fatchubs

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.

YES I read the link and it says:

 

 

 

The Spurs were not going to allow the best player in the world to beat them with high percentage shots.

 

In the first six games of The Finals, LeBron shot 34-of-65 (52.3%) inside the paint and just 21-of-61 (34.4%) outside the paint, including 7-of-23 (30.4%) from 3-point range.

 

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?

Coach after coach will be correct in telling you that guarding the three-point line – a major priority in a typical half-court possession – is a frustrating endeavor when an offensive rebound is collected by your opponent. There’s just too many bodies to account for, and the five-man small lineup that’s pitched to stand around the arc for a long range shot in the half court seemingly becomes twice as hard to guard with a loose ball involved, and willing shooters ready to have another go at it.

 

We’re right to wonder if Popovich screwed up. While I agree that Diaw is at this point quicker thanTim Duncan, and that Duncan’s classic big man defense may seem like a walking anachronism in the face of a small Miami lineup, a defensive stop doesn’t end until you’ve secured the bloody ball. And Tim Duncan is far better than Boris Diaw at securing the bloody ball.

 

With that in place, those two missteps are on the players on the floor, not the coach on the sideline.

 

It’s pointless to criticize the Spurs for failing to secure those long, wild rebounds. One was off of an airball, and chucks from three-point range are traditionally the hardest to grab. We also shouldn’t criticize them for failing to foul the Heat while within the three-point circle, as that’s a huge call to make at such a crucial juncture, especially so far away from the Spurs’ bench and the barked out orders.

 

(Although, it should be noted, for the first time in his career Popovich has decided to choose to have his bench face his team’s offensive side of the court during the second half. Coach Pop dismissed questions about the move in a press conference earlier in the postseason.)

 

We can blame them, though. Blaming and criticizing are two different things, because while the Spurs’ efforts and instincts were probably above reproach late in the regulation minute of Game 6, their execution was off. Even if Tony Parker did all he could to get a hand in Ray Allen’s face without fouling before Allen nailed the game-tying trey.

 

Gregg Popovich may seem like a stubborn, intractable sort – but his game plan and adjustments throughout the years betray that stereotype. The guy thinks on his feet, perhaps better than anyone to ever walk an NBA sideline.

 

He’s sticking with this move, though. And it’s not hard to understand why.

 

Here’s Tim Duncan on the Spurs’ late-game approach in Game 6, via ASAPSports.com:

1373981071[/url]' post='8782810']

http://stats.nba.com...013_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.

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 or should i say gets mo pero pinaninindigan mo lang na tama ka

For the 2012-2013 season eto po ang averages nila:

HEAT

points per game 102.9

points against 95.0

SPURS

points per game 103.0

points against 96.6

If you get the ave score of these two teams in the finals this Heat scored 97 the Spurs 97.7. Both teams were way too off on their respective scoring averages during the series but was close in terms of points against. This means both played defensively rather than offensively

During the series, the Heat was able to limit the Spurs from scoring below 95 points 4 times. The Heat won 3 times in these 4 games.

On the other hand the Spurs was only able to limit the Heat from scoring above 95 pts twice, winning on both occations. There was a game when the Heat scored exactly 95 but the spurs lost this one.

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

 

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"?

kung walang silbi ang D bakit may kasabihan

OFFENSE wins Games but ...

DEFENSE wins CHAMPIONSHIP

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

I read and understood your statement as it is ... "Yes, it's possible. If the spurs win outright by not fouling, then Pop is a genius and the players executed to perfection "

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.

This proves that during that instance there is nothing wrong with his decision irregardless whether it be to foul or not . Both ACCEPTABLE DECISIONS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Uulitin ko po, Decisions made in hindsight will always be 100% correct. But when you make a decision without hindsight you'll never really know whether it is the right or wrong decision. So tingnan natin at intindihin kung may logic ang naging desisyon kahit napatunayan na mali ito. Wala pong taong gustong mali ang magiging disisyon nila kung may pagkakataon lang malaman habang ginagawa nila ito. Kaya wag po tayo mapanghusga na parang napakagaling natin at kung tayo ang nasa posisyon ni Pop ay tiyak tama ang naging desisyon natin.

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.

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 )

Why am I saying your designed play is FLAWED to begin with? It's ILLOGICAL. Why is it illogical? Go back to your objective ... you wanted to give up a FOUL to avoid giving up a three point opportunity. In other words what you are saying is that you rather give up the two and not the three so you still have a one point lead.

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.

Again, with HINDSIGHT, your suggestion is 100% correct.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now that you are being challenged, may clarifications na?

When you are in Pop's shoes making that decision, you never know whether that 3 point shot will be taken early or late in the game. You got to make up your mind to whether to play D or to foul and protect a one point lead confident that your team can do what is necessary to preserve the win. However, you are talking about fouling when the Heat have attempted and got an offensive board. In effect you decide not to foul during the first attempt. Howvern, that first attempt could be the game equalizer. A good coach will always plan first for the initial play first before any subsequent play.

Kaso sa tono ng pananalita mo parang alam na alam mo na magmimintis at dun ka pa lang mag foul para 5 sec left. At sasabihin mo sa amin na ang desisyon ito ng walang tulong ng hindsight?

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. 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.

Those reference you provided all have the benefit of HINDSIGHT. Pop didn't. Mahirap bang intindihin yan? Hindi po ba ilang ulit na sinabi and ilang tao na rin ang nagsabi with HINDSIGHT you will be 100% right. Kaya nga sinabi ko na ang galing mo magdesisyon with hindsight. Kung kaya mong magdesisyon ng perfecto without hindsight malamang isa ka na sa mga premyadong coaches ngayon

SImple lang yan ... now that we are all discussing this with the benefit of hindsight whatever decisions Pop made when the game was on going like whether to foul or not or was it right to sit TD or not will be questioned as long as it did not deliver the desired result to you. Ikaw na ang nagsabi pag nanalo no questions asked.

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.

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

1373920649[/url]' post='8781332']

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 preservethe 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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

1373813928[/url]' post='8779833']

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

Kung perfect man ang desisyon mo in hindsight or you are a ballboy as you eloquently said, you still need someone who can see your potential and who will trust in you. You need the opportunity. How many have that opportunity?

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.

1373801221[/url]' post='8779180']

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.

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?

You have to believe that having the ball in your hands means you win or lose depending on what you do. Not depending on what your opponents do. You believe you can execute and score when you need to. You have TP, TD and Manu who have won multiple rings. Trust your superstars in these situations.

I think Pop summed it up perfectly - "It's a game of mistakes."

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.

Let me remind you that the game was not lost on Allen's three. What it just did was to tie the game. 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.

Only one man saw his capability and it was enough to get him there. And if he was replaced when he lost in his first finals in 2011, we wouldn't know if he was good enough to win a finals series.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sa option na possibleng tabla-panalo o tabla-talo-panalo dun na ako sa una. Pero choice mo yan kung ikaw gusto mong sumugal.

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.

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.

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

1373726573[/url]' post='8778176']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.

Yes agree ako you wanted to waste time and limit their attempt in fact hindi ba dapat na pinaguusapan sa ganoong sitwasyon ay to limit your opponent to 1shot? Remember 17 sec na lang ata ang time nun naginbound ang miami sa backcourt. Kaya nga no foul ...para tumakbo ang oras and at the same time you put the pressure on them to score. No easy basket specially un FT.

Pero siyempre expected din ng Spurs na kung tumira ang kalaban dapat makuha nila ang rebound diba? Basic basketball ang not allowing offensive boards. Wala naman sigurong tangang coach ang pinagplaplanuhan ay kung ilang attempts magkakaroon ang kalaban with17 sec. .

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.

Ganito lang yan bro ... Madaming nagmamagaling na magbigay ng kanikanilang opinion kung ano dapat ang naging desisyon ni Pop ngayong nakita na natin ang nangyari.

Its not to say you as well as the commentators dont know your basketball. Tama ang comments ninyo kung tutuusin. Since the Spurs went on to lose game six after Allen got to tie the game, logical naman ang mag foul at ibigay na lang ang two FT kaysa sa tres at makatabla.

Ang problema hindi alam ng coach kung ano ba talaga ang mangyayari....mga posibilidad ang tumatakbo sa utak niya habag siya'y nagdesisyon at sa palagay niya hindi dapat mag foul. Hindi tulad ninyo wala siyang benefit ng hindsight nung nagdesisyon siya.

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.

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.

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!

1373678870[/url]' post='8776895']

 

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

I am just putting myself in the shoes of Pop. As a coach would you rather think of the best scenario that could happen in favor of your opponent when deciding on a defensive play or you rather think otherwise?

There was no directive tand did you realixed reakizes wge

With the initial play, it was ok for you not to foul but with 9 sec left you're saying they should foul ... In both instances the spurs were up by three. Care to share your view?

Those who knows their basketball wouldn't give up a foul specially when FT will be awarded if the offensive guy is not in a position to score when your team has the lead. Even if its a pressure pack FT attempt, it is still a higher percentage shot than a pressure pack FG attempt from the three point area.

 

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.

 

Well you have your potential situations. So let us relate your answer to what really happened because this is how the play went by ...

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. 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 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. After which 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.

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.

For the record I am neither an Heat nor a Spurs fans ... I watched this series as a simple basketball / NBA fan thus I don't think I would have any bias.

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.

In hindsight, it is easy to say "San Antonio could've tried to foul in an instant, giving Allen two free throws rather than the 3-pointer that forced overtime and will go down in Finals lore." then again as I asked you, 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?

Remember when Pop decided not to foul, I believe what he was thinking that time is that the Heat will definitely go for a three pointer. So the decision was to defend the three without fouling. If the Heat take the shot in the last second then it will be at worst a tie otherwise they win. If the Heat took the shot with time remaining then the HEat will be force to foul (it is presumed they will get the rebound).

Of course who could have thought Bosh will be getting the offensive board and Allen would have that split second moment free of anyone since Manu was down and Green was inside the paint battling for the boards.

Given that NBA players is expected to have a high basketball IQ and is expected to decide what is best tingin ko tama pa rin hindi nag foul. See the play again, Allen was up in the air when TP got to him. All he can do is play honest D and challenge that shot. A foul would have given Allen 3 FT which is a higher percentage shot that having him drain that 3 pointer.

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.

Mr Friendly,

If you just want to see which percentage of the fans agree or disagree with what transpired then why argue and challenge the opinion of others which is not the same as yours?

Thus to me what you said vis-a-vis your actions only validates my belief that you're intent is really to find some spurs fans that shares the same POV with you.

Again, given that you think the spurs should have fouled, can you please tell me who should they foul and at which particular point. I just want to see where you are coming from considering in hindsight, yes i do think that fouling and giving up the two points is the better option than having Allen sink the three and lose in OT. but POP had to decide base on the situation before the play happened. So put yourself in his shoe what play will you call?

Erratum... In the actual scenario wherein they didn't LOST ... Should be " in the actual scenario when they didn't foul and lost"

Nope. They can have the same view as you but they can also have a different view. It's not like I'm the only one who has this view.

 

Have a read.

http://sports.yahoo....-064549161.html

http://www.usatoday....game-6/2437133/

 

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/15048221/20130618_ajl_ah6_266.0_standard_352.0.jpg

 

If they still lost, then will review again what happened in the game and see what other decisions let Miami win. It will be other plays and other decisions.

 

Pop's situation is unique. The Spurs aren't like other teams. This is an aging Spurs and being competitive maybe enough to keep the fans and management and the players happy.

 

I hope that the Spurs can come back to the finals and dominate again. Even though I was rooting for the Warriors, I didn't blame them for losing to the Spurs because they never had the same chance to win the series. The series wasn't lost for just a few critical plays.

Mismo ... read again my earlier post...

The fact of the matter is there will be spurs fans that thinks like you and others will think otherwise. The point is, if both jepoy and i are actually spurs fans and we posted what we've posted as a reply to you, you would have still argued with us as what we've seen.

In short, kahit na Spurs fans ang nagsabing sangayon sila sa desisyon ni Pop, kokontra ka pa rin kasi iba ang pananaw mo.

Therefore what's the point in asking the opinion of the Spurs fan if you will insist your opinion is better just because the spurs fan has a different POV.

You said that if they fouled and lost they can review again. In the actual scenario wherein they didn't lost ... can't they also review what went wrong and make the necessary adjustments in the future?

Finally, panoorin mo ulit un play at sagutin mo ang tanong ko nga eto . "If you are suggesting the Spurs should have fouled, sino dapat at kailan?"

great evaluation of what actually transpired hindi yung maipilit lang yung gusto

kasi alam na ang resulta...

Actually, the spurs played excellent D in covering any possible 3 point attempts. Maganda ang switch sa weak side so tanggal na un option na makatira si Ray Allen. LBJ had to throw that one from afar and he missed. Tama si Pop it was really hard to scamper back to your man after a missed attempt and an offensive rebound. Still give credit to the Spurs, TP was quick to react. Humabol pa rin siya pero ang bilis lang ng pangyayari from the time Bosh got that offensive board. Kahit sino mahirapan magreact agad sa loob ng 1 sec.

I actually reviewed the play ...

Chalmers, LBJ and Bosh were on the strong side with Wade and Allen on the weak side. Two screens were simultaneously made. On the weak side, Wade made a back screen for Ray so there was now a switch. Manu who was guarding Allen ends up with Wade while Green now is with Allen. On the strong side Bosh made a screen that freed up LBJ for the 3 point attempt with around 10 secs to go. Diaw did offer help D so Bosh was left alone floating in the shaded area. As LBJ was about to take the shot Ray Allen moved into the low post coming from the wing. He was being boxed out by green. At this point, clearly Bosh has the advantage in position. The Spurs only have Green closest to the basket as the possible rebounder and behind him is Allen.

When the shot was missed, Bosh jump for the rebound with about 8.5 sec left. Manu incidentally also went up for the rebound and he fell to the floor. He actually landed in between Green and Allen. That caused Allen to be free for a split second.

Bosh pass the ball to Allen who was backpedalling towards the 3 point line. Allen catch and shoot the ball with about 7.5 sec remaining to equalize the game.

If the spurs would have fouled, should they foul Bosh who actually was not squared for a shot and not even facing the basket? Usually you don't give up "cheap" fouls specially if FT will be awarded. But since we know that Allen would end up hitting the three, in hindsight of course it is better to foul and give 2 FT and try to protect the 1 point lead. The problem is we don't know what would have transpired after.

Personally, fouling Allen is not really an option to me. First it is a low percentage shot. Second, it was not an "easy" shot considering he is not wide open. Parker did scamper to help out despite the fact that Manu and Green were out of the picture. Lastly, giving him 3 FT is almost like money in the bag.

Now if you are up by three, and given that Bosh is not about to shoot, there is no point in fouling and give him 2 easy points from the line, A lot of scenarios may happen that could lead to either a tie or the heat winning in regulation if the spurs end up not being able to protect their lead. However, if he was about to take it strongly to the hoop, then I would agree to a (hard) foul rather than give up an easy two. Let him earn it from the stripes.

We can debate for hours whether Gregg Popovich should have fouled with a three-point lead even though he has never done so in that situation over the years. Or whether he should have had Tim Duncan on the court in the final seconds to grab the rebound that ultimately went toChris Bosh, even though his strategy has always been to have smaller players on the floor who were capable of switching in that situation.

In the end, Popovich has a process, no different than Allen's, and his players trust his decisions.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/6/19/4444298/heat-vs-spurs-nba-finals-2013-game-6-ray-allen-lebron-james

I just have this feeling that you want the reaction from the spurs fans thinking that they will share the same view/opinion as yours.

The fact of the matter is there will be spurs fans that thinks like you and others will think otherwise. The point is, if both jepoy and i are actually spurs fans and we posted what we've posted as a reply to you, you would have still argued with us as what we've seen.

Bottomline is the future hall of fame coach had spoken and explained what transpired. pulling out timmy was a decision he had to make based on the situation not knowing what will actually happen as compared to a decision in hindsight. Timmy ain't complaining...and the team owner probably understood Pop's decision that he continue to have confidence in him. Otherwise Pop may no longer be the head coach now.

You are entitled to your views and we are too. In hindsight just because the spurs did not foul then it was according to you a wrong decision. However i wonder, had they fouled and lost would fouling still be the right decision to you?