are by at least 15 points. According to Jonathan Feigen here: http://blog.chron.com/ultimaterocke...king-back-and-ahead-and-what-next-for-lebron/ On the other hand, the Spurs were only 1-3 in the "coin flip" playoff games in which either (1) were decided by 3 points or less, or (2) went into overtime. They were 3-3 if you relax the criteria to include games that were decided by 5 points or less. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2014_games.html People complained when Morey talked about avoiding "coin flip" games, but he is right about it. The Spurs, for one, are champions not because they have some sort of special power in pulling off "clutch" plays during the last couple minutes of close games. They don't, really-- being no better than .500 when they got into these situations in the playoffs this year, and famously blew the 5 point lead in game 6 last season. The Spurs are champions because they often play significantly better than the opposition so that they have a good-sized cushion going into the final minutes and don't put themselves at the whim of last minute makes and misses. The excellence of Tim, Manu, Tony, Kawhi & co. and that of Pop's coaching isn't they are somehow able to draw up or execute genius plays or give extra fiery motivation speeches in dramatic end of game situations. They do this work during the entire game, and in practices and film sessions when the cameras are not on.
To me, this is a good topic and a very fair point, CH. And there is *some* validity to Morey's coin flip comments. I would just offer two counterpoints, though. 1. I think this was a very unusual path to the NBA championship. Maybe Moses and Dr. J's "fo fo and fo" year would have a similar number of 15+ point wins, but this has got to be the exception in NBA playoff basketball. 2. There is, I don't need to point out, night and day between the Spurs brand of ball-moving team basketball and our current brand, which is "well, you know, you get to shoot 3-pointers TOO!" :grin:
The Spurs path are not entirely atypical. The 2012-13 Miami team, for example, won 12 of their playoff games by 10+ points. They were 2-2 in playoff games decided by 5 points or less. The 2011-12 Miami team won 10 of their playoff games by 10+ points. They were 1-4 in playoff games decided by 5 points or less.
The so-called clutch genes is the most bullshet thing in basketball You don't need it to win championship if you are truly better basketball team than everyone else.
I think a lot of people agree with Morey's assessment that good teams win games early not late. You win by being the better team for 48 minutes not 5. Our problem is that Morey seems to believe coaching doesn't matter the first 43 minutes either. If we had a better coach, we would have had bigger leads.
clearly they played at their best the past two years but after the Laker years this came more of a surprise.
but internet brehs who know it all told me spurs too ancient! windows, doors cracks have closed! how can this be? how you? Hands down San Antonio is the team of the 2000s and they didn't have to join the lebron g*ngbang auditions#23. Just good old fashion front office, along with the most important thing..having a system that they all believe in and nobody is above it. Mean while, we do like coin flips, our whole roster is two- face.
Maybe he just does not agree with most fans and thinks that McHale is a good coach judging by whatever info he uses.
It's no surprise that Morey wants to emulate the Heat 3 star strategy. They have been successful and Morey believed that the Heat will again be successful and beat the Spurs - he was wrong. Maybe he need to rethink the Rockets strategy going forward. Team game with full effort from 9-10 deep with great team defense and a few great perimeter defenders vs 3 stars with an avg to below avg bench? If we are to go more toward the Spurs style, the first one to go is McHale. With a 3 stars team, McHale probably doesn't matter that much.
Yeah, it's interesting. My first reaction was kind of off. From the latest Lowe Grantland piece: "(according to Basketballreference.com) ... the Spurs blitzed their four playoff opponents by about 10 points per 100 possessions. That is the sixth-best mark ever for a champion, trailing only five of the greatest teams to ever walk this earth: the 1991 and 1996 Bulls, 1986 Celtics, 1987 Lakers, and those 2001 Lakers, who decided to start trying hard in the playoffs." This is only counting the last 18 seasons or so, but it puts the Spurs just in the top third, not at the all-time top.
The spurs had the easiest time against Miami, a team with no paint defender. The playoffs are about match ups and Miami was the easiest one for SA. OKC and. Houston would have been more difficult a matchup bc of the interior presence, though SA played so well that nobody could have stopped them.
I have always maintained that the so-called clutchness is grossly overrated, for teams and for individual players. Most of the clutchness measurements are not really that clutch (e.g. 5 minutes left with the lead less than x points). The really memorable clutch plays are usually within 90 second of the end of game. The lead can be large or small. For example, the famous TMac 13 in 35 would not have been exceptional if you used the usual "clutch" measurement because the lead was too large. It was the string of shots together that made it so exceptional. But the question is, was that really "clutch" or just luck? These things are by nature rare and thus the sample sizes are always quite small. The only clutchness that really matter is how a player performs under pressure. If a guy consistently crumbles under high pressure situations, he's not "clutch" and vice versa.
In the end, the Mavs took them the furthest. I don't really know why... other than to think maybe the Spurs just weren't fully engaged yet. Remember the Mavs also had a 10 point lead in the mid 4th quarter of Game 1 that series, which they lost. But it is partly matchup driven of course. Dirk is a tough matchup for anyone. I agree with the Rockets comment, and woudl note that OKC was so hurt by Ibaka. Thunder were 2-2 in that series with Ibaka, 0-2 without. Spurs probably still win the series, but it certainly goes 7, imo. As for the general point of this thread, I agree with the conclusions. Coin-flip games are coin-flip games. Teams rarely are just consistent winners in those games. If there was one stat that I'd hope DM focuses on more, which is a real staple of Pops, is that contested shot stat. What is it, contested shots FG% drops to under 40%. This stat is so so so important. It is more important the 3s and layups, imo. It should drive all your defensive and offensive game plans. Defensively, it simply says TEAM DEFENSE. Team defense is more important than ballhawk try and steal the ball defense. Because getting beat and giving up an uncontested shot ultimately is the worst thing. Not that you can't go for steals... just to try and remember contest, contest, contest. Offensively, it should mean move the ball to get the open shot, whether it's a three, a layup or a mid-range jumper.
The Mavs, to me, seem like a "high variance" team that can beat an excellent team on any given night but can also lose to a mediocre team. They have enough firepower, spacing and wily veterans to get even vs. a tough opponent and this gives them a chance every night. But they are still not good enough to actually be favored against the top teams.
Carlisle actually out coached Pop in the first round, the Mavs executed better till the spurs got into their groove.
I refuse to believe that Morey has not already thought of that. The difference is, you need to get the players to execute. That's (1) the coach's job, and (2) the players' character level. So at the end of the day, I don't think it is a matter of knowing what's important in game planning (Morey should be much smarter than us in this). It is a matter of getting the right people, from the coach to the stars to the role players. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT GETTING THE MOST TALENT.
Right, I guess I'm not saying he doesn't already know it. You're absolutely right... it's about coaching and the players. But we know he isn't changing coaching this year for whatever reason. I guess my point was we've heard a lot about his use of statistics and building his roster to take advantage of 3's, layups and free throws. I've never heard him mention the contested/uncontested FG% statistic. Cause it's not as simple as TS% or eFG%. You have to factor in the playoffs, and defense. And this year was the first time I really have ever heard him reference defense so heavily. That statistic is more a defensive statistic than anything. The Rockets offense is fine, even in the playoffs... though I feel the constant push to avoid mid-range shots, even when wide open, hurt them at key times in the playoffs offensively. It certainly hurt Harden a bit.
Soooo..... coaching matters the whole game and in practices and not necessarily in just the last 2 minutes of a game . . . ok . . i gotch Rocket River
