San Antonio Spurs

[fatchubs]

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?"

Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

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

Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs

[ppdd]

'di na ako makikisawsaw dun sa debate. talo pa din naman e.

 

=|

right on bro!

 

if SA can get AK47.. wow that would be a great addition to their lineup

[friendly0603]

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

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.

Not really. I'm just seeing which % of spurs fans agree with the coach or not. Binasa mo ba yung articles I posted? Did you read the comments?

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?

Huh? This is incoherent. It's the crucial mistakes that are being reviewed. If the mistakes didn't cost them the game, what is there to review. It's the mental mistakes at critical times.

 

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?"

They didn't plan to foul. That is what was wrong. Read the quote below from the article.

 

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. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy.

"We don't," the coach said.

[friendly0603]

Missed your erratum.... Ignore that line in my reply. I can't edit it.

 

Yes, they can. Unlike Indiana who had the same situation the next game, they made the change right away (putting Hibbert in for defense and rebound).

 

Now, when will that future be for The Spurs? Don't know. If Pop is the same, he may employ the same strategy. If they lose again, will you say that is the wrong strategy? If they win the next time, then he could be right. It's just a case of you win some, you lose some. That's assuming identical situations occur - high percentage shooter or clutch shooter (maybe with not so high percentage) and in the finals/playoffs at a critical game.

 

Just imagine if the opponent missed twice, got both offensive rebounds and had a 3rd attempt at a 3pt shot to send the game to overtime.

 

Vindication will only happen the next time if the stars align.

Edited July 10, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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?

Edited July 10, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

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?

I think it's a given for Miami fans to say that Pop made a coaching decision. It just didn't work. No right or wrong because the decision has basis but with an unfortunate end result. Because Miami won. That's why I challenged your opinions. Did my opinion invalidate yours?

 

I want "to know" if there are actual Spurs fans who think that Pop lost this game and eventually the finals because of wrong decisions. Is it just my POV? If they consider Pop's decisions right and not subject to second-guessing, it's all right for me. I just want to know if they agree or not. The way other teams' fans criticize their own team. If all Spurs fans here are like you, then so be it. But they don't care because the final result won't be changed.

 

But I still want to take this series/finals on it's own merits separate from the previous championships. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Because Pop won in the past, it makes it ok to lose this one.

 

It's not just where I'm coming from, it's what others opinion as well. It's coming from the tape being ready before the game is over.

Read again below:

=========================================================================

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. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy.

 

"We don't," the coach said. from http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gregg-popovich-s-substitutions-open-to-second-guessing-after-spurs--game-6-loss-064549161.html

=========================================================================

It wasn't the strategy that Spurs employ. They never planned to do it vs Miami. This is the same coach that employed Hack a Shaq against Phoenix. The Spurs won that series. Fouling was smart back then but it's not the way they want to play now.

 

For the Spurs players, what will you do if Miami gets an offensive rebound with under 10 seconds or 5 seconds? They were just hoping that Miami will miss or that their D would be enough to make them miss. Pop's plan is just defend and do not foul even if it's smarter to foul. It was his directive so he cannot fault his player for that.

 

Did you read the comments from the links?

Edited July 10, 2013 by friendly0603

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

I think it's a given for Miami fans to say that Pop made a coaching decision. It just didn't work. No right or wrong because the decision has basis but with an unfortunate end result. Because Miami won. That's why I challenged your opinions. Did my opinion invalidate yours?

 

I want "to know" if there are actual Spurs fans who think that Pop lost this game and eventually the finals because of wrong decisions. Is it just my POV? If they consider Pop's decisions right and not subject to second-guessing, it's all right for me. I just want to know if they agree or not. The way other teams' fans criticize their own team. If all Spurs fans here are like you, then so be it. But they don't care because the final result won't be changed.

 

But I still want to take this series/finals on it's own merits separate from the previous championships. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen. Because Pop won in the past, it makes it ok to lose this one.

 

It's not just where I'm coming from, it's what others opinion as well. It's coming from the tape being ready before the game is over.

Read again below:

=========================================================================

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. But Popovich has an answer to that foul rather than defend strategy.

 

"We don't," the coach said. from http://sports.yahoo....-064549161.html

=========================================================================

It wasn't the strategy that Spurs employ. They never planned to do it vs Miami. This is the same coach that employed Hack a Shaq against Phoenix. The Spurs won that series. Fouling was smart back then but it's not the way they want to play now.

 

For the Spurs players, what will you do if Miami gets an offensive rebound with under 10 seconds or 5 seconds? They were just hoping that Miami will miss or that their D would be enough to make them miss. Pop's plan is just defend and do not foul even if it's smarter to foul. It was his directive so he cannot fault his player for that.

 

Did you read the comments from the links?

 

sir, you are not answering Fatchubs question...

 

you're saying that it is a smarter decision to foul... kelan, saang part, at sino ang dapat i-foul sir???

 

gaya ulit ng sinabi ni Fatchubs, kung ang tinutukoy mo ay ang i-foul si Allen, kahit maisip ng

 

SPurs players na i-foul sya, huli na sir, kasi split second nga lang yung pangyayari, at kung hahabulin pa

 

nila na i-foul si Allen, they could have given Allen three freethrows or a 4-point play... simple lang naman

 

yung sinasabi, nagtataka ko kung bakit napakahirap para sayo na maintindihan yun...

 

 

 

ngayon kung ang gusto mo lang malaman eh kung sino-sino yung Spurs fans na pabor sa decision or hindi,

 

eh di sna ganun mo binuo yung tanong mo... hindi kasi ganun yung pagkakatanong mo, sna pinasimple mo

 

na lang, halimbawa "sino ang SPurs Fans dito na pabor sa decision ni Pop at sino ang hindi?"

 

simple lang tanong, mas makukuha mo agad ang hinahanap mo, kung totoo man yung sinasabi mo na yan

 

lang gusto mo malaman (as per your recent posts)...

 

 

 

regardless kung anong team pa ang gusto namin ni Fatchubs, nagkataon lang kami yung nagsasabi nyan...

 

dapat intindihin mo pa din yung idea na kahit gustuhin ng Spurs na mag-foul, eh alanganin talaga boss...

 

dahil mabilis nga yung pangyayari, the mere fact na sinabi mo na madaming beses nagmintis ang Heat,

 

it means nagiging effective yung honest D nila...

[friendly0603]

sir, you are not answering Fatchubs question...

you're saying that it is a smarter decision to foul... kelan, saang part, at sino ang dapat i-foul sir???

Naintindihan mo ba yung sagot ko? Binasa mo ba?

 

gaya ulit ng sinabi ni Fatchubs, kung ang tinutukoy mo ay ang i-foul si Allen, kahit maisip ng

SPurs players na i-foul sya, huli na sir, kasi split second nga lang yung pangyayari, at kung hahabulin pa

nila na i-foul si Allen, they could have given Allen three freethrows or a 4-point play... simple lang naman

yung sinasabi, nagtataka ko kung bakit napakahirap para sayo na maintindihan yun...

Irregardless of what the situation was, hindi nila balak mag-foul. If the Spurs said, they wanted to foul pero walang chance.

Tapos na ang usapan ang question to foul or not to foul. I asked - "why didn't they foul?". I didn't ask "if they had a chance to foul?".

 

ngayon kung ang gusto mo lang malaman eh kung sino-sino yung Spurs fans na pabor sa decision or hindi,

eh di sna ganun mo binuo yung tanong mo... hindi kasi ganun yung pagkakatanong mo, sna pinasimple mo

na lang, halimbawa "sino ang SPurs Fans dito na pabor sa decision ni Pop at sino ang hindi?"

simple lang tanong, mas makukuha mo agad ang hinahanap mo, kung totoo man yung sinasabi mo na yan

Read from the start, I asked spurs fans and I didn't want to limit the discussion. There are many other opinions. I hope binasa yung mga links ko. Meron pa na dapat si Ginobili ang pinaupo, etc.

 

regardless kung anong team pa ang gusto namin ni Fatchubs, nagkataon lang kami yung nagsasabi nyan...

dapat intindihin mo pa din yung idea na kahit gustuhin ng Spurs na mag-foul, eh alanganin talaga boss...

dahil mabilis nga yung pangyayari, the mere fact na sinabi mo na madaming beses nagmintis ang Heat,

it means nagiging effective yung honest D nila...

It was only effective for the first attempt. Iba naman ang gusto mag-foul pero hindi nagawa so honest D lang ang defense plan.

You got to expect that you need to rebound as well. They failed to rebound in successive possessions.

It also doesn't mean that putting Duncan in would mean that their defense wouldn't be able to defend the 3 on the first attempt.

Kung si Bosh ang naging libre who hasn't been productive dahil kay Duncan, tapos na shoot nya yung 3. Sasabihin mo ba na dapat si Diaw ang bumantay? Ikaw ba kokontra at sasabihin mali ang decision ni Pop to stay with Duncan? Ako, hindi ko sasabihin yun. With the poor shooting of Bosh, the percentages/chances would be worse if Bosh put up the shot instead of Ray Allen.

Edited July 11, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2013 by fatchubs

[Labuyo]

at least gumagalaw ang thread...

 

carry on lang since maayos na diskusyon naman ang nagaganap.

 

 

right on bro!

 

if SA can get AK47.. wow that would be a great addition to their lineup

 

pretty quiet on the FAgency front. siguro ang plano as useless is to reload with essentially the same team. slight bump si MB over neal.

 

pero i do think we can still improve a bit sa ating fringe/role players.

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

Naintindihan mo ba yung sagot ko? Binasa mo ba?

 

 

Irregardless of what the situation was, hindi nila balak mag-foul. If the Spurs said, they wanted to foul pero walang chance.

Tapos na ang usapan ang question to foul or not to foul. I asked - "why didn't they foul?". I didn't ask "if they had a chance to foul?".

 

 

Read from the start, I asked spurs fans and I didn't want to limit the discussion. There are many other opinions. I hope binasa yung mga links ko. Meron pa na dapat si Ginobili ang pinaupo, etc.

 

 

It was only effective for the first attempt. Iba naman ang gusto mag-foul pero hindi nagawa so honest D lang ang defense plan.

You got to expect that you need to rebound as well. They failed to rebound in successive possessions.

It also doesn't mean that putting Duncan in would mean that their defense wouldn't be able to defend the 3 on the first attempt.

Kung si Bosh ang naging libre who hasn't been productive dahil kay Duncan, tapos na shoot nya yung 3. Sasabihin mo ba na dapat si Diaw ang bumantay? Ikaw ba kokontra at sasabihin mali ang decision ni Pop to stay with Duncan? Ako, hindi ko sasabihin yun. With the poor shooting of Bosh, the percentages/chances would be worse if Bosh put up the shot instead of Ray Allen.

 

 

sir, medyo mahilig ka naman ata sa maling formulation ng tanong...

 

as you've said kanina gusto mo malaman kung ilang percent ng Spurs

fans ang nag-iisip na mali ang decision ni Pop, pero hindi naman ganun ang

dating ng tanong mo, kahit itanong mo pa sa ibang nakakabasa...

 

 

ngayon naman ang tanong mo, sabi mo to ha "to foul or not to foul/"

 

pero ang post mong tanong is "why didn't they foul?" sa tingin mo

sir magkapareho ba ng concept yang dalawang tanong na yan???

ang labo mo kasi magtanong, inconsistent yung tanong mo,

 

para saan bakit paiba-iba ang concept ng tanong mo?? para lumusot???

 

kung ang tanong mo eh kung bakit hindi nila binalak mag-foul...

 

eh mali na naman yung pagkakaformulate mo ng question...

 

kasi ang tanong mo eh "why didn't they foul?" which is based on things

na nangyari na... you're pertaining to a point that had just happened....

 

kung talagang ang gusto mong itanong eh kung bakit hindi nila binalak

mag-foul, dapat ang sinabi mo eh "why fouling was never in their plans?"

 

or pwede ding, "why they didn't even plan to foul?"

 

 

 

ang problema, malinaw na malinaw ang tanong mo

 

"why didn't they foul?" o "bakit hindi sila nag-foul?"

 

uulitin ko, sa tanong na binuo mo, you are talking of what happened...

 

pero pinipilit mo ngayon sabihin na ang question mo eh about

 

sa plano nila, bakit hindi pinlano na mag-foul...

 

so you're pertaining to the plan before the said play happened...

 

before you argue, maybe you should check first your questions...

[friendly0603]

"why didn't they foul?" o "bakit hindi sila nag-foul?"

Basahin mo yung questions dyan?

http://offtherim.bangordailynews.com/2013/06/24/high-school/poor-basketball-decisions-not-the-heat-beat-the-spurs-in-nba-finals/

 

3. Why didn't the Spurs foul.........?

Hindi pa ba equal sa "why didn't they foul?"

 

From another article - The foreign press was less interested in Duncan’s absence than why the Spurs didn’t foul intentionally on that critical possession, forcing the Heat to settle for two free throws instead of having an opportunity to tie the game with one shot.

Edited July 11, 2013 by friendly0603

[alberto_]

you lose some, you win some. at the end of the day desisyon ng coaching staff kung ano ang nararapat gawin, on the part of the players, kung paano nila ieexecute ang mga plays.

kung ako ang tatanungin bilang isang masugid na nanonood ng nba, dalawa lang ang options na natitira. dun ba ako sa diskarteng tabla-panalo or sa panalo-talo.

syempre dun ako sa diskarteng tabla-panalo.

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

Basahin mo yung questions dyan?

http://offtherim.ban...-in-nba-finals/

 

3. Why didn't the Spurs foul.........?

Hindi pa ba equal sa "why didn't they foul?"

 

From another article - The foreign press was less interested in Duncan’s absence than why the Spurs didn’t foul intentionally on that critical possession, forcing the Heat to settle for two free throws instead of having an opportunity to tie the game with one shot.

 

ang layo naman ng reply mo sa comment ko, nililihis mo na naman kasi mali ka na...

 

i'm not talking about any article na pinost ng ibang tao sir.... i'm talking about your

 

first post in relation with your recent post...

 

uulitin ko... ang sabi mo galing sayo tong tanong na to ha...

 

"why they didn't plan to foul?" kasi nga sinabi ni Pop na hindi talaga plano mag-foul

 

pero ang post mo dati

 

"why didn't they foul?

 

sir, concept pa lang magkaiba na... pero you're implying na pareho lang yan

 

base sa mga sagot mo...

 

 

the first question pertains to the plan even before the play happened...

 

the second question pertains to the play after it happened...

 

magkaiba sir... kaya please settle your mind first kung alin ba talaga ang tanong

 

mo dun... kasi sa kakagawa mo ng palusot, iba-iba na yung lumalabas

 

na tanong mo as compare sa initial post mo...

[friendly0603]

magkaiba sir... kaya please settle your mind first kung alin ba talaga ang tanong

mo dun... kasi sa kakagawa mo ng palusot, iba-iba na yung lumalabas

na tanong mo as compare sa initial post mo...

Ang kulit ano? Puwede sagutin mo yung reporter or yung article? The question came from those views.

It's the same question - not worded differently. Kung hindi mo ma-comprehend, it's not my problem.

 

Paano naging malayo eh yan pa rin ang question? Isipin mo na lang kung ano ang gusto mo isipin.

O bakit kaya dahil meron ka pang 2 qualifiers eh di sagutin mo na lang pareho?

 

Di na kailangan ng repetitive posts with no content?

[friendly0603]

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

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

 

Really? Those articles never made you read and think?

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

 

What about Magic?

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

 

What about this one?

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

 

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

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

 

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

I don't have to comment on this.

[fatchubs]

 

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.

[friendly0603]

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

So you just want to relate potential to what happened?

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

[fatchubs]

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.

Edited July 13, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

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

 

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

[fatchubs]

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

[fatchubs]

^^^ 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!

 

 

Edited July 13, 2013 by fatchubs

[friendly0603]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a crystal ball knowing the result, he will change his decision. But without a crystal ball in the same situation, he says he will do it again. Just means that this is what he's made up his mind on.

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

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

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

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

[fatchubs]

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.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2013 by fatchubs