Reply With Quote
It was a morale crusher.
I became a big fan of the Spurs in 2004-2005 season...Lately, I keep hearing people talk about the .4 loss to Lakers in 2004...I checked the data about that playoff series. And even after the .4 loss, the Spurs still had a chance to win. The series was 3-2 in Lakers favor. So then why does everyone talk about the .4 being the biggest loss/the one that hurt the most, when the Spurs still could have won two more games? They could have tied the series to 3-3 and had a Game 7. This year, the Spurs were able to to go from 1-3 to tie it at 3-3 and almost won Game 7. When I originally heard about the .4, I thought that happened during an elimination game...Like it was 3-3, and then the .4 won the series in that game...But now that I looked and saw that it was in Game 5 that it happened, why would this be the loss that hurt the most other than the fact that it was .4 seconds-lucky shot by Fish...The Spurs should have come back in Game 6 and been even more aggressive and playing with more passion knowing that Game 5 should have been theirs...and that a lucky shot took it away from them. Instead, they gave up? What happened?
Last edited by greenleo; 06-03-2006 at 12:35 AM.
It was a morale crusher.
And it was .4 not .04.
.4 was nothing compared to 21.1 or whatever this year
parker hedo horry, to name a few were all blowing ass but duncan busted a crazy sideways fade shot to take the lead and, what seemed like, the game.
then 2 long commercial breaks later, thinking that the .4 seconds left was just a technicality they had to play out so we could take it back to SA and close out the series...
well obvisouly you know what happened after that
Lakers were a damn good team that year. They were favorites going into it. Tony played hot, kinda like the way he played this season, in the first 2 games but after that the Lakers denied him the lane and contained him better. It was a really defensive, low scoring series if I recall correctly.
.4 was a heartbreaking loss. Tough to get over that and play a game a day afterward.
it was a killer
i still remember the day...
it was nausea inducing
I don't care who the you are, you don't get up from that. Plus all the Spus not named Duncan couldn't do
Because .4 wasn't just about losing a game. It was about losing a 3rd game in a row, but doing it in absolutely morale-crushing fashion and then having to go on the road to get Game 6. When the Spurs lost Game 4 against Dallas, they had a good opportunity to get themselves back into the series because they had Game 5 at home and could reasonably expect to win that game to force Game 6 and go into that game with some momentum. In 2004, they had no momentum at all going into Game 6 in LA and they played like it.
I disagree. We had the .4 game and litterally lost it in a split second on a fluke shot. The game ended after Fisher's shot. That's it. No more. Dirk's +1 wasn't the end of the game, and the Spurs still had overtime to bounce back. The Spurs didn't have that opportunity in '04. So to me, .4 was more devestating..4 was nothing compared to 21.1 or whatever this year
Man, if it wasn't for those two strokes of dumb luck, we might have had a four-peat. Oh well, no use crying over sour grapes, as I always say.
The Spurs, to a man except for Manu, laid down and bent over for Lakers after .4....And Popovich was the one leading the laydown...read his comments after the loss. Watch his body language in game 6.
It was a pretty sickening day in Spurs history and one I'd much rather forget than .4.
And any other questions you have about the 2004 Spurs losing likely begin with an H and end with an O.
Devin Brown stepped up the most relative to his normal contributions. Manu played well statistically, just wasn't quite as good as he turned out to be in 04-05.
Thank you! I see .04 all the time and it drives me nuts.
If Fisher got that shot off in 4 hundredths of a second I would've been even angrier.
Eddie F. Rush was not going to let us win game six. Also, TP's jumper was even worse in 2004.
Yeah, even after Manu made that foul on Dirk...We still have 21 seconds to make the winning shot and win this series...Timmy missed the put back...But we still then had a whole 5 minutes to win...plus as I recall, most of the Mavs players who were guarding Timmy were in foul trouble...And we were playing at home...See, that's why I don't think it's all on Manu's foul...We had so many opportunities after it but we blew them...I disagree. We had the .4 game and litterally lost it in a split second on a fluke shot. The game ended after Fisher's shot. That's it. No more. Dirk's +1 wasn't the end of the game, and the Spurs still had overtime to bounce back. The Spurs didn't have that opportunity in '04. So to me, .4 was more devestating.
Man, if it wasn't for those two strokes of dumb luck, we might have had a four-peat. Oh well, no use crying over sour grapes, as I always say.
Sorry about the .04...I meant to write .4...So I guess it was more of a mental loss rather than a physical one...I guess the Spurs came a long way from 2004...They are now more mentally tough, a lot more...
Last edited by greenleo; 06-03-2006 at 01:47 PM.
.4 sucked because the Spurs were clearly jobbed on that one. 21.1 sucked more because it was rather preventable.
Very interesting. It's fun remembering the events of .4
I remember that crazy game 5 result. It was all a matter of the pendulum. Game 6 was still ready to be played and I was all excited to see the throw back punch of the Spurs with two Laker fans that Saturday. Then all of a sudden they just laid down and died before the 4th quarter began. The only time my Laker buddies were impressed with the Spurs was when Manu was doing his crazy acrobatics to try and keep the Spurs within striking distance. To no avail. A lot of Spurs fans in retrospect talk like the Lakers were invincible and that they were too much to overcome. But it was all mental. Spurs had the youth and the ability to take out the Lakers if they didn't pussy it up after the demoralizing loss. The 1-3 Deficit overcoming, forcing game 7, 2006 Spurs have grown a lot more Heart. Tim's "I didn't want to look back and say I didn't give enough" quote probably grew from swallowing that 2004 series.
I don't mind this year's loss anymore now that 2 weeks have passed. Tim ran out of gas. Mavs were a great team. Outcome could have been decided with a quarter. We made our run in the 4th quarter. They made theirs in overtime. Ball bounced their way.
I was more upset with the Spurs giving up in 04 when there was a WHOLE other game to be played and they actually lost cuz of the 0.4 outcome and later actually considering "appealing" the shot clock's outcome. This year's series loss came down to an elimination game and physical mistakes. The other series was all mental. It was pathetic. 2005 Spurs redeemed such pathetic efforts. 2006 again displayed great character. No pansy ass defeats this year. Played as a team and died as a team.
Same can't be said bout the Pistons defeat.
Pop didn't start Manu cuz he didn't trust him yet. Him playing on the bench the whole time probably made a difference.
.4 was semi-vindicated by the fact that the Lakers got their collective asses handed to them by the Pistons in a very humiliating fashion in the Finals. But .4 was probably one of the most terrible days ever for Spurs fans. Game 7 against Dallas was as bad if not worse. Next year we'll come out with a chip on our shoulder and sweep their primadonna asses in the most one-sided ass kicking the NBA has ever seen, with a combined victory margin of 100 points. Just like the 2005 crown after .4, the 2007 crown is OURS.
Actually game 6 wasn't a laydown like everyone seems to be trying to make it out to be in retrospect. The Spurs actually had a lead mi-waythrough the third quarter. But nobody had any real expectations that they would pull it out.
0-5 in his last game as a Spur.People want this guy back, why?
That's a load of crap. Manu was a starter for a significant part of the 2003-04 season. Hedo Turkoglu had to start for a period when Manu was injured, though, and played better than he had off the bench. Pop kept Manu coming off the bench because Manu played better off the bench than Hedo did, so he maximized his roster -- in some sense -- by altering that rotation.
It had nothing to do with a lack of trust or a lack of confidence in Manu.
Box -- Game 6, 2004 West Semis
It was a whole lot about shooting 30% from the floor for the game, 3-24 from behind the arc, and getting killed at the free throw line.
It's clear that the Spurs fought and fought and fought, but they played like a team that knew its best chance had passed -- it was quite clear they were demoralized and missing 60 shots certainly didn't help them regain confidence to fence with LA in a 4th quarter of a put-away game at Staples.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
