Reply With Quote
he disagrees with my thread
Obviously you can't ing read. I already nailed you down on this after you went AWOL after the 1st two Spurs losses when Ibaka returned.
This , for example, is just gibberish. There's no way in you could possibly know that Ibaka didn't make a difference in the outcome. Interestingly enough all of the pundits (people who know the game) said Ibaka made all the difference in those two games, but somehow your crystal ball to a parallel universe tells you differently and someone here is supposed to give your hypothetical credence.
Idiot.
actually with ibaka missing games 1-2, had OKC come back to complete the backdoor sweep, it would have completely debunked OP, since they would have had to win in san antonio. amb made his claim that the home court was a bigger variable than ibaka, and the game 5 destruction confirmed it to an extent. i think ibaka played well in OKC, but watching the games i observed the spurs missing a great deal of uncontested looks that had nothing to do with ibaka. every uncharacteristic turnover or missed shot was instantly attributed to "the ibaka effect" even when he had no role in the play at all
Wow. You don't even know my background.Dad Killer fan accusing others of being media sheep..
I hate Jordan, think he's overrated (to a degree), but he is undoubtedly better than Lebron.
Just calling it like it is.
You gotta be kidding me. Lebron is the most loved for a while now.
Yeah he deserved it, greatest prime since early 2000 shaq or even better. But I'm not sure he deserves the almost sexual level man love CN has for him.
What does that have to do with the subject? If Duncan missed the first two games and the spurs were down 0-2, I would've called a sweep.
I don't blame you because that was on another thread, but I already called spurs in 5 without Ibaka and 7 with him BEFORE game 1. I also reiterated that multiple times before game 5, so your crap take still remains a crap take.
Btw, great reading on your end.
pointless hyperbole when getting nailed.
And game 5 proved me right. Things like watching the game and seeing how the spurs played with vs without Ibaka showed me that the spurs would've lost both games one way or another.
Your reliance on other peoples points further proved my point about you being a media regurgitAting drone.
Thanks.
Pop adjusted. If he had played Tiago-Timmy together, which is what got our Spurs to the WCF and the 2-0 lead, the return of Ibaka could've made the difference tbh.
It did change the series and Pop countered nicely.
monkey boy having a meltdown
Been a while since I've ventured downstairs and just now noticed this thread. My thoughts:
1) Thunder probably win with a healthy Ibaka. It took a crazy dunk from their 3rd string PG for the Spurs to realize that Serge isn't Prime Hakeem tbh. They probably would have split the first two games and it would have been a dogfight for 6-7 games.
2) Nobody will care about Serge being out for the first 2 games except for OKC fans and Laker fans still around on Spurstalk. Just like how nobody brings up Manu being out for Game 1 against Memphis except for Spurfan.
I could not care less if Ibaka, KD, LeBron, Wade, etc. were out these playoffs.
The only thing that matters is that Duncan rings.
4 words: Points in the paint
Look at those before and after Serge. That's really all that needs to be said.
I am not convinced that Serge wasn't worse off in games 5 and 6, he wasn't as spry and though he had a couple decent moves, he was still at least a step slow. If the Thunder take one of the 1st two in SA, it's a difference series, and Ibaka being fully healthy really changes things because then no need for all the shuffling of the lineup.
Cause and effect, butterfly effect.. all that. It all changes the outcome. Thinking having your starting center out and/or playing injured in a series doesn't affect the outcome when the affected team swept you in the regular season is just ridiculous. It's the sign of wishful thinking and overrating your team, especially considering both coaches and all the players made the connection.
ibaka looked plenty spry in the 4th and OT of game 6, and thats after extended minutes of play. yeah, the points in the paint dropped off. i dont think anybody, myself or OP thought ibaka would have zero impact on the games. but would he single handedly alter the results? thats a tougher call to make
So you think the players would have done the exact same things, except someone photoshopped out Serge, or that's how your post reads. You cannot watch a game and decide how it would have gone if the starting center for one team was out, or any of the key players tbh. That's why the term "key" is used.
No Ibaka in game 3, Spurs don't need to change anything. They just keep attacking the paint. They don't have to hit outside shots, Tony keeps dominating inside. If the Thunder double Tony with no inside help, they'd get even more destroyed.
It's not about what Serge did. It's about what the Spurs didn't do because Serge was in the game. There's a lot more variables than you're accounting for.
No, why are you using "single handedly"? Did Bonner single handedly change the game? He didn't score a single point. Of course not, but how the team had to cover for him, how they had to consider he was out there and move out to defend him, that made a difference. Small differences can pay big dividends over time.
Last night, the Spurs could have easily lost that game. Tell me that Manu doesn't get that shot to go instead of getting it blocked (goal tending or not). Tell me that the Thunder go on that run down 12 or 14 to tie the game if Serge isn't defending the paint forcing the Spurs to shoot long 3's.
No player changes the game single handedly, not even MJ did that. It's how the other team responds to him and how his team's offense and defense changes that changes the game. One brick removed can bring down a castle.
i see your point. if somebody sneezes on the bench before being checked in, he might make a marginally different play on the ball then he would have otherwise, etc. but the spurs showed they were plenty capable of winning with ibaka on the floor, even when he was jumping around swatting shots. i think thats the point of the thread, which was in response to "with ibaka OKC would win for sure" sort of talk
Now you're just making a strawman out of a legit argument. The entire dynamic of the game changes when a player like Serge is on the floor vs when he's not. Spurs were capable of winning against any team in the league at any given time. Doing it is something completely different than capability however. They were capable of winning the game without Tim on the floor in game 6 last year. They didn't and everyone points out Tim's absence. Maybe Tim doesn't get the rebound. Maybe the Spurs gave up too many 2nd chance looks, maybe they could have won in overtime. Who knows? They didn't win, but if you want to speculate, you cannot just plug Serge in or take Serge out and not change how the game is played.
on page 1 of this thread, i mentioned that ibaka is a difference maker, and that his absence turned what would have been a compe ive series (to that point) into an uncompe ive one. i just think its unfair for people to assume that OKC would have owned us with ibaka present, which is the sort of talk i believe OP was responding to.
You're doing the strawman again. There's a meaningful difference between changing the outcome of a series and total domination. We say Manu's broken arm allowed Memphis to beat us. So we accept Manu's absence changed the outcome of a series when it was the 1 vs the 8, but not when it's the 1 vs the 2 and the starting center?
Of course. Only problem for you is that the sample of OKC playing with and without Ibaka in any given game didn't change much. The home crowd had an enormous effect on the play of both the spurs and the thunder and games 3 through 6 showed it.
Ibaka had an effect on a game, but he did not have such a big impact to change the entire complexion of the series.
You seem to give random cause vs correlation credit to things like the crowd without justification. The Spurs had the best road record in the league, why would they get blown out on the road in the playoffs just because a crowd is cheering? Do crowds not cheer in the RS? Have the Thunder not won in SA because of the crowd?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
