San Antonio Spurs

[friendly0603]

I read and understood your statement as it is ..

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

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

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

It's not "just win or lose" when it's the finals. If it's just a regular game, I wouldn't care about even if you make successive mistakes and lose. Winning the finals is the ultimate goal of any franchise.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[friendly0603]

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

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

 

In the 2012-2013 season,

Miami is the #1 offensive team Spurs is #7

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

 

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

[fatchubs]

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

Edited July 16, 2013 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

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

 

Not new at all. Something we've done all year. Obviously we were trying to protect the three‑point line. We had a lot of bodies in there to switch and get up on our shooters. Two bad bounces off a rebound, we actually get the stops on the threes and bad bounces right back out for threes.

 

It is what it is. Obviously, I want to be in there every minute of the game. That's just how we're built. But we've done it all year long. We've been successful with it. And if it comes down to it again, Pop will make the call again.

 

 

 

 

[fatchubs]

 

 

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.

 

 

[friendly0603]

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[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?

 

 

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[D-L]

buhay na buhay tong thread ng Spurs ah!

pero ok yan. basta healthy discussion lang mga sir.

 

Mukhang maganda na naman ang incoming season.

Maraming team ang nagpalakas ng line-up.

Sana lang mabawasan yung mga injury lalo na sa mga top players para mas masaya.

[friendly0603]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Game 2:

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

 

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

 

Game 4:

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

 

Game 6:

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

 

Game 7:

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

 

Open mind?

 

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

 

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

Edited July 17, 2013 by friendly0603

[friendly0603]

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

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

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

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

Nonsense hahahaha

 

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

[fatchubs]

Game 2:

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

 

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

 

Game 4:

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

 

Game 6:

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

 

Game 7:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Open mind?

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

This is the regular season stat .. .

 

Miami shot 49.6% and their opponent FG% is 44% on the other hand the spurs own FG% is at 48.1% while their opponents FG% is 44.2%. From here you know that Both teams can shoot at 48-49% and on the other hand contain their respective opponents to around 44%

 

 

Now this is the respective FG% if the Heat and Spurs respectively in the finals:

 

Game 1 Heat .436 Spurs .417

 

Game 2 Heat .494 Spurs .410

 

Game 3 Heat .408 Spurs .489

 

Game 4 Heat .529 Spurs .443

 

Game 5 Heat .430 Spurs .600

 

Game 6 Heat .469 Spurs .435

 

Game 7 Heat .439 Spurs .378

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited July 17, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

YES I read the link and it says:

 

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

 

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

[fatchubs]

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

 

nope you read me right ...

 

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

 

 

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

[friendly0603]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

nope you read me right ...

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited July 17, 2013 by friendly0603

[ppdd]

3 User(s) are reading this topic

3 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

1. fatchubs,
2. ppdd,
3. friendly0603

good evening peeps..

 

 

 

[fatchubs]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Alam mo ganito lang yan ... abutin man tayo ng isang taon, isang dekada o mas matagal pa, hindi naman magbabago ang opinion ko. Wala akong pakialam kung mali man o hindi ang naging desisyon ni Pop. Sa pananaw ko kasi tama pero kahit natalo sila I am not affected. And I am not rejoicing either because the Heat won either.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

[friendly0603]

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

 

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

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

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

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

Who invented that reasoning?

 

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

 

Game 2 Heat .494 Spurs .410

Game 4 Heat .529 Spurs .443

Game 6 Heat .469 Spurs .435

Game 7 Heat .439 Spurs .378

 

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

 

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

--Tim Duncan

 

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

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

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

 

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

There it is.

 

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

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

 

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

Coz you conveniently miss the previous play that just happened. All I'm sure is that Pop gave them that chance to tie and 2 FTs is better than a 3. Everyone knows that Miami was going for a 3. How can something be hindsight when on the spot it was already another option? If Miami missed even an open 3 pt shot, then Spurs win.

 

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

Edited July 17, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

For the record i did not conveniently miss the "previousl play" .... Its just that at the time of making the decision it has not happened so i would not criticize Pop on that. He didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

Could the play happen. Yes. Is fouling the right call before we saw the play? Yes if what will happen happened but No if it didn't we never will know at the time he was making his decision. In other words either decision will either result to the Spurs winning or not.

If your objective is to foul so that you will not give the Heat the opportunity to tie, then it is illogical to wait for the offensive board to foul if this decision isn't made in hindsight. The first attempt is already a potential game equalizer. A foul should have been given even before the first attempt. Otherwise you also gave them the chance to tie. Illogical but you decided it should be the decision.

 

 

The spurs shoots .480 from the field. They were limited to the lower .400s. That was not D?

The spurs also shot well when the won except in game one. In game 7 the heat fg% is below their ave but they were able to limit the spurs to below .400 that's D

 

 

Edited July 17, 2013 by fatchubs

[Labuyo]

tahimik muna ulit. onting bali-balita during training camp, pre-season at regular season.

 

pero malamang sa playoffs na lang ulit mapapansin.

 

here's hoping we can rebound stronger from the 5th championship that almost was.

[Labuyo]

a bit of off-season/free agency reading for the fans of the Silver and Black

[Labuyo]

actually worth noting din yung fact that our (assistant) coaches are in high demand.

[naspter123]

go for finals pa rin next season

[naspter123]

mabigat masyado west teams ngaun like rockets and healthy warriors, dont count out thunder

[Narada]

matagal naman nang mas competitive ang western conference.