friendly0603

Congrats, SMC!!!

then her boyfriend is definitely not a virgin either!

 

alam nia eh. when are we going to put this double standard down?

Never. Virginity in women is quite rare and therefore more sought after. That same rarity for men isn't something that women highly regard.

Did you get your autographs or pictures, LBJ fans?

Defensive stats? did I say I would use that? ...I stated earlier how the Spurs scored less against than their reg season ave versus the Heat. Now look at the FG%. Analyze then make your conclusion

 

Did the Heat outperform themselves on the offensive end if you base it on their own FG%?

Did the Heat outperform themselves in limiting the opponent's FG%?

Don't you think playing D is a factor for forcing a lower FG% on your opponent?

Why do you have to beat/outperform yourself? To prove it's your offense that won you the game?

Who invented that reasoning?

You said Miami's Defense won it for them. So I was looking at your overwhelming proof that it is the defense. Like I said defense helps but still doesn't mean it was the deciding factor.

Game 2 Heat .494 Spurs .410

Game 4 Heat .529 Spurs .443

Game 6 Heat .469 Spurs .435

Game 7 Heat .439 Spurs .378

You can see that when the offense is going well. That's when they won. Look at the numbers more closely other than FG.

Game 2: We didn't play well. We didn't shoot well. I know I played awfully."

--Tim Duncan

Well you wanted to show me a link that says Miami shoots its way to the title and yet hindi ko pwedeng i-highlight yun other points ng link just because it won't help your cause?

How bias and one track minded can you be bro to see things only that favors your argument

It's not the cause. It's keeping on topic. And how can that not same statement be applied to you. You're one track mind only keeps looking for the same thing that helps your cause.

Wala akong pakialam kung mali man o hindi ang naging desisyon ni Pop. Sa pananaw ko kasi tama

There it is.

Now it seems you are a Spurs fan than can't move on from what happened thus you continue to be affected. Well, I'm so sorry for you. Opinions will never be wrong since it is one's POV. It could be "illogical" but for that person it is valid coz that's how he sees it.

I don't need your sorry. I'm not a Spurs fan. Like I said listen to Stephen A Smith. It's the same line of reasoning. How did a 50/50 decision with no right or wrong option now become "illogical"? I guess those other writers/commentators are "illogical" too. Can't wait to hear your discussion with them and proving that they are.

YOu can criticize Pop all you want but you're doing that with the benefit of hindsight. I guess its time to end this discussion whether or not Pop made the right decision (at the time he made it) without the benefit of hindsight. A simple question should help resolving this...At the time when he decided not to foul, are you sure that the Spurs will lose the game if they use that strategy? If your answer is YES then I rest my case. Otherwise, there is no point to continue this as we both know we won't be able to convince each other.

But I agree it's time to move on. I already "know" your side and you "think" Pop's decisions were right at the time it was made. It's you who cannot see the other side of this discussion. In terms of open mind, I think that's where this discussion ends.

What's the relevance of these in relation to your claim that "the fact is the Spurs when they needed to"

 

All I read about are reasons behind why the Spurs were not able to keep up with Miami offensively

Naguluhan ka na yata? Ang pinag-uusapan is Miami's offense winning and you said it's their defense. It has nothing to relate with the Spurs scoring.....

Ang tagal na ng scoring discussion na yan with the Spurs. Nasa offense-defense discussion na tayo ng Miami. Was there any relative post kaya dun mo na-connect?

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/143/files/2011/06/miami-heat-facepalm.jpg

nope you read me right ...

 

the problem is sarado kasi pananaw mo with your bias. Tingnan mo ang pinakita sa link at magisip ka kung bakit Pop decided to play honest D and defend the three.

 

As I said I am not a Heat nor a Spurs fan I call it just the way I see it without favoring any team

When I posted that link it's discussing how Miami's offense won. You read the reference and because it's long, you specifically chose the Pop's overall strategy. Was I discussing that with you? I'm only discussing the critical plays.

Hindi bias kundi ang pinag-usapan natin dito from the start are the crucial mistakes that cost them the title.

YES I read the link and it says:

 

So if you read and understand by now, you should have know the logic behind Pop's decision. Let the Heat beat you with a lower percentage shot. Knowing that there is the possibility of a three point attempt you have to defend it and need mobility. You don't need to foul as well since you still have a one point lead.

The link refers to our offense-defense discussion of Miami heat. Not Pop's strategy. You are relating the wrong comment to the link.

walang sagot sa post ko??? wahahah, napatunayan ko kasing nagpapalusot na lang...

kaya kung babalikan ang mga post dito, sanga-sanga na yung inilalabas ng isang GM

na argumento... wala nang pinatutunguhan... kung hindi kayo naniniwala sakin, balikan'

nyo lahat ng post... paiba-iba ang sinasabi, conflict pa...

Nonsense hahahaha

No reference, just your opinion.... need I go on....

So if you read and understand by now, you should have know the logic behind Pop's decision. Let the Heat beat you with a lower percentage shot. Knowing that there is the possibility of a three point attempt you have to defend it and need mobility. You don't need to foul as well since you still have a one point lead.

 

It is pointless to comment if one argues without an open mind.

 

As far as the finals is concerned ... didn't you show that the heat were the number 1 offensive team for the season? So what is their scoring ave per game? Were they scoring more than their usual on a per game basis? How many times did the Heat score more than their usual ave? In fact if you get the finals scoring averages of both teams, the Spurs outscored the Heat 97.7 vs 97.

 

Now look at the ave points allowed of each team and see how many points they allowed each other. Did the Heat allow the Spurs to score less than what they usually allowed?

 

Defensively, the heat managed to limit the Spurs below their usual scoring ave. in four games winning 3. Therefore it was their D that won these games for the Heat. It was in game 6 that the Heat manage to win even if the Spurs scored more than their usual ave and there is a reason for that as the game went into OT. But note that the regulation ended at 95 all which is within the scoring average of both teams.

 

You claim that "the fact is the Spurs when they needed to" so tell me why were the Spurs not able to score their usual average in the 3 of the 4 games which they lost? You can justify by saying because the Heat outscored them or the heat managed to limit them with their D. either one is a correct reason, but what really happened? The heat in these games were not exceptional offensively. They did just meet their average. But give credit where credit is due ... the Heat managed to limit the scoring of the Spurs to below 95 points (88.3 pts to be exact on these 3 loses). And that is not because of D?

Game 2:

"You know what, credit to Miami, honestly. First start there. They outplayed us. They ended quarters better than us. We turned the ball over more than we should have. Credit to them. We didn't play well. We didn't shoot well. I know I played awfully." -- Tim Duncan

Miami had more fast breakpoints and a bit higher FG% and more inside points. Spurs more rebounds.

Game 4:

The big 3 totaled 85 points tonight and each shot better than 50 percent from the floor -- 37-for-64 combined (58 percent).

Game 6:

Almost identical stats except for the 3pt FG: 11/19 Heat vs 5/18 Spurs. And Miami also had more inside points.

Game 7:

Same story as game 6. Although lower 3 FG%: 12/32 Heat vs 6/19 Spurs. The 3pt FGs made is a big difference as well as the inside points.

Open mind?

We all know defense helps a lot. But it isn't the number of blocks, or more shots made tough that decided the finals.

What specific defensive stat will you use to say that the offense was negligible and that the the defense is the one that won these series?

We were talking about whether it was offense or defense that won the wchampionship for the heat and you gave me this reasoning that the number three defensive team lost to the number one offensive team thus conclude that offense won it for the Heat. In the process disregarding the fact that in this series the heat on he average scored less than the Spurs and the fact that the hEat manages to limit the spurs from scoring below 95 points 4 times as compared to only twice by the spurs.

No wonder illogical yun gusto mo mangyaring desisyon ni Pop. At hindi rin katakataka kung bakit di mo ma gets

I'm saying from my stats is that the offense is what win Miami wins games. If they shoot well, they win. If they don't shoot well, doesn't always mean because defense was great. It could be poor shooting or could be defense.

Did you read the link? How come you have no comment for that?

Game 2, 4, 6, 7 are Miami's won games: 103 pts, 109 pts, 103 pts and 95 pts. They only lost one game where they scored more than a 100 - game 5.

You can skew the stats to show it in your favor by looking at the Spurs scores in this losses. The fact is they scored when they needed to. They brought shooters to complement their big 3.

Game 1,3,5 are the games that SA won: 2/3 scoring > 100 pts as well. Only game 1 was close which was one by a great shot by TonyP. Not because of a great defensive play. Even with Manu's turnovers, Tony's shot saved the day.

I can link all the info from all 7 games. Nothing majorly stands out that it was a great defensive stance that won them the games or the series.

Did OFFENSE really win the Championship for the HEAT???

http://stats.nba.com/featured/number_crunch_2013_finals.html

In the 2012-2013 season,

Miami is the #1 offensive team Spurs is #7

Spurs is the #3 defensive team and Miami is #7.

Higher ranked defensive team was defeated by the #1 offensive team.

I read and understood your statement as it is ..

Wag mo na akong paikutin Bro. hindi ko naman tinatanong sa iyo kung siguradong mananalo ang Spurs kundi kung POSIBLENG MANALO na hindi nag foul at ang sinagot mo ay OO, posible nga.

I misread your sentence. Sorry. It's still true that there's a possibility of them winning. There's also possibility of still losing with the same decision.

This proves that during that instance there is nothing wrong with his decision irregardless whether it be to foul or not . Both ACCEPTABLE DECISIONS. As I said repeatedly, irregardless of any decisions made by Pop or any coach for that matter, win or lose lang naman ang kalalabasan niyan.

At the time the decision was made nobody knows whether it will be a right or wrong decision. You will only know that once the play has been completed. THEREFORE, when you said that Pop should have decided to foul you did that with the benefit of HINDSIGHT.

Since you have the benefit of HINDSIGHT your opinion the Pop should have done this or done that will never be wrong considering you know what transpired. Pero had you made that decision on the spot, it will just have the same winning probability as the decision of Pop not to foul.

He was convinced that the scenarios in his head is what will play out. That is why with conviction he didn't plan for the other possible scenarios. Or simply this is his style and he wanted to prove it works. Just like Mike Brown's style or Mike D's style or Phil Jax triangle. They all wanted to prove that their style of basketball is what will win it for them.

Precisely ... that's why all I have been saying all along including some of the GMs here is that It was "LOGICAL" for Pop to decide not to FOUL. He had his reasons so he will stick to his decision unfortunately it ended up being the wrong decision. Therefore, since you said the right thing to do is to foul ... Well yes that is definitely true in HINDSIGHT.

 

However, at the time the decision was made, nobody knows if its really the right thing to do. Coz as you say it will depend on the actual situation. Nobody know that until it happens.

It's two not some. It's not the "right" decision. It's another option. "LOGICAL" for Pop just means this is his prediction of future events.

Nope am not single minded ... except your opinion does not makes sense in the first place. ILLOGICAL!

Your objective is to preserve your 3 point lead right? So the way to do it is to foul rather than give up the three. This is what you suggested.

 

Now, I asked you when do you suggest to FOUL ... your reply was that you foul after the first shot. why? According to you, you wanted to waste some time first. Then foul should they miss and get an offensive board (hmp ... ang galing mong mag device ng play ... isipin mo naisip mo titira sila tapos magmimintis at makakakuha ng offensive board not in hindsight yan kamo

Now you are saying to foul or not to foul is the same 50/50 chance and that there's no right or wrong decision for Pop. Yet, fouling is ILLOGICAL!

Hindi galing yan. Just good observation and also like I said before you've already seen it on the previous play. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that as a known case. They know they were defending a 3pt shot. It's really too much of a stretch to predict both a miss and made shot.

However, you are willing to let the heat take a first attempt without fouling right? Do you really know that they will miss? Obviously in hindsight yes you know thus you are calling that play. However in reality, when you are in Pop's shoes, you never really know whether that first attempt will go in or not. Therefore going by your objective, prudence dictates that you have to foul on any possible three point attempt to avoid an equalizer. Thus fouling on the second shot opportunity is flawed and illogical if it was a decision to be made at that moment without the benefit of HINDSIGHT.

Nope, you cannot foul on "any" 3 pt attempt. Like I said, it could result in 3 FTs so you didn't prevent a chance to tie.

Hindi mo nga alam ang mangyayari kaya you are assuming kung ano ang nangyari posibleng mangyari uli. PEro hindi mo ba naisip na kung nagmintis siya nun una ngayon baka unang tira pa lang pasok na? E di nakatabla na. That is bad decision making since yun re-possession ang pinagplanuhan mo rather than the first possession.

Sino ba naman ang magpa-plano for just the re-possession? You seem to mistake honest D with no foul to letting Miami just shoot uncontested. You played honest D which matched Pop's plan. Kahit nakatabla na, they have more time on the clock for a decent attempt to win. Di katulad nung nangyari na 5 seconds na lang natira & it wasn't enough time for the Spurs to make a good play.

Remember, ang scenario is what if pumasok yun first attempt considering ang naging desisyon mo if ever you are in Pop's shoes is to foul only on the second attempt. at eto sinagot mo "If LBJ's 1st attempts went in, then the decisions to bench TimD and playing honest D didn't work as well." Flawed na naman reasoning mo without the benefit of hindsight ...

Una, we can't tell whether TD will be the reason why the one taking the first three point shot (say its LBJ) will miss.

Ikalawa, there is no truth to your claim that you can't bring back TD. Remember your decision is to foul if they were not able to get the rebound. When you foul then there is now a dead ball situation so you can bring back TD. Now that you are being challenged, may clarifications na?

The decision to bench Tim is to defend the 3. If the shot attempt went in, the Tim's benching didn't affect their defensive plan. That's just logic.

One, in that case they weren't able to defend the 3 without TD. So benching him won't make a difference.

Two, they can bring back TD if they fouled that's true. If they fouled (which was my suggestion), it wasn't on the plan remember. The honest D plan was Pop's decision. So they risked not being able to bring back TD back with the honest D. The NBA even it made it public that Duncan illegally entered the game. Is it clear?

Case in point, narinig na namin ang mga sinasabi mo kung bakit mali ang desisyong hindi nag foul. However, if they foul at nadisgrasya at natalo by one, hindi po ba in hindsight dapat hindi na lang nag foul kasi tatabla naman at tingnan na lang what happens in OT.

If that happened then mali ang decision ko, then fine.

You are thinking that they have a better chance in OT than holding the lead. Momentum is with the Heat even if 50/50 ang chance to win the game in OT. Having the lead with time ticking away for me seems to be better than going into OT.

If fouling is flawed and illogical, then the only right decision is Pop's choice to have just honest D.

Since you are asking for references on those who agree with me, well is it not well documented that the players themselves didn't question Pop? TD who was affected by the "benching" never raised an issue even if as you said other superstars won't accept that decision. Why? because IN POP WE ALL TRUST but moreso, your suggested play to foul when they get the offensive rebound is FLAWED to begin with if you didn't have the benefit of HINDSIGHT

Is that agreement? Not questioning? They defended Pop not because he's right. They defended Pop because they believe in him. What did the players say? He "must have" his reasons. Not that they know his reasons. The trust comes from the long relationship they had together. They side with him even if he's right or wrong.

kung walang silbi ang D bakit may kasabihan

OFFENSE wins Games but ...

DEFENSE wins CHAMPIONSHIP

baka, trip-trip lang nung nagsabi yan boss?? wahahaha!!!

eh bakit pa nag aaward ng best defensive player kung opensa lang

kailangan boss??? yun palang pagpigil sa kalaban na maka-score

eh hindi pala to win yun??? paiba-iba pa ng tanong para lang mailusot

yung walang kwenta nyang argumento...

unang tanong "play to win" or "play not to lose"

naging "score to win" or "defend to win"

wahahaha, naghahanap kasi ng lusot..

Nakakatuwa talaga kayong dalawa. Parang pinagbiyak na

May sinabi bang walang silbi ang D? Hanapin nyo.

Tanong ko lang - Which won again in this series? The defense of the Spurs or the offense of the Heat that won the series. Who has the championship?

How about the saying the best defense is a great offense? Look up the defensive efficiency and offensive efficiency ranking of both teams for the year

Still funny?

I'll answer this later

Stay tuned....

sabi mo "assumption, bosh has a lousy night" pero sabi mo din "stars should be trusted in crunch time" alin ba

talaga dapat isipin ng coach dyan??? conflict ka na naman eh... una if stars should be trusted in crunch time

eh di dapat ayaw mo din na ma-foul yung stars ng kalaban... kasi if you trust your stars, you should also

believe that other team's star could do you damage... ngayon kung mag base naman ako sa una mong

statement na "Bosh has a lousy night" then, the coach should also consider that his team has a lousy

offense the last two minutes.... kaya nga nahabol kayo eh... ang galing mo naman na pag pabor sa ipinaglalaban

mo yun ang tama, tapos sa kabilang sitwasyon, yung pabor pa din sa ipinaglalaban mo ang tama kahit conflict???

Bosh had a lousy shooting/scoring night - yes/no?

Trust your Superstars - Bosh was there even if he had a lousy scoring night. - yes/no? Paano naging conflict? Manu had a lousy game and he was still trusted. Does the trust in Manu prevent that missed free throw? So I trusted Bosh but that doesn't mean his FTs are automatic 2 pts.

why do i need to prove to you na yun ang iniisip ni Pop??? sinabi ko bang yun ang iniisip nya??? ang sabi ko

posibleng yun ang iniisip nya... POSIBLE... basa-basa din sir...

Tanong ko paano mo nalaman with certainty. Yun POSSIBLE mo is the reason why you believe his decisions and not consider other options. Now if you believe other options are possible and not just his decisions, then the POSSIBLE is probably not relevant.

i'm not saying that the spurs are afraid to have the ball back, what i'm saying is, why do you need to have the

ball back, if you could end a game with a good defense???

 

lastly, is playing good and honest D not "playing to win"?

tagalugin ko.... para maintindihan mo sir...

 

ang paglalaro ba ng may magandang depesa ay hindi "paglalaro para manalo"?

sa ibang context... ang pagdepensa ba ay hindi "paglalaro para manalo"?

What does defense do? Protect the lead/prevent the other team scoring.

Kaya nga nahahabol ang mga lamang/lead dahil kahit maganda ang defense mo pag hindi ka naman maka-score, ano ang mangyayari?

I'm really sorry kung di mo nakikita ang difference.

Score to win or defend to win? Alin diyan ang gusto mo? Nasa yo ang bola o nasa kabila?

Then if as you said it is possible that the spurs win outright by not fouling ... Then what's wrong with Pop's decision of actually not fouling? Since you have the benefit of hindsight you are now saying it was a mistake.

 

I have now proved essentially that your opinion/reasoning are based on hindsight but you try to justify using plausible scenarios which as we know now should be the right call but during that moment when Pop made his decision it had the same 50-50 chance of being the right call.

No, I didn't say that the Spurs will win outright. That is how you interpret my statement.

There's a possibility of a different outcome. You haven't proven anything. What I said is that the final result will prove if it's the right call or not. I'm ok to be "wrong" because I decided differently. Even if it's 50/50 like you said, I prefer to play Duncan and Parker. If they lose because of my decisions, then my fault.

But again, there's always a dependency on what the actual situations that happened. If Pop chose to leave his stars in and they fouled and they lost, would someone really say "you should've benched Duncan". It's possible they will say that you should've just defended the 3 and hope Miami "will miss" since you do not want the FT chess match to preserve the lead.

You are single-mindedly choosing one option as if only option 1 and 2 exists. Like I said if they miss, do this. If they don't, do that. If you were able to force a turnover or got a steal, do this.

Again, this proves that you are using the benefit of hindsight .... Since you are relating your decision to foul on what already transpired. Alam mo na kasi magmimintis ununang three point attempt kaya you're saying foul before the second attempt or if they did not get the rebound. Si Pop ba have that benefit ng hindsight?

Hindi ko alam what will happen. Kaya ko sinasabi na this is possible to do if this happens.

But like I said, there was a previous possession with the same outcome,a miss followed by offensive rebound and 2nd 3pt attempt. So Pop still thought use the same option for the next scenario to prove that he's right. When the previous one didn't have a good result. So previous play, option 1 = bad result. Next play option 1 = same bad result. 0/2 no longer proved 50/50. If there was another play, option 1 again. It will be come a 33% (1/3) chance for a positive result but if bad result 0/3 then 0% again. He tried to prove your 50/50 probability and the outcome didn't prove it. Unlike Indiana, Vogel wasn't interested in proving he was right by sitting Hibbert again in the same situation just to prove his 50/50 probability.

Mali un sinasabi mong un desisyon to play honest D ay mali kung pumasok yun unang tira ni lbj. To bgin with your plan was to foul to preserve the lead diba? Hindi naman to play honest D without fouling.

Ang ibig kong sabihing mali is that they didn't defend well enough. One, they cannot bring back Duncan because it's not a deadball situation and if they were out of timeouts, they also can't stop play and bring him back. You are risking that. If this was a hand in your face falling away three point shot, there's nothing you can do or LBJ made a really long 3 pt attempt.

Yes, that's the plan but with clarifications. It's not plan to foul early or foul that will result in 3 FTs. You are avoiding that game tying situation. So if you fouled and LBJ had 3 FTs instead of a 3 pt attempt, you still gave the same probability of tying the game in just a different version FTs instead of a 3 pt shot. Like you said FTs have higher probability to go in than a desperation 3 pt-shot or even a good look at a 3pt shot. If the ball was inside the 3 pt line, maybe I can agree they can even foul early if that was the plan.

Since in denial ka na may bias ka ng hindsight Your suggestion to foul on the second attempt if they miss and didn't get the rebound to preserve the lead is flawed to begin with. A foul should have been given prior to anyone taking an attemp irregardless of time since that attempt is already a potential equalizer. E diba kaya mo nga gusto mag foul is to preserve your lead? So bakit mo hahayaan makatira ng tres sa first attempt? Dun pa lang nag foul ka na dapat kasi maaring tumabla na sa tirang yon.

It cannot be irregardless like the situations I described above. If you were just reaching and the player was dribbling and the refs called the foul, "maybe" it's ok because you wanted possession and just 2 FTs instead of a tie.

For you it's a flawed suggestion but those references I provided didn't think so. So if you can provide me a reference that agrees with you then I might re-consider. If it's just because you said so, then it's just a difference of opinion.

He made bold moves and that's why it becomes questionable. Bold = genius if proven right by the end result. That's why he was praised in your Golden State game reference. Bold decision resulting in a loss is open to second guessing.

Of course all the scenarios you will paint will favor your argument. But couldn't it happen the other way around ... What about the Spurs winning outright by not fouling and playing good D. What about if Pop instructed to foul but it backfired and the spurs lost in regulation?

 

Anyway to summarize what you've said... You said you want to protect the 3 point lead by giving up a foul and 2 ft rather than a three pointer. And yet your decision is to foul after they miss. E possibleng sa unang tira pa lang nakashoot na ng 3 points

Just like chess, the moves and strategies vary depending on what your opponent does.

Yes, it's possible. If the spurs win outright by not fouling, then Pop is a genius and the players executed to perfection He made the right coaching decision because they won. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way.

If LBJ's 1st attempts went in, then the decisions to bench TimD and playing honest D didn't work as well. My possible option of fouling would never have been feasible so even if Spurs planned to do that they just won't have the opportunity because the shot went in. It'll be the offensive play of Pop that will determine if they keep the lead or not. They wouldn't be asking where's the foul. If they don't execute on the offensive play, then they lose. Simple as that.

Obviouly the FT is the higher percentage shot that is why I rather defend and let the Heat take the 3 pointer or have them take a hail mary shot.

Follow the train of thought. The FTs are for the Spurs' possession when you said that they could miss their FTs or make a turnover.

I said I will chose FTs for the spurs and force the hail mary shot to beat them. FTs for the Spurs have higher percentage than the Heat's hail mary shot.

Dito nakikita na napakagaling ng desisyon mo base sa hindsight ....

Sinabi mo mali ang strategy na hindi mag foul. According to you they should protect that 3 point lead by fouling and giving two pts instead of one.

 

Ang tanong ko, kung ang desisyon ay to give up a foul how do you know that the HEAT will miss and you should foul after ng first attempt if they did not get the rebound?

 

Alangan naman sige honest D lang tayo at hayaan tumira ng tres pero pag mintis foul agad at bigyan ng 2 FT.

In case they miss or if they didn't get the rebound, foul to prevent another attempt because you've wasted enough clock. These are possible scenarios. Not hindsight. Was anyone sure that LBJ would miss? Was anyone sure Spurs would get the rebound? Even then, you can learn from just the immediate play. Miami missed and got the offensive rebound and LBJ got a 3pt shot in. That just happened. And you think it wouldn't happen again? Or you are sure that there is no possibility of that happening?

If you fouled after the miss, you can play the back and forth game as timeouts will runout and you'll need more time to get from one court to the other. Miami will foul to force FTs even at the backcourt. The Spurs will wait until the the Heat advances the ball to their frontcourt before they foul. Possible future scenarios not knowing what will happen.

If LBJ didn't miss, I don't think anyone will question about fouling because there's too much time to panic and 3 FTs maybe awarded if the heat stay outside the 3pt line. Foul and the shooter will just throw up a fake shot just to get 3 FTs as long as his feet are outside the 3pt line.

Didn't the same thing happen on the previous Miami possession? LBJ threw 2 attempts. You're honest D is to just defend. With a lot more time on the clock, Miami will find better looks at the 3. With time running out, they will just play and whoever has the ball can shoot. They won't even look for the open man or try to find LBJ unless he's bringing down the ball.

Whatever decisions that were made had a equal 50/50 probability. In that situation he thinks that was best for his team.

But Pop is accountable for that ... naghugas kamay ba siya?

The only time I would sit duncan/TP in the final crucial seconds of the game is because he explicitly asked to be subbed, sick, injured. If you were Spurs coach, would you sub TimD and TonyP (your best players) out of the game at those crucial moments?

Saying that probability is 50/50 means there can be no right or wrong decision and he's accountability is diminished by saying that. It becomes just an unfortunate result. There was nothing you could do.

Just like in Indiana - pulling out the center is a 50/50 coaching decision and they lost. But it was a wrong decision. And they changed that in the 2nd game. Why didn't they do the same thing and win without Hibbert? Just to prove the 50/50 probability? 1 loss/ 1 win with the same decision.

The Spurs couldn't rebound without Duncan in the previous possession and they still employed the same strategy. Saying it's Pop's fault and admitting even for Pop that his decisions were wrong are separate.

napakaayos na ng explanation ng isa pang GM, pero hindi pa din naiintindihan, siguro kasi ayaw intindihin...

Bakit hindi ba maayos din ang explanation ko? Di ba may references pa nga?

Don't you think Pop trust his team's defense, that's why he opted not to foul???

when you trust a team, it should mean all the way... not only your offense, but also your defense...

So how many coaches sit their franchise players/big 3? Even if they were having ugly games in the last two minutes?

ngayon since mahilig na din lang mag-comment sa isang bagay na tapos na, bibigyan ko kayo ng

opinyon ko, why they didn't foul din...

 

kagaya ng sinabi ni Fatchubs, kung mag-foul sila with 9 seconds, malaki ang chance na Chris Bosh

will sink 2 freethrows...

babalik sa Spurs ang bola... hindi mo ba naisip na napanuod din naman ni Pop

kung papano nahirapan ang Spurs sa offense nung huling 32 seconds??? imagine they missed freethrows.

nagsayang din ng possession... so posibleng nakita ni Pop na may chance na mahirapan sila sa opensa

at worse baka bumalik pa ang bola sa Miami na 1-point lang ang lamang nila...

I don't think Pop will admit that his team couldn't execute on offense. You expect a turnover right away. Everyone knows how difficult it is block without fouling, forcing turnovers and making steals. That's why those stats are low numbers.

Now if you honestly think that's what Pop thought, prove it.Find any evidence of that.

sir, you have to consider na kailangan muna ng Spurs ng good inbound ha... plus pwede din

mag-foul ang Miami... ngayon eh di nasa team nyo pa ang pressure to make two free throws...

kung ikaw ang coach ng Spurs at nakita mong nagmintis ang team mo ng freethrows,(maybe due to pressure

or pagod) would you still want your team to take the freethrows??? (regardless of trust to ha...) malamang hindi...

so yun ang posibleng reason kaya hndi na din naisip ni Pop ang mag-foul... kasi nga hindi na maganda ang

takbo ng opensa ng spurs... may basehan din kasi ang mga coach ng mga decision nila... hndi yung

decide lang ng decide...

 

kung marunong tayo ng basketball, alam natin pag off ang opensa ng isang team...

so kung off na nga... why would you choose to have the ball back, when you can end the game

with a good defense???

Miami was on the verge of winning this game before Parker made those shots turning the tide and giving the Spurs the chance to win. If you can't score when you need to in the clutch, then you should lose. If your defense saved you, it's because your offense still made a big enough lead to give your defense a chance to save the game.

You think that the Spurs are afraid to have the ball back? If that's your opinion, then that's the reason why you agree with the decisions that were made. You just wanted the Heat to miss.

How many times have we heard in basketball - "Play to win" and not "Play not to lose"?

Yun na nga e, there is the possibility of a missed FT or a turnover that could expose the spurs to lose in regulation had they choose to foul. Sa palagay ko yan ang iniiwasan ni Pop. If they didn't foul the worst case is to go into ot.

So for the purpose of this doscussion lets assume upon inbound the heat immediately fouled and the spurs only converted only at most one ft so nasa heat ang bola with four seconds and they sank a hail mary three and win. For you as you said there is nothing to blame there kasi desisyon mong to foul ang nasunod. But yun naman mga naniniwalang hindi na dapat mag foul ang babatikos in hindsight. If they didn't foul nga naman posibleng ot lang kundi manalo outright. Dalawa lagi ang scenario kaya wag magmagaling in hindsight.

What do you choose - hail mary shot or free throws in the hands of your best players? Which has a higher percentage of going in?

Mismo ... Hindi natin pare-pareho alam what might have transpired nun time na nagdesisyon si Pop. Pero kasi humihirit kang dapat mag foul since nakita mo na ang nangyari. Ganito lang yan , if ang desisyon ay mag foul obviously hindi na aabot sa puntong nakaoffensive rebound si bosh na humantong sa tres ni allen. Kasi iniiwasan mo makatira ng tres ang heat so bago pa lang tumira si lebron nag foul na ang spurs. That will leave plenty of time.

Hindi pa nga nakikita ang mangyayari, naririnig mo na sa commentator ang possible options. Pop chose the one option and it didn't work. Hindi na-develop yung option na mag-foul dahil sa final result. Ang sinabi ko paulit-ulit eh mag-foul after ng first attempt if they didn't get the rebound. Even if I indulge you and there's plenty of time, it's up to the genius of Pop what to do with that time. If they put the pressure on LBJ to make FTs, LBJ could miss or make the FTs. The Spurs can attempt to score right away and make the lead bigger, make a turnover like Manu, execute and waste time and make a basket late or get fouled and score on the FT or miss. It's always better for me to execute on your end.

A good coach trust not only the superstars but up to the last guy on his bench ...

How many coaches have less players in the rotation during the playoffs? Who do you trust in crunch time/clutch? Even Wade was re-inserted at the end of the game though he was sitting most of the 4th.

Mahirap maging coach o kahit na assistant coach sa nba...kaya nga kung naging isa kang coach ay obviously mas magaling na hamak sila sa iyo o sa mga writers at commentators na bumabatikos sa kanya kasi hindi kayo naging coach.

Ang akin kasi ke galing ninyong manita in hindsight na alam nating kung si pop has that benefit when he was making his decision then i am pretty sure he would be calling the right play.

E kaso nga hindi niya po alam ano ang mangyayari. Ang alam niya pipilitin nilang hindi maka tres by playing good D. At siyempre inaasahan niyang no oofensive rebound. At kung minalas na nakarebound at naka shoot ng two ok lang kasi tumakbo ang oras at lamang pasila ng isa.

Wins can overturn or make those mistakes forgotten. All of these mistakes wouldn't matter if the Spurs won game 7 or won in OT in game 6. But they didn't and that was as close they got to winning the series.

Bottomline, there are crucial decisions to be made and Pop's decisions led to the loss. The players followed what the coach said.

What you are saying is based on logical reasoning. But as we see in this situation even if you foul bosh you give up two FT and still there will most likely be time for one final offensive for the heat to tie or win outright. And even with time running out it is no assurance that the D will be better. How many buzzer beaters have we seen?

Assuming Bosh will make his FTs, you give one more offensive play to the spurs. If the Spurs score 1 or 2 FTs or a basket or maybe even a 3, you can get anywhere from a 2,3-4 pt (1 if no FTs and turnover) but you still wasted time on the clock. If they win thru their offense or D, at least it is what they did. Whatever time left, I think Miami maybe out of timeouts. They will have to run the length of the court to get a good shot up. Now if they make a half-court shot or some miracle shot, then there's no blame there.

There is no assurance of better D but there is no evidence of the opposite as well. I just said that since the players only have to stop that one shot. They don't have to worry about rebounds or layup.

And believe did Pop on his players to be able to execute a good defensive stance to preserve their lead without fouling. In fact it was not only the superstars he trusted considering he sat Duncan in favor of Diaw.

I said trust your superstars. Not replace your superstars with your bench. He trusted Manu and put TP and TD on the bench.

The Spurs had one last play to convert offensively but they didn't. They didn't pull it off as well in OT. This is a perfect case of the ball is in their hands for the win but the Spurs were not up to it. So the issue is not solely why they didn't foul. If they foul Bosh with 9seconds left they need to deliver the next play since surely the Heat will foul to get the final possession and could go for the win or tie. We don't know what will happen should that situation happen. even if Pop trust his superstars making an offensive play, we don't Know if they will deliver. ONe thing is sure though the Spurs was not able to deliver offensively even if they had their chance in regulation.

LBJ was guarding TP running the length of the court because they have no timeout to advance the ball in regulation. It wasn't a good offensive attempt and well defended. No blames on that play. It was either you make it or you don't. No one's blaming the last shot of TP.

What you are saying are the other mistakes that Pop made in OT. It just wasn't one play or one wrong decision that lost this game.

So what if only one man saw his potential? Its immaterial since coach siya at hindi commentarista. That is all one need ... A person that will believe in his coaching ability. A person who thinks that someone can make sound coaching decisions as the game is in progress and not making perfect decisions in hindsight like you , the writers or the commentators do. Bottomline. Naging coach siya kaya kahit man sabihing hindi siya ang pinakamagaling na coach coach pa rin siya hindi isang komentarista di naman coach o naging coach.

How many Spoelstra's have we seen? How many Riley's are there in this world? Anong so what? It means Erik S is an exception and not the rule. Kung mag-salita ka parang ang simple lang makuha yung coaching job na yun.

This is what these people do to make a living. No one will read your articles or listen to the commentaries and watch their debates on TV. Coaching decisions are different than coaching a whole game. I'm sure Magic knows basketball as well as Rose having played and part of many memorable finals (magic at least). The commentators are there because they know the sport. Van Gundy is another commentator who is a coach.

Kahit ball boy ka pero nakitaan ka ng potential maging coach, may magtitiwala. Pero perfect man ang maging desisyon mo in hindsight walang kwenta yan at tiyak malabo kang maging coach.

Oh well, as i said over and over again, you have the benefit of hindsight so you will never be wrong in saying Pop made the wrong decision not to foul. But you wouldn't know what would have actually transpired if they opt to foul even say when Bosh got the offensive board with around 9 seconds left. 9 seconds is still a lot of basketball. Babalik at babalik ang bola sa heat for another attempt. And since most likely titirada ng tres yan the spurs will still end up relying on solid D to tide them over.

Yes, but with less time you'll have less opportunities for a clean look. The defense will be better as well since there's only one shot to defend. Even if they miss again, most likely there's no time for another rebound, pass and shoot opportunity. That's what you want with less time.

Personally i view it as a choice between playing honest D, no fouls and try to win the game or at worst go into ot or give up a foul and two FT then still open up the possibility for a possible game winning shot from the heat if the spurs can't convert or end up still in a tie if not winning outright.

It is really a matter of trying to understand why he made that decision and see if it is logical and accept it as it is. Both options are correct with a 50/50 probability. If you can't accept the decision as a Spurs fan or as a simple basketball fan then so be it.

The mere fact that Spo became a coach means he's capable of being one since someone gave him his chance and believes in him.

Therefore the argument as it is is that if you, the commentators or the writers are good in making coaching decisions, then somehow, i expect all of you to be a coach and making tough decisions before the play happened rather that trying to be brilliant with all your "should have" remarks with the benefit of hindsight.

^^^ pls disregard the last line of my post above. I failed to delete it before i posted ...me bad

Wala naman sigurong tangang coach ang pinagplaplanuhan ay kung ilang attempts magkakaroon ang kalaban with 17 sec.

Fell asleep and didn't bother posting my reply. Yes, but the plan is to limit those attempts and should've planned what to do in case they didn't get the rebound.

Kalimutan muna natin pansamantala ang nakita na nating nangyari na. Ikaw ang magsabi ... Halimbawang ang utos ay mag foul from the start at naibaba sa dalawang puntos with time remaining at nangyari ang hindi inaasahan na makapuntos muli at nanalo ang heat sa regulation. Tama ba ang desisyong mag foul? Siyempre in hindsight mali kasi nga naman bakit ka pa mag foul samantalang lamang ka na ng tatlo at tabla panalo na ang situasyon mo. Again am not painting a favorable situation for the Heat po ha. Pinapakita ko lang ang isa sa mga posibilidad na mangyari. Hindi po pwedeng idisregard ang ganitiong scenario kasi maaring mangyari kahit na sabihin mong maliit ang posibilidad.

Anything's possible. Fouling early may have been wrong as well in the situation you just described. But am not offering that solution. If they foul, it means they are confident in the spurs own FT shooting and poise that they can close out the game. They just want to avoid the game tying situation of the heat making a 3.

At the end of the day some guys will question Pop's decision. But even if they lost the game in ot i believe he stand by his decision not to foul coz he thinks its the best decision to be made under the circumstance without the benefit of the hindsight. Had the Spurs won even without any intention of fouling may magsasabi kayang mali un desisyon? O baka ang sinasabi mo ngayon pati na rin ang sinusulat ng mga commentators ay ang pagiging defensive genius ni Pop.

If the Spurs won even with bad decisions, it wouldn't matter. The mistake is forgotten by the end result of a win. If they didn't make those mistakes, the only difference would be a larger lead/point differential for the win. What can happen is either Miami's shots didn't fall even if they had the chance, or the defense didn't allow Miami to have a good look. So either the players execute great defense or Miami will have be unlucky at their attempt(s). Let's admit it. They were all clean looks. No one was there close enough to have a hand on the ball or force it to be a fade away 3 or even cover the eyes of the shooters.

Isa lang ang masasabi ko ... To foul or not to foul are both acceptable decisions. But you will never know which one is correct until the play has been completed. Kung may crystal ball si POP tulad siguro ninyo am sure he will also decide like you do. Sino ba ang may gustong matalo?

At Kung napakagaing niyang mga commentators at writers magdesisyon kung anong tamang play ang itatawag not in hindsight, hindi po sila commentators o writers ngayon kundi malamang sila po ang nasa pwesto ni Pop bilang coach.

Moral of the argument ... Deciding in hindsight is always easier than deciding on the spot not knowing what will actually happen. In hindsight you will never go wrong!

Wrong argument. No matter how good of a coach you are, unless you are given the chance. You won't be in that spot. Just look at Spoelstra, no one other than the heat gave him a chance. Do you think he's not a good coach? Do you think other teams don't think he's a good coach?

I agree with hindsight. But you already saw this same result in the Indiana series. Everyone knows Pop's a great coach. His decisions were spot on in other games, other series. But he's not perfect. Every commentator/writer/fan has respectfully said that before making their objections to those decisions he made.

It's as clear as day that you want to limit the 3 pt attempts for Miami. The more clock you waste, the lesser the number of attempts. That's why LBJ shot early in case he misses. They could've held on for just one decent look at a 3 if all they wanted was one good look. Miami wanted as many attempts as they can.

So clearly, those articles/writers/commentators don't know their basketball. Why would they ask that question of fouling? Just do the math, a 3 will send the game to overtime and you could possibly lose with that extra time. 2 pressure packed FTs won't beat you even if they make both. You're still left with a 1pt lead. It's smarter to foul than to give them that chance at a 3pt shot.

Between the offensive rebound of Bosh and the shot attempt that is about one second. See the replay again, when Bosh got the rebound he was not a threat offensively nor he was looking to shoot. So why foul and give him 2 FT with 9 seconds left? It runs contrary to the "YOU NEED TO WASTE SOME TIME FROM THE CLOCK" strategy. By doing so you stop the clock and at the same time gave the Heat an opportunity to score 2 points.

So you just want to relate potential to what happened?

One - they already wasted clock by allowing the first attempt. Leaving 9 seconds left, it's already acceptable to foul because they are still ahead. So I would allow a foul on Bosh. It's not guaranteed that Bosh would hit both. The pressure of the situation could get to him as do most players. He's had a lousy scoring night as well. If you listen to the commentator even before the first attempt, he was asking if the Spurs should foul. That's even earlier than my waste my clock situation. I only meant not to foul early which they did by playing honest D and allowing the first 3 pt attempt by LBJ.

Then on the next play the Spurs will have to ensure that they make a good inbound to the right person at the right spot then hope that the heat won't force a turnover and instead foul. When they foul which I believe will be immediately so that they can have enough time for one last possession, the Spurs are now pressured to make the FT. Now if only one FT was converted, then the Spurs definitely can't foul and have to play honest D. If its a 3 point deficit, the Heat still have time to launch one final play to equalize. So the same dilemma happens, do the Spurs foul or not the Heat trying to attempt a 3 pointer? The only difference this time is that you know it will most likely be shot off a screen or a catch and shoot. In the end the best scenario is still not to foul under these circumstances.

Now you are assuming the worst case that will happen against the spurs and assuming the best case for miami. We won't know what will actually happen.

So this would be a very extreme case of everything not going for the spurs and the opposite for miami. I'm not afraid of a turnover on a spurs inbound play. That means you are scared to have the ball in your hands to close or win this game even if thru FTs. You want the opponent to miss rather than your team to win by executing.

Now as we know the pass went to Allen who according to you is the last person you want to foul. Therefore, it is a no brainer that no one fouled Allen when he got the pass moreso he was attempting a 3 pointer. What am I saying here ...

Pop decided to play honest D instead of giving up a foul since he knows the Heat will most likely take a three and normally you don't foul someone attempting a 3 pointer. Immediately fouling someone not even taking a shot will only result to stopping the clock and give them FT to cut your lead possibly to one. the pressure now shifts to the Spurs knowing that your opponent will ensure that they will have one last chance to tie of which essentially you also most likely cannot foul. While the potential scenarios are valid, there was no way to execute them considering that if you wanted to waste time you don't foul someone who is not even in a position to shoot the basket and give him 2 FT. The same goes for fouling the worst FT shooter since Wade, Chalmers, LBJ, Bosh and Allen are all respectable FT shooters. Finally, no way you wanna foul Allen attempting a 3.

You would only foul Allen before a 3pt attempt. So that he can only have 2 TFs. You can foul someone who will not shoot as long as they have the ball. The foul is better in critical situations like this since we all know that situation is greatly magnified. Miss and you will likely lose. It won't be a regular free throw. Anyone is most likely to miss - Manu and Kawhi missed one each. It's not going to be automatic.

In short the first one shows why Pop believes they should not foul and the second tells us that while there were various POSSIBILITIES to FOUL, there was really no OPPORTUNITY.

There was no directive to FOUL. So even if there was, they wouldn't and to quote again "We don't" - Pop. Even though you have explanations as to why you think they didn't foul and had no OPPORTUNITY to, it was never the plan. If they planned it, then all of the players' interviews would have said that they wanted to FOUL but had no OPPORTUNITY. And I wouldn't have faulted Pop for that. But like those links I gave, the coaching decisions led to the game 6 loss even if everyone agrees that Pop is a great coach.

Now, that I hope you understand my POV and I've already known yours from the start. You didn't have to re-explain everything coz we know what transpired. I will stop here. Back to discussion with the spurs for the next season. I just hope this isn't the last chance for Tim's 5th ring.

I think it's clear now ... your objective is really not know what the reaction of the spurs fans but rather to know specifically if there are spurs fans out there who share your POV that Pop made the wrong decision.

It's only my POV. Again it's not about sharing. It's about being a loyal fan yet not agreeing with what your team did. If they truly had no chance to win game 6, I wouldn't even be asking.

Really? Those articles never made you read and think?

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/gregg-poppovich-is-a-genius-but-he-really-screwed-up/

What about Magic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHJucfYEzP4&proxmate=us

What about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3wjS5zAG44&proxmate=us

if you were in Pop's position not knowing what will actually happen but only all the possibilities in mind, what would be your call? To foul or not? If you said to foul, who will you foul and in what particular situation?

Like my links before showed, fouling would be during the offensive rebound or before a 2nd 3pt attempt because you need to waste some time from the clock first. With less time, foul whoever was the worst at the free throw line from the heat or anyone who could probably miss at the line at a crucial situation except Ray. These are the potential situations.

Bottomline you know is that the SPurs did not lose because of Allen's 3 pointer as all it did was to tie the game. They still have a chance to win in OT but unfortunately they didn't. What happened is another story.