San Antonio Spurs

[Labuyo]

Manu sticks around for two more years

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

Any spurs fan got answers to these questions. Why didn't the spurs foul to prevent a 3 pt shot in the dying seconds of game 6 to prevent overtime?

 

Why didn't the spurs call timeout to bring back Tony parker instead of Manu driving to the basket?

 

Even though it was smart to sit Duncan so that Diaw can defend Bosh, wouldn't you let Duncan a hall of famer stay in the court at these critical situations?

 

 

I'm not a Spurs fan, but I may have a valid answer to your question sir.

 

*first question*

- usually, when your team is leading by 3 with less than 28 (don't know the exact time)seconds remaining... the option of majority (if not all) of the coaches would be just to impliment an honest defense... this would burn down the time...

while your team is still on the lead... and the worst possible thing to happen is an overtime...

and Pop is actually expecting the ball to go back to the SPurs possession... it actually worked...

the problem only, is that they were not able to control the rebound...

 

if the coach tried to impliment what you have suggested which is to foul, you'll be giving 2 bonus shots to your

opponent while the time is not running... if ever they made 2 shots, your lead would be down to 1, given more time

the opponent could give an honest D or foul (which this time the pressure would be on your side to make the

freethrow... or to make a good inbound) much more risky especially in a game against a good defensive team

at their hometown... the chance of losing in regulation is higher... plus the fact that in opponent's bonus shot,

anything can happen, made first shot, missed second, rebound, made 3...

 

to explain it further...

 

which is less risky???

 

having a 3-point lead, defending a team while time is winding down... (less than 28 seconds i think) or

 

having 1-point lead, handling a ball (risk of steal / turn-over)... with opponent having enough time for one more

ball possession???

 

 

*second question*

 

i think it was TP who attempted the final shot for Spurs in regulation...

 

 

 

*third question*

 

 

Coach Pop wanted to stop LBJ, majority of coaches would think that the Heat will rely on their superstar...

which actually happened... and of course he wanted the best player who could stop LBJ... TD defends the inside...

he could not easily match with LBJ on an isolation, that's why Pop used Diaw instead of TD...

 

plus you also need to consider, TD is not getting any younger, maybe Pop sees that TD was already tired...

actually, TD never complained about that, so why would you??

[friendly0603]

I'm not a Spurs fan, but I may have a valid answer to your question sir.

*first question*

which is less risky???

having a 3-point lead, defending a team while time is winding down... (less than 28 seconds i think) or

having 1-point lead, handling a ball (risk of steal / turn-over)... with opponent having enough time for one more

ball possession???

Wrong answer. Since you didn't get the question, the clarification to that question was when Bosh got the rebound. Nobody fouled. 28 seconds is a lot of time compared to the remaining time after Bosh got the rebound. You only have under 10 seconds with a 3 pt lead. Do you foul to prevent a 3pt attempt or let them shoot a 3? Given you can't even rebound coz you took away your best rebounder.

*second question*

i think it was TP who attempted the final shot for Spurs in regulation...

Wrong answer. I was referring to the final 10 seconds in overtime when Spurs didn't bring Parker back.

*third question*

Coach Pop wanted to stop LBJ, majority of coaches would think that the Heat will rely on their superstar...

which actually happened... and of course he wanted the best player who could stop LBJ... TD defends the inside...

he could not easily match with LBJ on an isolation, that's why Pop used Diaw instead of TD...

 

plus you also need to consider, TD is not getting any younger, maybe Pop sees that TD was already tired...

actually, TD never complained about that, so why would you??

Wrong answer again. It wasn't Diaw guarding James in those final seconds. It doesn't matter if TD was tired. He even played when he was sick. You can rest all you want after the game. This is the most crucial time for maybe his last chance at a title. You'd want to be it in your hands. Not in the hands of the subs. TD is still the anchor on defense.

 

If you listen to the interviews, no Spur would actually challenge the coach. It's not in TD's nature to say anything. I'm not TD so I can complain and they lost. If they won, then it was the right decision. Watch again in Indiana when they sat down Hibbert. It was still a smart decision to sit him down yet it's still the wrong decision because they lost.

 

Coach Spo stuck with his stars even when they weren't playing so well. After all the years that TD played consistently and he was having a superb game 6, I would've stuck with him unless he was the one who said that he should sit down.

Edited July 4, 2013 by friendly0603

[Labuyo]

my initial take on Manu's new deal was that $7m/year is too much.

 

but i guess the Spurs' FO does operate on a plan

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

Wrong answer. Since you didn't get the question, the clarification to that question was when Bosh got the rebound. Nobody fouled. 28 seconds is a lot of time compared to the remaining time after Bosh got the rebound. You only have under 10 seconds with a 3 pt lead. Do you foul to prevent a 3pt attempt or let them shoot a 3? Given you can't even rebound coz you took away your best rebounder.

Wrong answer. I was referring to the final 10 seconds in overtime when Spurs didn't bring Parker back.

 

Wrong answer again. It wasn't Diaw guarding James in those final seconds. It doesn't matter if TD was tired. He even played when he was sick. You can rest all you want after the game. This is the most crucial time for maybe his last chance at a title. You'd want to be it in your hands. Not in the hands of the subs. TD is still the anchor on defense.

 

If you listen to the interviews, no Spur would actually challenge the coach. It's not in TD's nature to say anything. I'm not TD so I can complain and they lost. If they won, then it was the right decision. Watch again in Indiana when they sat down Hibbert. It was still a smart decision to sit him down yet it's still the wrong decision because they lost.

 

Coach Spo stuck with his stars even when they weren't playing so well. After all the years that TD played consistently and he was having a superb game 6, I would've stuck with him unless he was the one who said that he should sit down.

 

 

sir, i don't have the wrong answer... it was just that you could not accept my answers, because you're looking for another

answer...

 

in the first question, if it was clear that you're talking about that part, then my answer would be, mental lapses...

 

mental lapses were the reason they didn't foul... saka sir, it happened in split seconds lang, sobrang bilis ng nangyari

 

hindi basta basta maiisip ng players yun, kaya mo lang yan naisip kasi you have time to think of it na... kasi tapos na...

 

 

 

sa second question, again i'm not wrong, your question was incomplete, you didn't even mention that you're asking

 

about the overtime... in overtime where Miami is already in the lead by 7points?? what would TP do??? score an 8point

 

play??

 

 

 

in the 3rd question again, i'm not specifically wrong... you're not even in the arena to tell Pop what is the better thing

 

to do, are you even sure if TD could still defend??? anyone could experience exhaustion, are you sure TD could still

 

play??? if Pop knows that TD could still defend, do you think Pop will sub him out in a crucial play???

 

the problem here is, we are quick to judge but slow to listen... look at my answer in the questions, i'm not implying

 

that what i told you is 100% true, kasi nga si Coach Pop lang ang nakakaalam ng mga oras na yun... wag tayo masyado

 

magaling, kasi kung magaling tayo, bakit wala tayo sa pwesto nila???

[fatchubs]

The thinking is that with Duncan on the floor, the Spurs would have had a much better opportunity to secure a defensive rebound that could have sealed the victory. But speaking after practice at the American Airlines Arena on Wednesday, Popovich said that there was much more that went into his decision than that.

 

"It's not that simple," Popovich said. "That's not why they got the threes. We were up five when they got their first three, and so redding and switching makes sense just to take away the three. But on an offensive rebound, it's one of the toughest things in the NBA, to pick up people. And we had one guy who didn't pick up. LeBron shot an airball when we were up five. They got the rebound, they got it back to him and he knocked it down.

 

"And then on the last possession, we were switching at the three‑point line to take away the three, and Boris Diaw has a little more speed than Tim Duncan, so it makes sense to have him out there redding at the three‑point line. Unfortunately we had two guys that went to LeBron and didn't switch with [Chris Bosh], and he went right to the hole. He's the guy who got the rebound, so it has nothing to do with Duncan."

 

Duncan, as he did after Game 6, said on Wednesday that this is how the Spurs have played in these situations all season long.

 

"Not new at all," Duncan said of his late-game benching. "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. [We had] two bad bounces off a rebound — we actually got the stops on the threes, and [then there were] bad bounces right back out for threes.

 

"It is what it is," he added. "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."

 

 

 

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/19/popovich-explains-decision-to-sit-duncan-late-in-regulation-of-game-6/

Edited July 8, 2013 by fatchubs

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

The thinking is that with Duncan on the floor, the Spurs would have had a much better opportunity to secure a defensive rebound that could have sealed the victory. But speaking after practice at the American Airlines Arena on Wednesday, Popovich said that there was much more that went into his decision than that.

 

"It's not that simple," Popovich said. "That's not why they got the threes. We were up five when they got their first three, and so redding and switching makes sense just to take away the three. But on an offensive rebound, it's one of the toughest things in the NBA, to pick up people. And we had one guy who didn't pick up. LeBron shot an airball when we were up five. They got the rebound, they got it back to him and he knocked it down.

 

"And then on the last possession, we were switching at the three‑point line to take away the three, and Boris Diaw has a little more speed than Tim Duncan, so it makes sense to have him out there redding at the three‑point line. Unfortunately we had two guys that went to LeBron and didn't switch with [Chris Bosh], and he went right to the hole. He's the guy who got the rebound, so it has nothing to do with Duncan."

 

Duncan, as he did after Game 6, said on Wednesday that this is how the Spurs have played in these situations all season long.

 

"Not new at all," Duncan said of his late-game benching. "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. [We had] two bad bounces off a rebound — we actually got the stops on the threes, and [then there were] bad bounces right back out for threes.

 

"It is what it is," he added. "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."

 

 

 

http://probasketball...tion-of-game-6/

 

thanks a lot for this article boss! it answered the question of a GM here.

[fatchubs]

It is so easy to question a play in hindsight because we all know what transpired.

 

What if the Spurs fouled in trying to protect the lead and then end up losing the game? Wouldn't people also question why they did foul considering they have the lead and all they need to do is play honest D. By doing so they either preserve their lead and win or end up going into OT as the worst case scenario.

 

 

Anyway below is another article that shows Pop did sit out Timmy is some of the games but they manage to win ...

 

 

 

Im going to start with a few facts and then go from there. Gregg Popovich sat Tim Duncan for the last 4:28 of the San Antonio Spurs’ 94-82 Game 6 win over the Golden State Warriors. The Spurs had a two point lead when Duncan sat down and won the game by 12.

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/spurs-warriors-game-6-playoffs-duncan-popovich

 

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

It is so easy to question a play in hindsight because we all know what transpired.

 

What if the Spurs fouled in trying to protect the lead and then end up losing the game? Wouldn't people also question why they did foul considering they have the lead and all they need to do is play honest D. By doing so they either preserve their lead and win or end up going into OT as the worst case scenario.

 

 

Anyway below is another article that shows Pop did sit out Timmy is some of the games but they manage to win ...

 

 

 

 

 

this was exactly my point sir... in games like that... the coach would usually

 

go for the option with less risk... this was what i've been trying to explain to

 

a GM whom i don't think if he really wanted an answer to his question...

 

yeah i'm a Heat fan, but what I posted here days ago is never about Miami...

 

since I also used to play and coach in our place, i tried to answer him with

 

what might transpired during the game.

[friendly0603]

sir, i don't have the wrong answer... it was just that you could not accept my answers, because you're looking for another

answer...

in the first question, if it was clear that you're talking about that part, then my answer would be, mental lapses...

mental lapses were the reason they didn't foul... saka sir, it happened in split seconds lang, sobrang bilis ng nangyari

hindi basta basta maiisip ng players yun, kaya mo lang yan naisip kasi you have time to think of it na... kasi tapos na...

This is why I asked Spurs fans. I didn't ask other teams fans. The Spurs fans would've known what I'm talking about.

These are professionals we are talking about who've been playing for a long time. You can see this lapses with young teams and in college games.

The Spurs are considered veterans. Again, listen to the interviews.

 

sa second question, again i'm not wrong, your question was incomplete, you didn't even mention that you're asking

about the overtime... in overtime where Miami is already in the lead by 7points?? what would TP do??? score an 8point play??

Stop answering the question if you don't know. You clearly do not know what I'm talking about. Get a transcript of the plays.

 

in the 3rd question again, i'm not specifically wrong... you're not even in the arena to tell Pop what is the better thing

to do, are you even sure if TD could still defend??? anyone could experience exhaustion, are you sure TD could still

play??? if Pop knows that TD could still defend, do you think Pop will sub him out in a crucial play???

 

the problem here is, we are quick to judge but slow to listen... look at my answer in the questions, i'm not implying

that what i told you is 100% true, kasi nga si Coach Pop lang ang nakakaalam ng mga oras na yun...

The problem here is you aren't a fan of this team but you are answering for them. And you think you are right. Look at your replies. You always say you're not wrong.

wag tayo masyado magaling, kasi kung magaling tayo, bakit wala tayo sa pwesto nila???

Ako'y nagtatanong lang at hindi rin ikaw ang tinatanong ko. Pero sinasagot mo. Ang daming coaches na wala sa puwesto nila. Kahit magaling ka o hindi, hindi pa rin tayo mapupunta sa puwesto nila. Walang kinalaman ang galing mo.

Edited July 8, 2013 by friendly0603

[friendly0603]

"It is what it is," he added. "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."

I'm sure that the stakes aren't the same with the regular season and the finals.

 

It is so easy to question a play in hindsight because we all know what transpired.

What if the Spurs fouled in trying to protect the lead and then end up losing the game? Wouldn't people also question why they did foul considering they have the lead and all they need to do is play honest D. By doing so they either preserve their lead and win or end up going into OT as the worst case scenario.

Anyway below is another article that shows Pop did sit out Timmy is some of the games but they manage to win ...

That's what happens when you lose. Yes people will always question. Put your comment in the right context. They only had to foul at the last seconds after the offensive rebound. They didn't have to foul with 28 seconds left and I have no problems with them playing honest D.

 

Like in some of the articles only the Spurs would do that. MJ wouldn't sit those last 4 mins, not LBJ, not Kobe, not Chamberlain, etc....

 

On that article, the stars weren't playing well. So sitting Tim is more acceptable, plus they'll have game 7 at home. This was a game they can afford to lose. Situational differences. Just because these were both game 6's, doesn't mean it's the same. It wasn't an equivalent do or die situation. Remember only 3 teams pulled a game 7 win on the road at the finals. Game 6 with a lead and a chance to be champions isn't a regular season game. Plus comparing the situation at 4 minutes when the game wasn't decided versus the last 2 possessions isn't the same. Please make the same comparison.

 

this was exactly my point sir... in games like that... the coach would usually

go for the option with less risk... this was what i've been trying to explain to

a GM whom i don't think if he really wanted an answer to his question...

What is less risky for you has also been proven to be wrong in the Indiana series against the Heat. Golden State isn't the same as Miami. In critical games, you win and lose with your stars. Like Pop stuck with Ginobili even when he wasn't playing well. He was hurting the team but he still had his minutes and his turnovers. He could've stucked with Duncan too.

 

What you offered are possible excuses like Tim is tired and that he had to guard LBJ and so on.

 

All in the wrong context of the question as well. Since the Spurs fans are not around, I'll let you guys go on with your banter.

Edited July 8, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

1373284382[/url]' post='8769044']

I'm sure that the stakes aren't the same with the regular season and the finals.

 

Agree ... But it does not mean that it is impossible for a coach to make the same decision.

 

That's what happens when you lose. Yes people will always question. Put your comment in the right context. They only had to foul at the last seconds after the offensive rebound. They didn't have to foul with 28 seconds left and I have no problems with them playing honest D.

 

Well i believe Popovich explained the situation clearly. It was off an offensive rebounds and when Bosh got the ball he immediately pass the ball to Ray. It was a catch and shoot. parker tried to chase Ray but he was a split second late. So do you still want Parker to foul Allen in that situation?

Again in hindsight its so easy to say what should have been done. But it was a pressure situation and things happened so quickly to be able to decide whether to oul or not. Again, if i were the coach i still wont foul since ray already was able to jump and take the attempt. And second the three is a low percentage shot.

 

Like in some of the articles only the Spurs would do that. MJ wouldn't sit those last 4 mins, not LBJ, not Kobe, not Chamberlain, etc....

 

On that article, the stars weren't playing well. So sitting Tim is more acceptable, plus they'll have game 7 at home. This was a game they can afford to lose. Situational differences. Just because these were both game 6's, doesn't mean it's the same. It wasn't an equivalent do or die situation. Remember only 3 teams pulled a game 7 win on the road at the finals. Game 6 with a lead and a chance to be champions isn't a regular season game. Plus comparing the situation at 4 minutes when the game wasn't decided versus the last 2 possessions isn't the same. Please make the same comparison.

 

 

And we are talking about the Spurs right? The bottomline is Pop said that he believes that is the right play to call and it just so happened that he is he coach of Timmy and not LBJ, not Kobe nor Wilt etc...so its not proper to speculate what he could have done in a similar situation if it was not Timmy but the players you mentioned.

While only 3 team pulled it off in a game 7 on the road, the Spurs carry a better odds since they have not lost in the finals. A 100% winning record when in the finals.

 

 

 

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

I'm sure that the stakes aren't the same with the regular season and the finals.

 

 

That's what happens when you lose. Yes people will always question. Put your comment in the right context. They only had to foul at the last seconds after the offensive rebound. They didn't have to foul with 28 seconds left and I have no problems with them playing honest D.

 

Like in some of the articles only the Spurs would do that. MJ wouldn't sit those last 4 mins, not LBJ, not Kobe, not Chamberlain, etc....

 

On that article, the stars weren't playing well. So sitting Tim is more acceptable, plus they'll have game 7 at home. This was a game they can afford to lose. Situational differences. Just because these were both game 6's, doesn't mean it's the same. It wasn't an equivalent do or die situation. Remember only 3 teams pulled a game 7 win on the road at the finals. Game 6 with a lead and a chance to be champions isn't a regular season game. Plus comparing the situation at 4 minutes when the game wasn't decided versus the last 2 possessions isn't the same. Please make the same comparison.

 

 

What is less risky for you has also been proven to be wrong in the Indiana series against the Heat. Golden State isn't the same as Miami. In critical games, you win and lose with your stars. Like Pop stuck with Ginobili even when he wasn't playing well. He was hurting the team but he still had his minutes and his turnovers. He could've stucked with Duncan too.

 

What you offered are possible excuses like Tim is tired and that he had to guard LBJ and so on.

 

All in the wrong context of the question as well. Since the Spurs fans are not around, I'll let you guys go on with your banter.

 

ganito na lang sir, ikaw na ang pinaka magaling... ikaw na ang palaging tama...

 

mali na kaming dalawa... mas maayos na nga yung explanation ni Fatchubs

 

may sagot ka pa din, isa lang ibig sabihin nun... wala kang balak makinig sa

 

mga taong kontra sa idea mo, and hinihintay mo lang sumagot eh yung pabor

 

sa iniisip mo, even if i'm not a Spurs Fan, it doesn't mean i can't analyze a game...

 

kung titignan natin maigi, mas fair pa nga sumagot ang isang GM na hindi fan ng

 

team, kasi mas malawak yung view nya... hindi kagaya ng iba na ang daming

 

sinisisi, akala mo masyadong magaling...

 

anyway, sorry kung sumagot ako ng mali sa mga tanong mo, pasensya na...

 

akala ko lang kasi makakatulong yung sagot ko, hindi pala, sorry sayo bossing...

 

naabala pa tuloy kita,...

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

Agree ... But it does not mean that it is impossible for a coach to make the same decision.

 

 

 

Well i believe Popovich explained the situation clearly. It was off an offensive rebounds and when Bosh got the ball he immediately pass the ball to Ray. It was a catch and shoot. parker tried to chase Ray but he was a split second late. So do you still want Parker to foul Allen in that situation?

Again in hindsight its so easy to say what should have been done. But it was a pressure situation and things happened so quickly to be able to decide whether to oul or not. Again, if i were the coach i still wont foul since ray already was able to jump and take the attempt. And second the three is a low percentage shot.

 

 

 

 

And we are talking about the Spurs right? The bottomline is Pop said that he believes that is the right play to call and it just so happened that he is he coach of Timmy and not LBJ, not Kobe nor Wilt etc...so its not proper to speculate what he could have done in a similar situation if it was not Timmy but the players you mentioned.

While only 3 team pulled it off in a game 7 on the road, the Spurs carry a better odds since they have not lost in the finals. A 100% winning record when in the finals.

 

 

 

 

hayaan mo na bossing, hindi nya maiintindihan yan kasi ayaw nyang intindihin...

 

sabi nya sakin, professionals daw ang pinag-uusapan natin, kaya hindi daw

 

acceptable yung mental lapse... pang college and amateur lang daw yun...

 

eh sa sobrang bilis ng pangyayari. split second lang yun... pero sabi nga ni boss

 

dapat daw naisip pang mag-foul... siguro kung siya yung player dun baka naisip pa nya

 

yun... tapos sa tingin ko boss aabutan nya pa si Ray Allen, kasi si THE FLASH ata

 

si bossing eh, sobrang bilis kumilos...

 

Agree ... But it does not mean that it is impossible for a coach to make the same decision.

 

 

 

Well i believe Popovich explained the situation clearly. It was off an offensive rebounds and when Bosh got the ball he immediately pass the ball to Ray. It was a catch and shoot. parker tried to chase Ray but he was a split second late. So do you still want Parker to foul Allen in that situation?

Again in hindsight its so easy to say what should have been done. But it was a pressure situation and things happened so quickly to be able to decide whether to oul or not. Again, if i were the coach i still wont foul since ray already was able to jump and take the attempt. And second the three is a low percentage shot.

 

 

 

 

And we are talking about the Spurs right? The bottomline is Pop said that he believes that is the right play to call and it just so happened that he is he coach of Timmy and not LBJ, not Kobe nor Wilt etc...so its not proper to speculate what he could have done in a similar situation if it was not Timmy but the players you mentioned.

While only 3 team pulled it off in a game 7 on the road, the Spurs carry a better odds since they have not lost in the finals. A 100% winning record when in the finals.

 

 

 

 

hayaan mo na bossing, hindi nya maiintindihan yan kasi ayaw nyang intindihin...

 

sabi nya sakin, professionals daw ang pinag-uusapan natin, kaya hindi daw

 

acceptable yung mental lapse... pang college and amateur lang daw yun...

 

eh sa sobrang bilis ng pangyayari. split second lang yun... pero sabi nga ni boss

 

dapat daw naisip pang mag-foul... siguro kung siya yung player dun baka naisip pa nya

 

yun... tapos sa tingin ko boss aabutan nya pa si Ray Allen, kasi si THE FLASH ata

 

si bossing eh, sobrang bilis kumilos...

[friendly0603]

Agree ... But it does not mean that it is impossible for a coach to make the same decision.

No one says it's impossible. Unless they said they've used this decision against Miami with a high success rate in the regular season, I'm not inclined to have confidence with the decision. If you studied the Indiana series, sitting Hibbert down was a costly decision and they made the change on the next game. It's a very similar decision against the same opponent.

 

Well i believe Popovich explained the situation clearly. It was off an offensive rebounds and when Bosh got the ball he immediately pass the ball to Ray. It was a catch and shoot. parker tried to chase Ray but he was a split second late. So do you still want Parker to foul Allen in that situation? Again in hindsight its so easy to say what should have been done. But it was a pressure situation and things happened so quickly to be able to decide whether to oul or not. Again, if i were the coach i still wont foul since ray already was able to jump and take the attempt. And second the three is a low percentage shot.

Simply, I think they forgot what to do after the rebound. They were supposed to stick with the shooters. Even if they gave up a 2pt shot for bosh, it would have been ok. They knew what to do on the first shot attempt but after the rebound, they scrambled not knowing what to do. A 2 pt shot isn't going to beat them. Stick with the shooters and allow them to have the two points if there was an offensive rebound. This is my opinion. I just wanted to hear the answer from Spurs fans.

 

And we are talking about the Spurs right? The bottomline is Pop said that he believes that is the right play to call and it just so happened that he is he coach of Timmy and not LBJ, not Kobe nor Wilt etc...so its not proper to speculate what he could have done in a similar situation if it was not Timmy but the players you mentioned. While only 3 team pulled it off in a game 7 on the road, the Spurs carry a better odds since they have not lost in the finals. A 100% winning record when in the finals.

I'm just saying that Timmy is one of the 50 greatest players/sure hall of famer at a chance for a championship. Easily, the other guys would tell their coach that I want in or the coach would stick with Tim even if he had a bad game. He earned that with the success he's had.

 

I disagree with your stats. One, it's not the same Tim and Manu. It's an older spurs team against a defending champion. Even if you have a 100% winning record, you don't have the same players. Aside from the big 3, the rest aren't champions. I don't think you would've bet on the Spurs just because they have a 100% winning record on game 7 in Miami. My stats were for all time irrespective of teams, whether they were in their prime, etc. This is why you battle for home court. It makes a difference.

Edited July 9, 2013 by friendly0603

[friendly0603]

ganito na lang sir, ikaw na ang pinaka magaling... ikaw na ang palaging tama...

mali na kaming dalawa... mas maayos na nga yung explanation ni Fatchubs

The other GM countered with regular season and Golden State situations. It wasn't the same comparison.

Madali naman umamin pag mali eh. Ginagawa ko din yan.

 

may sagot ka pa din, isa lang ibig sabihin nun... wala kang balak makinig sa

mga taong kontra sa idea mo, and hinihintay mo lang sumagot eh yung pabor

sa iniisip mo, even if i'm not a Spurs Fan, it doesn't mean i can't analyze a game...

Did you think you were wrong because someone else have a contrary opinion to yours as well? Or you still think you're right? It's not about answers that favor me. It's even negative answers that critique the Spurs' decisions.

 

Your answers aren't what I'm after. You got the outcome you wanted. Your team won. It's not about if you can analyze a game.

 

kung titignan natin maigi, mas fair pa nga sumagot ang isang GM na hindi fan ng

team, kasi mas malawak yung view nya... hindi kagaya ng iba na ang daming

sinisisi, akala mo masyadong magaling...

anyway, sorry kung sumagot ako ng mali sa mga tanong mo, pasensya na...

akala ko lang kasi makakatulong yung sagot ko, hindi pala, sorry sayo bossing...

naabala pa tuloy kita,...

There are perspectives from teams' fans that are blinded by their fandom and there are those who truly understand even if it's negative, they accept it as true. The Spurs fans are their best critics too. I wanted to hear their opinions even if it was negative.

 

I'm being objective just as how organized the Spurs play. It's not personal. Fatchubs and I have had exchanges before. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree.

Edited July 9, 2013 by friendly0603

[fatchubs]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Edited July 9, 2013 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[ppdd]

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

 

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

 

http://www.sbnation....en-lebron-james

to sum it up in 4 words:

 

"In Pop We Trust"

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

to sum it up in 4 words:

 

"In Pop We Trust"

 

nandito na ulit si Master PPDD oh!

 

+10000000 ako dito boss...

 

dapat ang tiwala sa coach hindi pag nananalo lang... kahit matalo tiwala pa din

 

kasi kung namintis naman yung 3point shot ni Allen, eh di malamang SAS

 

ang nag-celebrate... kaya idol to si Master PPDD eh..

[fatchubs]

I actually reviewed the play ...

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[Labuyo]

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

 

=|

 

hemingways, nung una akala ko out of the running na tayo for AK47. tinatrabaho pa pala.

 

though last i heard e kailangan ng cooperation from minny para S&T.

doesn't look like they're that keen at this point. pero the fact na lumabas sa news means that the SA boys are trying.

[jepoyskieLOVEbianca]

I actually reviewed the play ...

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

kasi alam na ang resulta...

[fatchubs]

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

kasi alam na ang resulta...

 

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

[friendly0603]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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.com/news/nba--gregg-popovich-s-substitutions-open-to-second-guessing-after-spurs--game-6-loss-064549161.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/playoffs/2013/06/19/manu-ginobili-tim-duncan-finals-miami-heat-vs-san-antonio-spurs-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.