On May 22 2013 17:18 Ace wrote: Once they deem you didn't make a play on the ball it's a flagrant.
It's gotta be more specific than that. You move in someone's way as they're driving and you're not making a play on the ball. Deliberately hitting someone's elbow in the shooting motion isn't going after the ball either. I see a lot of fouls that don't involve plays on the ball that aren't called flagrants. I still think the call was bullshit and the refs were affected by Allen's antics.
Not a play for the ball+reckless endangerment= flagrant 1, intent to injure=flagrant 2, it's in the rules.
Agree with Ace and Cyric here, the fall has little to do with it once the refs saw Manu not go for a strip or whatever and just pull him down. As for the "players do that all the time to prevent a layup", that's bullshit. They foul, yes, but they never do something like grabbing onto an arm and yanking. They might grab around the torso and pull, but that's not as dangerous, or hack, also not as dangerous, but holding onto one arm and pulling down? no.
On May 22 2013 15:09 DystopiaX wrote: The series isn't over and Memphis showed they could hang in there. In fact, the Spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat because of foul trouble- and the replay showed that he didn't even touch the guy when he "fouled"... a couple bad breaks both games but that doesn't mean that they're suddenly the worst team. Their lineup with more spacing (Bayless/Pondexter) really took it to the Spurs in the 4th and getting Zbo to hit shots again was huge. The scores were deceiving but watching the games made it appear a lot closer than it ended up being. The Spurs aren't going to hit that many 3s again and Bonner isn't going to hit 4, like in game 1. Shitty reffing won't hit them for 2 more games, and they've started to figure shit out.
You're right that the spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat, but they continued to pull ahead even after Conley came back. The Grizzlies only started making a big comeback after Duncan sat with 5 fouls, and honestly, how likely is that to happen when Tim Duncan averages around 2 fouls per game? And Duncan's impact on the game is pretty huge for both sides of the game, and with him on the floor, I think they would've held their lead much better.
But they wouldn't have been ahead by as much and little runs are common in basketball. Yes Duncan sat but don't forget Gasol sat for part of the time too, and with the Memphis bench being what it is I'd think that the loss of Gasol is bigger than the loss of Duncan, not to mention that the scoring runs came not from Gasol, who Duncan would be guarding, nor were there a lot of scoring in the paint, but it was threes and jumpshots from Conley, Pondexter, and Bayless for the most part, which Duncan would have no part in guarding. It'll be interesting to see if Memphis goes with that lineup more because it deals with their biggest issue, floor spacing. It held their own defensively but who knows if they could do that for a long stretch.
On May 23 2013 02:42 cLutZ wrote: When I played IM Basketball in college everytime you went for a scoop you got both arms hacked. The amount of force is much more than what you saw there.
Also, maybe they cannot eject for a single flop, but then that rule needs to be amended because of the difficulty of discovering flops + the huge reward a flopper gets.
Getting hacked is less dangerous than being pulled down because Allen didn't have control of one of his arms for most of the fall and the direction of his fall was also altered by it. I'm fine with hacking the arms, I do think that's an acceptable play, it's the holding and pulling down I'm having trouble justifying.
I agree that flopping penalties need to be harsher, because the fines are incredibly light as it is, but I don't know if you want to do that in game, when flopping is so subjective, more subjective than a lot of calls in basketball assuming it's not some of the obvious ones. Plus they'd have to stop play every time to review if it's a flop, which I doubt will happen because if you do that you should review all types of questionable plays, and not just in the last 2 minutes.
On May 22 2013 15:09 DystopiaX wrote: The series isn't over and Memphis showed they could hang in there. In fact, the Spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat because of foul trouble- and the replay showed that he didn't even touch the guy when he "fouled"... a couple bad breaks both games but that doesn't mean that they're suddenly the worst team. Their lineup with more spacing (Bayless/Pondexter) really took it to the Spurs in the 4th and getting Zbo to hit shots again was huge. The scores were deceiving but watching the games made it appear a lot closer than it ended up being. The Spurs aren't going to hit that many 3s again and Bonner isn't going to hit 4, like in game 1. Shitty reffing won't hit them for 2 more games, and they've started to figure shit out.
You're right that the spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat, but they continued to pull ahead even after Conley came back. The Grizzlies only started making a big comeback after Duncan sat with 5 fouls, and honestly, how likely is that to happen when Tim Duncan averages around 2 fouls per game? And Duncan's impact on the game is pretty huge for both sides of the game, and with him on the floor, I think they would've held their lead much better.
But they wouldn't have been ahead by as much and little runs are common in basketball. Yes Duncan sat but don't forget Gasol sat for part of the time too, and with the Memphis bench being what it is I'd think that the loss of Gasol is bigger than the loss of Duncan, not to mention that the scoring runs came not from Gasol, who Duncan would be guarding, nor were there a lot of scoring in the paint, but it was threes and jumpshots from Conley, Pondexter, and Bayless for the most part, which Duncan would have no part in guarding. It'll be interesting to see if Memphis goes with that lineup more because it deals with their biggest issue, floor spacing. It held their own defensively but who knows if they could do that for a long stretch.
While that is true, I'd still like to see the statistics for when Duncan was on vs when Duncan was off. I think that those threes and jumpshots were partly created because their drives became more effective with Duncan out, and Zach Randoldph playing a marginally larger role with the rebounds. Also, Duncan plays a pretty important role on the offense in his pick and rolls with Ginobili and Parker. Sigh... where do you guys go to get statistics like, spurs offense were 105 points per 100 possessions with Duncan and 102.5 points per possession without? (just an example). The other factor is that Marc Gasol actually didn't sit out very long. He played for 42:50 last night when he averages 40:00 anyway. Meanwhile, Tim Duncan played 31:08 when he normally plays 33:30. Also, Gasol averages 3.4 PF per game while Duncan averages 2.5. It'd be more likely for Gasol to be in foul trouble anyway while it's an abnormality for Duncan.
Ok, now it's time to start questioning Durant's decision making. Not only the typo, but that tattoo just looks terrible. Looks more like Poseidon than Jesus. And the eyes! I guess the Grizz humiliated him in more ways than one.
On May 22 2013 15:09 DystopiaX wrote: The series isn't over and Memphis showed they could hang in there. In fact, the Spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat because of foul trouble- and the replay showed that he didn't even touch the guy when he "fouled"... a couple bad breaks both games but that doesn't mean that they're suddenly the worst team. Their lineup with more spacing (Bayless/Pondexter) really took it to the Spurs in the 4th and getting Zbo to hit shots again was huge. The scores were deceiving but watching the games made it appear a lot closer than it ended up being. The Spurs aren't going to hit that many 3s again and Bonner isn't going to hit 4, like in game 1. Shitty reffing won't hit them for 2 more games, and they've started to figure shit out.
You're right that the spurs didn't pull ahead until Conley sat, but they continued to pull ahead even after Conley came back. The Grizzlies only started making a big comeback after Duncan sat with 5 fouls, and honestly, how likely is that to happen when Tim Duncan averages around 2 fouls per game? And Duncan's impact on the game is pretty huge for both sides of the game, and with him on the floor, I think they would've held their lead much better.
But they wouldn't have been ahead by as much and little runs are common in basketball. Yes Duncan sat but don't forget Gasol sat for part of the time too, and with the Memphis bench being what it is I'd think that the loss of Gasol is bigger than the loss of Duncan, not to mention that the scoring runs came not from Gasol, who Duncan would be guarding, nor were there a lot of scoring in the paint, but it was threes and jumpshots from Conley, Pondexter, and Bayless for the most part, which Duncan would have no part in guarding. It'll be interesting to see if Memphis goes with that lineup more because it deals with their biggest issue, floor spacing. It held their own defensively but who knows if they could do that for a long stretch.
While that is true, I'd still like to see the statistics for when Duncan was on vs when Duncan was off. I think that those threes and jumpshots were partly created because their drives became more effective with Duncan out, and Zach Randoldph playing a marginally larger role with the rebounds. Also, Duncan plays a pretty important role on the offense in his pick and rolls with Ginobili and Parker. Sigh... where do you guys go to get statistics like, spurs offense were 105 points per 100 possessions with Duncan and 102.5 points per possession without? (just an example). The other factor is that Marc Gasol actually didn't sit out very long. He played for 42:50 last night when he averages 40:00 anyway. Meanwhile, Tim Duncan played 31:08 when he normally plays 33:30. Also, Gasol averages 3.4 PF per game while Duncan averages 2.5. It'd be more likely for Gasol to be in foul trouble anyway while it's an abnormality for Duncan.
On May 23 2013 06:33 Jibba wrote: When the link is in that style (with feature=player_detailpage) in it, you've got to go to the Share page and use that link.
Let me summarize the analysts and about half the posts here: San Antonio is up 2-0 so clearly they are going to lose.
I attribute a huge portion of the collapse to Tony Parker, who just looked gassed and took some shots that were technically fine but were a bad decision since he had no air under his legs. He lost 4 or 5 possessions. He has been on and off all playoffs- possibly injuries or fatigue- and the 3 day layoff should do him good.
Still, I see no reason for fatigue. Before the series started Parker-Conley was the ballyhooed match-up. The problem with that though is that SA has other perimeter weapons. If the Memphis bigs don't have good games, they are donesies. If you're counting on Bayless to win the game for you, somethings wrong.
I won't discount the Grizzlies at all here, but they have to start by winning the next two games. If not they are essentially done.
EPT
