San Antonio Spurs

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

ganito lang yan... usually kung papipiliin ang isang coach sa dalawa... i'm not talking of the Spurs-Heat game ha..

 

any basket ball game at kinailangan papiliin ang coach between "tabla-panalo" or "tabla, panalo or talo"

 

majority would choose the first option... tama ba ko???

 

yung pinagsasasabi kasi ng isang GM at ng mga tinutukoy nyang reporter eh opinyon ng isang taong

 

nagcocomment sa isang bagay na tapos na... so malamang may biased na yung mga sinasabi niya...

 

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

 

you are telling us that great coaches trust their superstars and trust their team, tama ba ko???

 

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...

 

 

 

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...

 

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???

[friendly0603]

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.

Edited July 15, 2013 by friendly0603

[friendly0603]

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...

Assumption... Bosh had a lousy offensive night. He can make both, miss one or miss both because the game is on the line and this are pressure packed FTs. How many times has he delivered in the clutch? It's not automatic. Every score is crucial.

 

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"?

Edited July 15, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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?

 

 

 

 

[friendly0603]

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?

Well, unfortunately I and some others don't agree.

 

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.

Edited July 15, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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

Edited July 15, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

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.

Edited July 15, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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.

 

 

[friendly0603]

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.

Edited July 16, 2013 by friendly0603

[untitled]

looking forward to next season! GSG pa rin!

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

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

 

 

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

 

Assumption... Bosh had a lousy offensive night. He can make both, miss one or miss both because the game is on the line and this are pressure packed FTs. How many times has he delivered in the clutch? It's not automatic. Every score is crucial.

 

 

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.

 

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"?

 

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???

 

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...

 

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"?

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

based sa mga sinasabi mo, you want them to give the foul after the first missed right???

 

cge nga panu iinstruct ni Pop yung play???

 

ganito ba? "if they missed the first attempt and get the rebound, foul them"

 

ganyan ba??? eh panu kung mabilisan itinira ni LBJ ang bola, nagmintis at na-rebound din nila,

syempre mahaba pa oras nun kasi mabilisan tapos sinunod ang sabi mong mag-foul...

eh di you are giving the Heat possibilities to bring the lead down to one... with longer time...

 

wag mong sabihin na sa ikalawang mintis mag-foul...

 

kasi baka gusto mo din sabihin na sa luob ng isang minutong time out eh mai-didiscuss din ni Pop sa team na

 

"pag nagmintis sila sa unang tira at na-rebound nila, patirahin nyo ulit, at pagnagmintis pa ulit, at sila ulit naka-rebound

i-foul nyo na"

 

tapos sabi mo dapat i-foul si Bosh, kasi he had a lousy night...

 

bakit alam na ba nilang mare-rebound ni Bosh??? so panu sa sabihin ni Pop sa time-out yun???

 

ang problema nga kasi ayaw mo pang tanggapin na you're opinion is based on hindsight...

[friendly0603]

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?

Edited July 16, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fatchubs]

 

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