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..

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!

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!

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.

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..

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.

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