help us close out games better, close out series' better. It'll be good having a quarterback who can help us score touchdowns, when we get into the red zone."

Huh?

If you listen to his explanation of his decision, it has holes all over it. He wanted to get his shooters on the court to "open the floor up for Dirk in that situation". Well, why was Dampier on that court at that time? Why couldn't allow his PG to setup at the top, spread the shooters around the perimeter and allow Kidd to do what he does best?

Anyway, with all that said, there's only one explanation for Avery keeping Kidd on the bench. Avery is a tight-assed, egotistical, control-freak, who isn't secure enough, as a coach, to trust a superstar point guard during the waning minutes of a close ball game against a rival opponent. He's a goddamn tyrannt, who is bent on coaching every play of every possession, despite his claims that he'd rather not do so.

Kidd has more "skins on the wall" than Avery ever did as a player or coach. With all the national furor over this decision, he HAS NOT and WILL NOT admit that he made an error in judgement. He stands firmly and stubbornly behind his decision. In fact, he's gone so far as to blame the media for "fanning the flames" of, what he refers to as, "poisonous journalism". Give me a break!