HofstraBBall wrote:Classic Dantoni coaching down the stretch. Iso Harden and no play called at the end of the game. 16 for 48 3's. 48!
A bounce here or there and Houston wins! This is hardly something to be crowing about. You talk a lot of Shyte about a coach whose team is battling with the Spurs in SA in his 1st season with Houston. You can't slag on a guy that's still playing in the post season!
HofstraBBall wrote:Classic Dantoni coaching down the stretch. Iso Harden and no play called at the end of the game. 16 for 48 3's. 48!
Players were tired down the stretch, the spurs super VETS stepped up. The spurs did what the were suppose to do down the stretch of a home playoff game..
nixluva wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Classic Dantoni coaching down the stretch. Iso Harden and no play called at the end of the game. 16 for 48 3's. 48!
A bounce here or there and Houston wins! This is hardly something to be crowing about. You talk a lot of Shyte about a coach whose team is battling with the Spurs in SA in his 1st season with Houston. You can't slag on a guy that's still playing in the post season!
How does anything you just said contradict my statement? No Parker, Leonard, Gasol on the floor, the entire overtime, and the Rockets offense was awful!! And not once but twice did Dantoni come up with no play at end of the game. But please deflect some more.
HofstraBBall wrote:Classic Dantoni coaching down the stretch. Iso Harden and no play called at the end of the game. 16 for 48 3's. 48!
No, it was Harden's evil influence on the team. D'Antoni had something totally different planned! Really!
He battled against the second best team in the west and took 2 wins. I think he has done pretty good job in his first year.
mlby1215 wrote:He battled against the second best team in the west and took 2 wins. I think he has done pretty good job in his first year.
Yeah, definitely. It's really hard just to get to the conference finals in the west - that's harder than winning the entire east.
The more I think about it, the more I realize Melo doesn't get along with a lot of "Coach of the Year" guys.
George Karl - 2013
MDA - 2005 & 2017?
Phil - 1996 (really, this dude only won it once?)
Anyway, I don't mean he is a cancer, but obviously he is not a easy guy to work with.
No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Playoff basketball is different. Great series
mlby1215 wrote:The more I think about it, the more I realize Melo doesn't get along with a lot of "Coach of the Year" guys.George Karl - 2013
MDA - 2005 & 2017?
Phil - 1996 (really, this dude only won it once?)
Anyway, I don't mean he is a cancer, but obviously he is not a easy guy to work with.
Last time I check, phil was not coaching the Knicks he's suppose to be the president, but that gets confused a lot, and JH never said he had a problem with melo.. george karl has been fired on more than 3 occasions..he's a jerk anyway
phil had the best players in the league, and top 3 in the history of the NBA, you don't get kudos when you have a roster like that. just like anyone on this board can coach today GSW..how did Walton do with the lakers this season..not as well as he did with GSW last season..
Just the Facts, don't take this for siding with melo
fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
A system that guys have been playing in for years, not 12 weeks like we have..
ginobli, green, and mills (VETERANS) pretty much won it down the stretch..
fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
I have always thought its overrated by the analytics crowd. Points "created" by shots are not equal. 3's create long rebounds and when you spread the floor and go small you get hurt on the boards for one.
32% of FG attempts were 3s for SAS (11 made)
55% of FG attempts were 3s for Hou (16 made)
Both teams shot 33% from downtown. So how does SAS win? Go look at the rebounding, especially the offensive boards and tell me again why its impossible to play 2 bigs together in the "modern NBA"
3s are an important part of the game. So is defense, rebounding and actually making shots. 6-12 from 2 is NOT the same as 4-12 from 3, simply because of how rebounding works for starters. The Spurs won because they dominated the boards. The space and pace MDA system can work, but at some point there are diminished returns, and last night was an example of how shooting more than half your shots from 3 hurt them.
Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
Clearly all those other factors matter too, but the league is still moving in the direction of more and more 3s. Even just in the past year, it's 3 more 3s a game. Is there going to be a downward adjustment? I have no idea, but we probably won't ever see teams back to where the championship Spurs from just last decade were.
The main issue I have is not so much the minute statistical differences (27 vs. 24 3s a game). It's more when people don't care that almost half of Melo's or KP's shots are 2 pointers from spots where they hit around 40%. Maybe there are long rebounds and the expected value of 100 3 pointers at 33% is not quite the exact same as 50% on 100 2s. (I haven't found the actual #s on this actually.) But you're never going to be able to adjust the numbers in a way that justifies 2 pointers from spots where you hit 40% (obviously unless the shot-clock is expiring).
HofstraBBall wrote:nixluva wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Classic Dantoni coaching down the stretch. Iso Harden and no play called at the end of the game. 16 for 48 3's. 48!
A bounce here or there and Houston wins! This is hardly something to be crowing about. You talk a lot of Shyte about a coach whose team is battling with the Spurs in SA in his 1st season with Houston. You can't slag on a guy that's still playing in the post season!
How does anything you just said contradict my statement? No Parker, Leonard, Gasol on the floor, the entire overtime, and the Rockets offense was awful!! And not once but twice did Dantoni come up with no play at end of the game. But please deflect some more.
The Spurs simply have the better team. Even after the thumping in game 1 I said I thought they'd win the series. It's remarkable that a team with Harden and a bunch of role players is even keeping up with a team with all of the future HOFers and all-star level players the Spurs have. I'm sure before the season started people would not have thought a Spurs-Rockets series would be close. (They probably wouldn't have even thought Houston would be in the playoffs.)
Bonn1997 wrote:Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
Clearly all those other factors matter too, but the league is still moving in the direction of more and more 3s. Even just in the past year, it's 3 more 3s a game. Is there going to be a downward adjustment? I have no idea, but we probably won't ever see teams back to where the championship Spurs from just last decade were.
The main issue I have is not so much the minute statistical differences (27 vs. 24 3s a game). It's more when people don't care that almost half of Melo's or KP's shots are 2 pointers from spots where they hit around 40%. Maybe there are long rebounds and the expected value of 100 3 pointers at 33% is not quite the exact same as 50% on 100 2s. (I haven't found the actual #s on this actually.) But you're never going to be able to adjust the numbers in a way that justifies 2 pointers from spots where you hit 40% (obviously unless the shot-clock is expiring).
I get the argument of taking a good looking 3 over a contested midrange. Don't need to be sold on that
But it seems undebatable that the best play is still at the rim and drawing fouls for every possible reason: better efg%, causes fouls which stress the other team and soften the D subsequently, better probability of a superior transition D (no long rebounds and off to the races).
If the Spurs win it will be because Aldridge and Gasol and by superior D.
If Houston wins it will be because of a few unbelievable plays (not necessarily from Harden) and because of MDA -- though he won't get his due respect even then
Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
Clearly all those other factors matter too, but the league is still moving in the direction of more and more 3s. Even just in the past year, it's 3 more 3s a game. Is there going to be a downward adjustment? I have no idea, but we probably won't ever see teams back to where the championship Spurs from just last decade were.
The main issue I have is not so much the minute statistical differences (27 vs. 24 3s a game). It's more when people don't care that almost half of Melo's or KP's shots are 2 pointers from spots where they hit around 40%. Maybe there are long rebounds and the expected value of 100 3 pointers at 33% is not quite the exact same as 50% on 100 2s. (I haven't found the actual #s on this actually.) But you're never going to be able to adjust the numbers in a way that justifies 2 pointers from spots where you hit 40% (obviously unless the shot-clock is expiring).
I get the argument of taking a good looking 3 over a contested midrange. Don't need to be sold on that
But it seems undebatable that the best play is still at the rim and drawing fouls for every possible reason: better efg%, causes fouls which stress the other team and soften the D subsequently, better probability of a superior transition D (no long rebounds and off to the races).
If the Spurs win it will be because Aldridge and Gasol and by superior D.
If Houston wins it will be because of a few unbelievable plays (not necessarily from Harden) and because of MDA -- though he won't get his due respect even then
MDA got the COY because if you really look at his team it's not a great team! Like he has many times in his career MDA is maximizing his talent. If Harden doesn't get stripped and turned over on Offensive fouls by Kawhi and Simmons later in the game the Rockets probably win. The Spurs played typical great defense. Spurs players are battle tested and mentally tough. There's a reason they had a better regular season record! Houston is acquitting themselves well IMO.
Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Chandler wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:No Parker. Lenard goes down in the 4th. Spurs still win. See how system basketball works? While the Rockets are simply trying to beat you with averages by chucking as many 3s as they can the Spurs still won missing a couple of the NBA's best players. Very impressive.
Does going 11-33 from 3 point land qualify as chucking 3s? The Spurs have gotten in on this game of shooting tons of 3s. They take more 3s now than most teams ever thought about taking last decade. Being a couple shots behind the league average now (27 vs. 24) a game doesn't strike me as that interesting a conversation. No one said 27 was the magical cut-off.
Personally I think the 3 is now over-rated and that the key thing is getting good shots, e.g., open, feet set etc. Last night the game came down to a few key possessions where the Rockets chucked contested shots and the Spurs didn't
And to be sure each team had plenty of good shots/looks that didn't go in.
Clearly all those other factors matter too, but the league is still moving in the direction of more and more 3s. Even just in the past year, it's 3 more 3s a game. Is there going to be a downward adjustment? I have no idea, but we probably won't ever see teams back to where the championship Spurs from just last decade were.
The main issue I have is not so much the minute statistical differences (27 vs. 24 3s a game). It's more when people don't care that almost half of Melo's or KP's shots are 2 pointers from spots where they hit around 40%. Maybe there are long rebounds and the expected value of 100 3 pointers at 33% is not quite the exact same as 50% on 100 2s. (I haven't found the actual #s on this actually.) But you're never going to be able to adjust the numbers in a way that justifies 2 pointers from spots where you hit 40% (obviously unless the shot-clock is expiring).
I get the argument of taking a good looking 3 over a contested midrange. Don't need to be sold on that
But it seems undebatable that the best play is still at the rim and drawing fouls for every possible reason: better efg%, causes fouls which stress the other team and soften the D subsequently, better probability of a superior transition D (no long rebounds and off to the races).
If the Spurs win it will be because Aldridge and Gasol and by superior D.
If Houston wins it will be because of a few unbelievable plays (not necessarily from Harden) and because of MDA -- though he won't get his due respect even then
Yeah definitely. If 3s take away from shots at the rim, it will hurt your team.
Even with the win. The Spurs players played soft in the paint amd I believe LMA is playing injured. They don't haven't even been punishing the smaller defenders with easy layups and put backs like they could. Gasol may be to old and soft to impose his will.
