Game Blog: Lakers @ Spurs, March 12, 2009

[lefty]

(1) No. He wanted to see what the kid could do. But that's no exactly covert ops. Smart coaches do that. Kobe knows what Bruce does and vice versa. It'll be a fun matchup, and I agree that Bruce is still one of the best at what he does, but there's no way Kobe loses it. Kobe may have to work for it, but he'll still get his, and there's still Gasol, Odom, Fisher to worry about too.

(2) In general I agree that Pop will shorten his bench come playoff time. But how is this year's group any better than the one that got spanked last year? Even with Gooden.

Overall ... I'm tired of the excuses. Well, if we'd had a better 1st Q, or if we'd had fewer turnovers, or made FTs, or hadn't played Ime so much, blablabla. That's what losers and Sons fans say (same thing, but whatever). The point is, we lost again to them, just like last year's playoffs, and it is very likely to happen that same way again this year. And Manu and Gooden won't make a darn bit of difference.

(1) I'm not sggesting that Bruce can stop Kobe; but making him work harder, so he can misses a few jump shots is a good thing


With Manu and Gooden, it will make a difference; we played like tonight, but almost made a come back; so imagine at full strength and Pop really coaching

[Ice009]

That's all fine. I like Gooden, thought it was a fine pickup. But to say he's that much better than the bigs we already have is stretching it. Gasol, Odom, and Bynum (when they get his leg reattached) will own him like they own Thomas, Oberto, and Bonner.

If you come with the at ude that you are, which is giving up before the game even starts you've got no chance. Let's just lay it out there and give it a shot huh?

Anyone on this board want to spin it up in the other direction rather than giving up straight away?

[crc21209]

(1) No. He wanted to see what the kid could do. But that's no exactly covert ops. Smart coaches do that. Kobe knows what Bruce does and vice versa. It'll be a fun matchup, and I agree that Bruce is still one of the best at what he does, but there's no way Kobe loses it. Kobe may have to work for it, but he'll still get his, and there's still Gasol, Odom, Fisher to worry about too.

(2) In general I agree that Pop will shorten his bench come playoff time. But how is this year's group any better than the one that got spanked last year? Even with Gooden.

Overall ... I'm tired of the excuses. Well, if we'd had a better 1st Q, or if we'd had fewer turnovers, or made FTs, or hadn't played Ime so much, blablabla. That's what losers and Sons fans say (same thing, but whatever). The point is, we lost again to them, just like last year's playoffs, and it is very likely to happen that same way again this year. And Manu and Gooden won't make a darn bit of difference.

(2). This team is waaaay better than last yrs. team that went down in the WCF's. Hill, Mason, Bonner, Gooden from this year's team > Vaughn, Udoka, and Horry's corpse from last years.

[JohnnySixString]

Have you actually got anything good to say? I'd like to hear something about the game from you other that soft takes.

Obviously I don't get as worked up as you. Get your panties out of a knot already.

And for the record, since you acknowledge you talk out of your ass during the game, why in the should anyone listen to your fairweather ass after the game?

[Don Quixote]

I understand that you are pessimistic about the Spurs chances, but I think that you are underselling Mason and Gooden and making an assumption that Ginobili can't or won't recover.


Mason is a double digit scorer for us and can score more. He also made the team younger.

We don't need a lot to be even with the Lakers. We needed a legitimate second big who can help us rebounding and keep defenses honest. Gooden is that person. And he can definitely fill that role. This game was a perfect illustration of the difference between Bonner as a rebounder and Gooden. And rebounding and second chance points were a major factor in the loss.

We played without our third best player on the team. Now, any team that has lost a player of Ginobili's ability will be significantly weaker. But I'm not going to assume that Ginobili can't come back healthy. The Spurs don't seem to believe that.

So, as most of the posters here have said, with a healthy Manu Ginobili and an assimilated Gooden who plays major minutes, this team can beat the Lakers.

I see what I view as a mistake in your premise: the Lakers are far better than us and we need some huge change and another superstar to beat them. I don't see that as true. WE just needed the improvements that come from Gooden playing more minutes (and knowing the system) and Ginobili healthy. That and Mason and Hill. And that makes us completely capable of beating them and not, in my view, major underdogs. We might be slight underdogs, but no more than slight and I would say that we have an equal shot at winning the series against them.

Another optimist! I hope you folks are right!

I agree that Mason was a great pickup and I love him starting for us. We'll see how he does come playoff time. He wouldn't be the first Spurs shooter to start laying bricks against the Lakers in the playoffs.

Gooden -- a journeyman. Certainly capable of doing most of the things the Spurs want from their bigs. But to say that he'll be the difference maker, I'm skeptical. The Lakers are far better. They lost their 3d best player (Bynum) and they'll still cruise to the Finals. We lost ours and we will flounder in the WCF. (As good a measure as any.)

They might beat the Lakers once or twice. But not 4 out of 7.

[Ice009]

Obviously I don't get as worked up as you. Get your panties out of a knot already.

And for the record, since you acknowledge you talk out of your ass during the game, why in the should anyone listen to your fairweather ass after the game?

You just answered the question. I'm not worked up after the game like I am during the game. Also, I like almost everyone on this board. Don't now about T-Park though . In the game thread I don't mean to be like that it just happens. I'm not trying to make anything personal with anyone on here.

[lefty]

Those things healthy Manu can do the Lakers

[JohnnySixString]

You just answered the question. I'm not worked up after the game like I am during the game.

You must have 3 inches of fur on the end of your shoe from all the puppies you've kicked during the games then.

[Mavs<Spurs]

(1) No. He wanted to see what the kid could do. But that's no exactly covert ops. Smart coaches do that. Kobe knows what Bruce does and vice versa. It'll be a fun matchup, and I agree that Bruce is still one of the best at what he does, but there's no way Kobe loses it. Kobe may have to work for it, but he'll still get his, and there's still Gasol, Odom, Fisher to worry about too.

(2) In general I agree that Pop will shorten his bench come playoff time. But how is this year's group any better than the one that got spanked last year? Even with Gooden.

Overall ... I'm tired of the excuses. Well, if we'd had a better 1st Q, or if we'd had fewer turnovers, or made FTs, or hadn't played Ime so much, blablabla. That's what losers and Sons fans say (same thing, but whatever). The point is, we lost again to them, just like last year's playoffs, and it is very likely to happen that same way again this year. And Manu and Gooden won't make a darn bit of difference.

So the syllogism runs as follows:

1. Lakers beat the Spurs last year in the playoffs when we didn't have Gooden or Mason or Hill and beat the Spurs in a regular season game tonight when Gooden played his first minutes for the Spurs ever and played less than four minutes and Manu didn't play at all.

2. ???? The question means I'm not certain what other axiom you would place here. It appears to be: what happened in the past will certainly happen again. Or something similar.

3. Therefore, when the Spurs have assimilated Gooden and play him major minutes and when Manu returns, the Spurs will have no shot at beating the Lakers in the playoffs this year.



Now, that's an interesting syllogism.

Axiom 2 seems very shaky to me. I would need a proof of 2. And no hand waving proof either. You can try to prove it by induction, by contradiction, using an indirect or even a direct argument.

And as the cir stances are undeniably different now then they were last year, even 2 doesn't actually hold up. Mason was not on the team last year. Neither was Gooden. Ginobili might / is expected to be healthy when he returns.

So, please prove axiom 2.

Otherwise, I must say that you have not proved your theorem.

I mean a rigorous proof (ie like we use in math).

[Don Quixote]

(2). This team is waaaay better than last yrs. team that went down in the WCF's. Hill, Mason, Bonner, Gooden from this year's team > Vaughn, Udoka, and Horry's corpse from last years.

You are correct there. It's still not even close in quality to L.A.'s bench, but that might make the final score a bit more respectable at least.

What matters is the final score. And this Laker team has beaten the Spurs consistently, time and again, for the past year and a half. And there's no great reason to expect things to be different this time. You say the Spurs will play better, coach better, tighten it up. Well, so will the Lakers. And they don't even need to have their A-game to win it, like we do.

Don't get me started on my Sisyphus analogy, or asking which Spur starters would crack the Laker rotation (answer:2).

[Horse]

Do you really think Manu and Drew are going to make that much of a difference in the playoffs? Sure ... it's possible, but not likely. And certainly, to suggest that they absolutely WILL get us over the hump is absurd. That's just grasping at that point.

I've thought all year that the Spurs should be able to handle any comers in the WC playoffs ... UNTIL they have to play the Lakers. Then it will a totally different story. It will be a repeat of tonight and last year's playoffs.

Are there any reasons to expect any different of a result from last year's 4-1 faceplant? Any rational reasons, that is?

Real simple Manu, And I truely believe we win last season if he's healthy. Also Gooden he really will help another big body and he rebounds, scrotum and gaysol can't just focus on Tim with Gooden in there, He can score.

[Don Quixote]

So the syllogism runs as follows:

1. Lakers beat the Spurs last year in the playoffs when we didn't have Gooden or Mason or Hill and beat the Spurs in a regular season game tonight when Gooden played his first minutes for the Spurs ever and played less than four minutes and Manu didn't play at all.

2. ???? The question means I'm not certain what other axiom you would place here. It appears to be: what happened in the past will certainly happen again. Or something similar.

3. Therefore, when the Spurs have assimilated Gooden and play him major minutes and when Manu returns, the Spurs will have no shot at beating the Lakers in the playoffs this year.



Now, that's an interesting syllogism.

Axiom 2 seems very shaky to me. I would need a proof of 2. And no hand waving proof either. You can try to prove it by induction, by contradiction, using an indirect or even a direct argument.

And as the cir stances are undeniably different now then they were last year, even 2 doesn't actually hold up. Mason was not on the team last year. Neither was Gooden. Ginobili might / is expected to be healthy when he returns.

So, please prove axiom 2.

Otherwise, I must say that you have not proved your theorem.

I mean a rigorous proof (ie like we use in math).

I love syllogisms. I have heard that one of the pimary tasks of philosophy is to analyze propositonal statements. I do make propositions, but no syllogism was intended, my friend. At least not up to now. I am actually agreeing that the mythical healthy Manu and Drew will improve the Spurs' odds slightly. My proposition is that any adjustments we make between now and June won't amount to much against L.A., although they might make life against New Orleans or Utah easier.

If I may offer one, though ...
(1) Better teams beat inferior teams the majority of the time.
(2) The Lakers consistently beat the Spurs. Not always, but usually.
(3) Therefore, we have no prima facie reason to expect any different of a result this June.

[Mavs<Spurs]

Speaking of 2, I'm still waiting on a proof of axiom 2.

But I just hear crickets (analogous to not reading an answer to my comment).

[Don Quixote]

Well, I've said all I needed to. And I didn't have to go into my Lakers-are-better-at-every-position rant. Let's see if I'm wrong come June. But I don't think so. I'd be willing to lay some real American dollars on it too, if gambling were legal, Godly, or moral.

[Mavs<Spurs]

I love syllogisms. I have heard that one of the pimary tasks of philosophy is to analyze propositonal statements. I do make propositions, but no syllogism was intended, my friend. At least not up to now. I am actually agreeing that the mythical healthy Manu and Drew will improve the Spurs' odds slightly. My proposition is that any adjustments we make between now and June won't amount to much against L.A., although they might make life against New Orleans or Utah easier.

If I may offer one, though ...
(1) Better teams beat inferior teams the majority of the time.
(2) The Lakers consistently beat the Spurs. Not always, but usually.
(3) Therefore, we have no prima facie reason to expect any different of a result this June.

You must define your terms more carefully (ie Lakers and Spurs). You are aware that the Celtics of Russell which won quite a bit (11 of 13) don't play today, right?

You also must prove that these Lakers are better than these Spurs in Late May and you make the assumption that the changes in interim won't matter much.

You can't assume what you wish to prove. That is called circular reasoning.

My use of syllogisms is in mathematics, not philosophy. Almost all we do are prove mathematical theorems. That's pretty much it.

An assertion isn't a proof.

[milkyway21]

18-pt deficit in the 1Qtr down to just 2 in the 4th....

[Don Quixote]

Speaking of 2, I'm still waiting on a proof of axiom 2.

But I just hear crickets (analogous to not reading an answer to my comment).

[Gets out a can of Raid]

No, I get your objection. And I read it. I had not offered a rigorous argument up to that point, but I get what you are saying. Premise 2 is generally reasonable, although I affirm it with far less certainty than you ascribe to me. I am not saying that things in the future are CERTAIN to be like they are in the past (in this very limited discussion, the playoffs, that is). I am saying that this year's playoffs are highly likely to turn out the same.

On the other hand, could we have developed science without at least taking (2) for granted? Anyway ...

[Ice009]

You must have 3 inches of fur on the end of your shoe from all the puppies you've kicked during the games then.

I'll try and lay off a bit.

[Mavs<Spurs]

[Gets out a can of Raid]

No, I get your objection. And I read it. I had not offered a rigorous argument up to that point, but I get what you are saying. Premise 2 is generally reasonable, although I affirm it with far less certainty than you ascribe to me. I am not saying that things in the future are CERTAIN to be like they are in the past (in this very limited discussion, the playoffs, that is). I am saying that this year's playoffs are highly likely to turn out the same.

On the other hand, could we have developed science without at least taking (2) for granted? Anyway ...

Okay, fine. My only point is that while your view has merit and has some arguments for it, it is not certain and others (like me) do have some meritorious arguments for our belief as well.

But, we can move on.

Both of us want the Spurs to win.

[Don Quixote]

You also must prove that these Lakers are better than these Spurs in Late May and you make the assumption that the changes in interim won't matter much.

You can't assume what you wish to prove. That is called circular reasoning.

My use of syllogisms is in mathematics, not philosophy. Almost all we do are prove mathematical theorems. That's pretty much it.

An assertion isn't a proof.

You don't like my very inductive, a posteriori reasoning. Very well then. I don't claim to have an a priori basis for my belief. My conclusion is based on my observation of the evidence: better teams beat lesser ones, the Lakers pretty consistently beat the Spurs, and I don't see any major reasons to believe that the Spurs will get that much better in 2mo to mount a serious challenge to L.A.

I also see how (2) looks like (3) and could be seen as question-begging. perhaps it is. But (2) is past tense and (3) is future.

Lastly, you don't want to suggest that maths and philosophy are all that separate. Aristotle, Newton, and Descartes would hit you in the face with a hammer!

[ThaiFanofSpurs]

I am not happy with the loss... but there are some positive things from this game that make me believe more and have more faith in my team.

1. Our additions of Hill, Mason, and Gooden will give us more oftions for game plans in the playoffs. That will give us more rest for Tim, Tony and Manu throughout the playoffs.
2. Manu should come back 100% or at least almost 100% healthy. I am sure Manu is still Manu who can make the different outcome when he is healthy. And he is the energy and spirit of the team.
3. I am convinced that since the playoffs in 2003-4 when Tony lost to the Lakers, he was intimidated by the Lakers. Now he has broken that funk and I believe that he will bring his best to play the Lakers from now on. Like Ice009 and lefty said, Tony and Manu together, we should be great when we play them again.
4. Timmy always plays better in the playoffs. Hopefully, today's game was just another game that he didn't place much importance upon. In the playoffs, we need to see that leadership in him again.
5. Pop should have a lot of things to think about after this game (his experiment.)
6. I am sure that the Spurs can beat any team in the playoffs including the Lakers. The Spurs as a team can play well on the road in the playoffs. I know the HCA will be good but if we want to win it all we have to beat any team anywhere we play. Hopefully, the Lakers will make it to the WCF and that we will play them again.

Go Spurs Go!

[Cry_For_Me_Sky]

I'm new on here BTW, FROM SA 210!! IMO, lakers beat an injured Spurs. That was NOT Spurs basketball at all! When Spurs have their full line up and healthy, they dominate. They are unpredictable. By the way, Gooden did a pretty good job for playing such a short time. So i'm looking foward to seeing him on the court more.. Anyway.. this win doesn't matter right now.. We'll see when it comes to playoff time..

[The_Game]

I'm new on here BTW, FROM SA 210!! IMO, lakers beat an injured Spurs. That was NOT Spurs basketball at all! When Spurs have their full line up and healthy, they dominate. They are unpredictable. By the way, Gooden did a pretty good job for playing such a short time. So i'm looking foward to seeing him on the court more.. Anyway.. this win doesn't matter right now.. We'll see when it comes to playoff time..

don't act like lakers were healthly either

[The_Game]

lets hope so....won't be much of a series if they aren't.

[Cry_For_Me_Sky]

don't act like lakers were healthly either

i know they are not healthy either.. but i'm just hoping Manu and Bynum get better, so that way we can have a good game if they meet again this season.. but that was not Spurs basketball at all tonight.. yes they hit them 3 pointers.. but where was the rest? i just hope everyone is healthy come playoff time..