View From the Spurs

[101 6 7]

Originally Posted by orangedays

I don't know what to be more impressed by - your level of understanding of the psyche of so many players and coaches, or how you managed to type that with a straight face.

I know nothing of players psyche; I just have surmised that something is up when the same pattern occurs time after time after time. To continually deny a pattern, even after it is proven time and again borders on psychosis. ie Nellie never understanding "defense wins championships"

Originally Posted by orangedays

Trite, but this has little to do with historical playoff precedent. Talking about what, "might have been" is a loser's mentality. And, unless I've misread every single one of your posts, aren't you guys supposed to be a bunch of winners?

I'm not dwelling on what might have been, you singled that single point out of a longer post in a thread dealing with whether or not it was good for a series to go long, or sweep, etc. etc.

As to that, btw, it makes no difference. Teams are teams matchups are matchups - Spurs struggled against Seattle (3 seed) last year, then relatively smoked Phoenix (1 seed) - Sacramento is a tough out for SA; Dallas might very well sweep Sacramento. Dirk has got the build and athleticism to slow a Bonzi or Artest down.

As for SA/Dallas - can't speak to that yet. It might not happen (but I'm betting it will).

[Thespiralgoeson]

Anyone saying the Mavs and Spurs are "playing at the same level" is kidding themselves. That would be the same as a Mavs fan last year saying that the Mavs were playing at the same level as the Suns in the first round.

Last year the Mavs dropped the first two at home and came back to win in 7, while the Suns took care of business in a 4 game sweep. Not the same level.

This year, the Spurs dropped 2 in Sacramento after winning game 2 only by divine intervention against the Kings who were sans Artest. The Spurs are going down to the wire against the 8th seeded Kings. The Mavs annihilated the 5th seeded Grizz in 4 games.

I don't know if this will carry over into the second round, but so far, the Mavs and Spurs have not been playing at the same level by any stretch of the imagination.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 101 6 7

So when I say, the Spurs were a single Ginobilli turnover away from sweeping the series, I believe it, and I believe history supports my assertion.

I frankly don't think this is a very compelling argument. I mean....you can explain any outcome in a favorable light with this sort of ad hoc reasoning.

Moreover, the Spurs may well be one Ginob cough-up from sweeping the series, but they're also one lucky bounce from being down 2-3. You can't argue the one thing without at least acknowledging the other.

Cheers

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I don't know if I'd go quite that far....the Grizz pretty much were pretty much toast by the 4the quarter of game 3, the spurs needed a lucky bounce at the buzzer in game 3 to get to overtime.

...what? Let me read what you just wrote again, "the Grizz pretty much were pretty much toast by the 4the quarter of game 3." WHAT??? Are we forgetting the 3-pointer Nowitzki hit with 15 seconds left in the 4th to send the game into overtime?

As for respective Game 4's....

the grizz folded early in the second half, but only because the Mav's stepped up and punched them square in the gut...it wasn't that the Grizz had no fight, it was rather that the Mavs knocked the fight out of them.

The Spurs, in game 4, weren't under any delusion that the series was firmly in their hands, they just got their butts kicked by the better team on that particular night.

I am seriously hating all of this rubbish about how psychology played such a big role in these respective wins/losses and how the winning teams should be given less credit. The Grizz had no fight because the Mavs dominated them. The Mavs were, BY FAR, the superior team in that series. They won Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, Game 4 because they were a better team. Sure, luck played a role in some parts of it, but the fact that they came out on top 4-0 had little to do with luck and a lot to do with being BETTER.

You said it yourself, the Mavs stepped up. Just like they stepped up throughout the entire series. They won because the Grizz gave up? Anyone who says that is ignorant. And the Spurs? You're right, they didn't step up. Trying to rationalize the fact that they were run out of the gym by the Kings by saying that they weren't, "under any delusion that the series was firmly in their hands" is just silly. They didn't win because they weren't dominating the series? C'mon.

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by 101 6 7

I know nothing of players psyche; I just have surmised that something is up when the same pattern occurs time after time after time. To continually deny a pattern, even after it is proven time and again borders on psychosis. ie Nellie never understanding "defense wins championships"

Nobody is denying anything. The pattern is there. But making a statement of fact , as you did, based on historical precedence is stupid. Not psychosis, but stupid. If things always panned out like they did historically, well, why are we even playing right now?

I'm not dwelling on what might have been, you singled that single point out of a longer post in a thread dealing with whether or not it was good for a series to go long, or sweep, etc. etc.

No...you've spouted more than that. Just admit it, the Spurs have been outplayed by the Kings just as much as they have been in it. C'mon, when you say something like, "the Spurs were a single Ginobilli turnover away from sweeping the series" and fail to recognize that you were a single bounce away (Barry's 3-pointer) from being down 3-2 - well then you're just being a homer (just realized alexamenos made the same point, good man).

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

Let me simplify this for you ... earlier rounds in the playoffs prepare you for later rounds.. you don't have to agree with me but they do..

Then please explain how the Mavs platyed Houston to the bloody end last year while Phoenix rested after the Memphis sweep applies to your theory.

Seems the Mavs were preparing for the tougher grind, as you suggest.

Yet...

It didn't work out that way.

Bowen may be telling the truth.

But somehow I think if you were to poll every player that has ever donned a uniform during the play-offs in the NBA, the consensus would tell you they'd rather sweep an opponent than go seven in the first round.

***************Twelve Games To Infamy***************

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

***************Twelve Games To Infamy***************

I'm lovin it TwoDeep!!!

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by orangedays

I'm lovin it TwoDeep!!!

Merely stating a mathematical fact, Orange.

Even a crusty old guy like Nelli...er....me can see that it's down to twelve to win it all.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by orangedays

...what? Let me read what you just wrote again, "the Grizz pretty much were pretty much toast by the 4the quarter of game 3." WHAT??? Are we forgetting the 3-pointer Nowitzki hit with 15 seconds left in the 4th to send the game into overtime?

OK...My mistake....This is what I like to call a "Typo". A lack of miscommunication, as they say.

I meant game 2. Dallas ripped the Grizzlies in Game 2. San Antonio lucked out against an Artestless Kings team in Game 2. IOW, Dallas and SA weren't playing at pretty much the same level even through game 2, Dallas was pulling away and San Antonio was pulling back.

And I vaguely recall Nowitzki's bucket with 15 seconds left, as well as Atkins open look at the buzzer...in fact, I probably have the stained shorts to prove that I was watching that game.

Originally Posted by orangedays

I am seriously hating all of this rubbish about how psychology played such a big role in these respective wins/losses and how the winning teams should be given less credit. .

I couldn't agree more. The Grizzlies were a very decent team this year, much better than last year or the year before that. They had a whole lot of fight in them, they just had the misfortune of playing a team with more fight, hustle, talent, etc....Had the Grizzlies instead played the Clippers, Nuggets, Lakers, or Kings, I can well imagine that they'd still be playing.

Originally Posted by orangedays

They won because the Grizz gave up?

Not at all, but I would nonetheless argue that the Grizz gave up in the 2nd half of Game 4....if I had to pinpoint the time it would be when Dirk hit that deep three over either Warrick or Wright (or maybe it was Gasol). Anyway, the Grizz had cut the deficit to five, but the Mavericks went on a 9-0 run beginning with that three. The Grizz had no growl after that, if I may be so corny.

But as you say, the Mavs didn't win because the Grizz gave up. Instead, the Grizz gave up because they had been dominated.

Originally Posted by orangedays

And the Spurs? You're right, they didn't step up. Trying to rationalize the fact that they were run out of the gym by the Kings by saying that they weren't, "under any delusion that the series was firmly in their hands" is just silly.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything about the Spurs. They went into a crucial game against a much lower seeded team and got spanked....absolutely spanked.

[chumdawg]

I think what we are witnessing here is how ugly the carnage is going to be when San Antonio makes their final bow from the conference elite. Spurs fans will not be able to comprehend how or why their rightful place atop the conference has been taken away.

All that remains between now and then is to determine whether Sacramento or Dallas will be the one to administer the final, fatal blow.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

Bonzi Wells isn't 6'5 210 just like DJ Mbenga isn't 7 foot and 220. According to that Dirk outweigh's Benga by 20 pounds lol. Where do they get these weight's from anyway? They can't be weighing guys.

I think it's the same place that they get that Picture of Pau Gasol that they put in the post-game quotes section. That photo is easily 1 or 2 years old.

[TVI]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

this points to my point.....I consistently see two themes being expressed regarding the Mavs and Spurs series, respectively - 1) the Grizz suck; and 2) the Kings are really good.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. I don't see anyone presenting such a black and white argument. Here's my opinion:

1) The Grizz are good -- they made the playoffs -- but they are worse than the Kings. Popvich has (jokingly) commented that if he had any smarts, he would have tanked games to get the #4 seed.
2) Dallas was an unlucky draw for the Grizz, especially considering that Dallas is not your typical #4 seed - a bizzare seeding system put them in that position. By all accounts, they should be the #2 seed by a long shot. There's a reason the Clips tanked games at the end to get to the #6 seed -- they didn't want to face the Mavs in the first round.
3) The Kings are not your typical #8 seed - they sucked in the beginning of the season, but trades and a new attitude have turned them into a team who is much better than your garden variety #8 seed. Looking at their records before and after the trade presents a strong case for that argument.
4) The Kings have a couple players who present problems for the Spurs, and that has kept them in many of the games. All of these factors has made the series tougher for the Spurs than your average 1 vs. 8 matchup.

I think two other things, not so often noted, can easily be gleaned as well 1) The Mavs were kickin' arse; and 2) the Spurs look rather flat footed, save game 1.

We're really not too far apart here. Analyze exactly whast I've stated, and I think you'll draw the same conclusion.

I don't buy this talk about the Spurs being old and slow.

well, I hate to quibble but the Spurs are old and slow. They may have a couple of quick guys, but they've also got some really slow guys. And if you weight their ages by the number of minutes they play (ie, 30 year-old guy that plays 40 minutes a game weights heavier than a 22 year old that plays 8 mpg), they're one of the oldest, if not the oldest, team in the league.

Again, to really appreciate the situation, you need to look at how the minutes are spread around. It would be one thing if they relied on those vets for individual heavy minutes, but they don't. Horry, Fin, NVE, etc. can easily give the team 20-25 good minutes a night. That's the Spurs M.O. - they like to mix experience with youth. They'll always have the mid-30 guys around to provide leadership and maturity to the young guys.

Bottom line is, the Spurs are routinely playing 9-10 guys, not 7-8. That's how they keep the age from being a major factor. I'm not even sure if anybody's logged a 40 minute (regulation) game yet. Now look at the King's players. They have many 40+ min guys. I'm pretty certain that that is part of the playoff strategy for San Antonio.

Alternatively stated, they're one lucky bounce from being down 2-3 and facing elimination Friday night.

Hmm...I differ here...friendly roll or not, I'll take Barry shooting an uncontested 3 over the sequence of events that led to Sac's unlikely win in game 3.

And FWIW, GG has a point. Without that turnover, Sac goes down 3-0. I seriously doubt that they would have had the fight to do what they did in game 4. The pain of blowing a big lead, and being down 3-0 would not have given them much hope of pulling out the series. 3-0 leads are impossible to overcome. 2-1 is quite a different story.

[mavsfan1000]

I agree with GG that the kings are a very tough matchup for the spurs but where has it been proved this year that the mavs aren't a tough matchup as well considering the spurs haven't had an answer for Josh Howard when he was in the game. Dallas won the last game in San Antonio as well which was impressive though that game got forgotten quick by the media.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by TVI

3) The Kings are not your typical #8 seed ...

Well, some team had to be the 8th seed. If not the Kings, who?

The Nuggets, Clippers, Lakers or Grizz? I'll grant you the Nuggets and no way on the Clippers. As for the Lakers or Grizz....toss-up -- the Kings weren't the only team playing pretty good ball after the all-star break.

I really don't think the kings are anything great -- they're a bottom half of the bracket team, and not much more. Last time the Mavs played 'em, Bonzi and Artest combined for 49, and the Mavs won by 25. helluva job making the playoffs, but that's all they've got.

Originally Posted by TVI

Again, to really appreciate the situation, you need to look at how the minutes are spread around.

And that's why I looked at "minute-weighted" ages...this explicitly considers "how minutes are spread around." I can't say it any more clearly than this....expressly considering "how minutes are spread around", the Spurs are the oldest team in the NBA. This is a fact, not a subjective judgment.

Originally Posted by TVI

That's the Spurs M.O. - they like to mix experience with youth. They'll always have the mid-30 guys around to provide leadership and maturity to the young guys.

That's just about every teams' MO....a couple of teams (Blazers, Hawks) might go real young and set themselves up for the lottery, but everybody's got their vets.

lessee....minutes played last game....Bowen (34, 32 min), Finley (33, 31 min), Horry (35, 19 min), Barry (34, 23 min), NVE (34, 14 min).

That's 5 guys over the age of 33 taking 119 out of 240 man-minutes. Can you name a team that gets more minutes per game out of over 33 players? None come to mind as far as I know.

Originally Posted by TVI

Bottom line is, the Spurs are routinely playing 9-10 guys, not 7-8. That's how they keep the age from being a major factor.

whether you're rotating 3 geriatrics or 5 in and out of the game is not the issue, it's how many you've got on the floor at any one time....guys lose a step when they hit their 30's (I've lost about 8 steps, myself)....you put 2 or 3 33+ guys on the court with a younger and more athletic team, you're gonna have problems keeping up....

....and you're gonna give up tons of rebounds to pudgy 6'5" journeymen players....

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

....and you're gonna give up tons of rebounds to pudgy 6'5" journeymen players....

yes if we had Charles Barkley he would get tons of rebounds on them...

[orangedays]

Originally Posted by TVI

It's a bit more nuanced than that. I don't see anyone presenting such a black and white argument. Here's my opinion:

1) The Grizz are good -- they made the playoffs -- but they are worse than the Kings. Popvich has (jokingly) commented that if he had any smarts, he would have tanked games to get the #4 seed.

Is it really kosher to use something Popovich (jokingly) said as evidence in this argument? The Grizz made the playoffs with the fourth best regular season record in the West. Let's get down and dirty - how much worse than the Kings do you think the Grizzlies are? If the #1 and #4 seeds were reversed, do you think that San Antonio would have swept this year's Grizzlies and Dallas would have had the same difficulties with this year's Kings? Just to put my opinion on the table, I think it's B.S. that people are saying the Kings are a superior team to the Grizzlies. Even...EVEN if they are better, the difference is negligible and certainly nothing to hang your hat on.

2) Dallas was an unlucky draw for the Grizz, especially considering that Dallas is not your typical #4 seed - a bizzare seeding system put them in that position. By all accounts, they should be the #2 seed by a long shot. There's a reason the Clips tanked games at the end to get to the #6 seed -- they didn't want to face the Mavs in the first round.

You're right, without this bizarre seeding system Dallas wouldn't be the #4 seed. Memphis would be the #4 seed. It's easy to dismiss the Grizzlies as a "lesser-than" team in hindsight, especially after they were dismantled by Dallas, but all you're really saying here is that Dallas was much much much better than Memphis (or the Clippers).

3) The Kings are not your typical #8 seed - they sucked in the beginning of the season, but trades and a new attitude have turned them into a team who is much better than your garden variety #8 seed. Looking at their records before and after the trade presents a strong case for that argument.

It's true, I don't think anyone is disputing that the Kings are better than your typical #8 seed. Before the playoffs started, many many people were saying that the Kings were going to give whoever played them a handful and it's proven to be true. The same, however, was said of Memphis. We're not talking about relative change here, how good the Kings were at the beginning of the year is pretty irrelevant right now. The fact of the matter is, I don't think the Grizzlies are any worse than the Kings. The Spurs just haven't been able to take care of business and the Mavs have.

4) The Kings have a couple players who present problems for the Spurs, and that has kept them in many of the games. All of these factors has made the series tougher for the Spurs than your average 1 vs. 8 matchup.

Every series is going to have matchup issues. If Dallas dropped games against Memphis we could have pointed to matchup issues with Pau or Eddie Jones or Mike Miller. But that wasn't an issue - why? Because Dallas figured out a way to contain those players. Dallas MADE those players a non-issue. It begs the question to say that there are Kings players who are outplaying Spurs players and that's a reason why the series is playing longer than it should.

Hmm...I differ here...friendly roll or not, I'll take Barry shooting an uncontested 3 over the sequence of events that led to Sac's unlikely win in game 3.

It's not as simple as Barry shooting an open, uncontested 3. You had to have Mike Bibby completely miss Tim Duncan setting a pick. You had to have Shareef make a huge mistake and cheat to cover the drive to the hoop instead of the three-pointer. It sounds nice when you put it the way you put it, but there were a ton of contingencies that went into Barry being able to shoot that 3.

And FWIW, GG has a point. Without that turnover, Sac goes down 3-0. I seriously doubt that they would have had the fight to do what they did in game 4. The pain of blowing a big lead, and being down 3-0 would not have given them much hope of pulling out the series. 3-0 leads are impossible to overcome. 2-1 is quite a different story.

Without the Barry roll Sacramento pulls the series 1-1 and goes back to Arco. Same logic. If we want to extrapolate that, let's say the Kings go on to win both home games. Spurs down 3-1. Uh-oh. Don't like this line of thinking? It makes just as much sense as what GG was saying.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by orangedays

It's not as simple as Barry shooting an open, uncontested 3. You had to have Mike Bibby completely miss Tim Duncan setting a pick...

....and you had to have the Artestless Kings going toe-to-toe with the Spurs for 47 minutes and 58 seconds in the first place for any of this to matter. Note that this was the Ron Artestless Kings, the team that is so much more than an 8th seed precisely because they have Ron Artest.


Not only was this not the post-Ron Artest Kings, this wasn't even the pre-Artest Kings that went 20 and 30, or whatever the King's record may have been pre-trade....and yet they were very competitive in a big, big game against the Spurs....

...........................

I don't know about you, but I see a whole lot of *rationalizing* going on....Certainly the spurs have a great team, but I don't know that they have a hungry team this year.

A really hungry team doesn't look that flat in game 4....a really hungry Spurs team doesn't give up 109 points in regulation to the Game 2 Kings. The Spurs can get away with it against Kings because the Kings aren't anything special....

....and maybe they can take it up a notch against the Mavs......

....but the Spurs will only have to come out flat in one game to give the Mavs all the edge they need, IMO.

Cheers

addendum...I was just browsing through spurs report, and I notice that some of guys there observe the same thing -- the Spurs have been flat, disinterested, etc.....of course they argue "Now, the Spurs are really coming alive".....but all the same....

there's no hunger like real hunger.....

[TVI]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

....and you had to have the Artestless Kings going toe-to-toe with the Spurs for 47 minutes and 58 seconds in the first place for any of this to matter. Note that this was the Ron Artestless Kings, the team that is so much more than an 8th seed precisely because they have Ron Artest.

Not only was this not the post-Ron Artest Kings, this wasn't even the pre-Artest Kings that went 20 and 30, or whatever the King's record may have been pre-trade....and yet they were very competitive in a big, big game against the Spurs....

You got it wrong. You're ignoring something which I would think should be very obvious. Ron Artest didn't only bring his hustle play and defense to the Kings, he brought his attitude. That attitude was going to be a part of the team, suspension or not. Addidtionally, and maybe even a bigger factor is that since the Artest Trade, Bonzi has been a different player. Early in the season, he was riding the pine. Go back and look at how many times "DNP - coach's decision" is next to his name in the stat sheet. Bonzi was reborn when Artest came over, and he became a much bigger part of that team in the second half of the season.

You can try to spin it any way you like, but the Kings were a number 8 seed in name only.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by TVI

You got it wrong. You're ignoring something which I would think should be very obvious. Ron Artest didn't only bring his hustle play and defense to the Kings, he brought his attitude. That attitude was going to be a part of the team, suspension or not. Addidtionally, and maybe even a bigger factor is that since the Artest Trade, Bonzi has been a different player. Early in the season, he was riding the pine. Go back and look at how many times "DNP - coach's decision" is next to his name in the stat sheet. Bonzi was reborn when Artest came over, and he became a much bigger part of that team in the second half of the season.

You can try to spin it any way you like, but the Kings were a number 8 seed in name only.

Bonzi didnt' have any DNP-CD's...the only game he missed were due to injury. He was one of their better players all year and his numbers aren't any better after the trade. In fact, his points went down a litte as him minutes were cut.

[FINtastic]

TVI, you are dead wrong on that. Bonzi was playing very well before the Artest trade. I had him on my fantasy team at that point so I was closely following his stats. He was averaging a little better that 15 and 7. The only reason he had to sit on the pine was (as dirno stated) the fact that he had several injuries throughout the season (I believe a groin tear was one of them). Unfortunately for Bonzi that really cut out a large part of his season, and he didn't really get back to playing at the same level until basically the end of March/beginning of April. Sure, they may have been listed as DNP-CDs, but thats only in this crazy post-IR world. But you can rest assured, Bonzi sat out because he was injured, not because he was sucking and Adelman didn't like him.