(2011)-2012 NBA Season

[gblews]

That's not me being negative or throwing a fit. It's just what I've seen all season long continued. My congratulations to the Spurs, you've won the series already. Hopefully my Thunder can show some pride when they get back to OKC, but they have zero chance of beating San Antonio four times. They threw everything they had at them and it simply wasn't good enough. Same story, different verse. There's no way to beat them. Unfortunately, I think San Antonio will sweep them after all. It was a great season, but I knew this would happen. Damn. I was having such fun.

But you are being negative and you are throwing a fit. Is this a serious post, an attempt at reverse mojo, or general poor mouthing in order to prepare yourself for what you think is the inevitable? Good lord, it is just game 1, which is the least important of a 7 game series. I think the Spurs will win the series too, but if the Thunder win game 2 they're in the drivers seat for as long as they can stay there. You cannot have watched the NBA for very long.

And speaking of the refs, I don't think you really want consistency because if they were consistent, OKC would be in foul trouble for most of every game they play based on moving picks alone.

No one should be surprised at Fish's play against the Spurs, particularly his shooting. He has always shot lights out against the Spurs. The problem the Spurs have had with him is that they don't really want to defend him, preferring to use his man to help on others. Fish just kills these guys.

The Spurs have got to lose soon, but if it is not until game 3, the Thunder will be in a position where in order to win the series, they'll probably have to win a 7th game in San Antonio.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

No, it's game five. I've now watched Oklahoma City play the Spurs five times since Christmas. You haven't, gblews. It's always a variation of the same story. This Thunder team is incapable of beating this Spurs team four times in their next six games. They simply aren't good enough. I've come down from my playoff high, accepted the inevitable and it's a major fucking buzz kill after such promise. They threw everything they had, played absolutely lights out on the road in front of a hostile crowd and it wasn't good enough. They can't do any better than they did tonight. There's no way to tweak the defense. There's no magic formula or game plan. San Antonio might have a bad game in the next week and a half, but they aren't going to have four bad games in the next week and a half. Some of it is maturity issues, but there's a talent and most definitely a depth discrepancy between the 2012 Thunder and the 2012 Spurs. I can't wish it away. It's not negativity. I'm not having a fit. It's simply what is and it sucks for me, but life goes on. I'll bitch and moan and get over it. Popovich is too good and the Spurs are too deep.

Game one is the least important? Not in this series it isn't. You really aren't familiar with how this season played out between these two teams, are you? With these particular two teams and their history this season, taking game one on the road was vital. It didn't happen. Yes, it's a serious post. If I deluded myself into thinking my Thunder had a shot, that would be the joke post.

 

[Borgminister]

Should've played Ibaka instead of Perk when he picked up number 5.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Maybe they should have, but they thought they needed Perk to keep SA from going inside at will. They wanted to force them to shoot the 3, since the trey hadn't been going in for 3 quarters. The game plan was working until the 4th quarter. Sob.

Give Popovich credit. He inspired them with that last speech. He usually does. San Antonio committed 14 turnovers in the first half. They played lousy ball for most of the game; OKC played lights out, and they still couldn't overcome this team. They haven't all year. If they'd split the series, I might still have some hope. The only game they won, Popovich was resting some key players. There's no game plan to tweak any more. If they sit Perkins after the 4th foul and go with Ibaka to block inside, the Spurs would have started hitting their 3's earlier. Steven Jackson hitting them is your nail in a coffin. That's why I call them the Borg. Popovich is the Borg queen. A curse on that idiot Crawford for calling that 4th foul on Perk, but that's the way it goes. Gblews may question if it's a serious post, but seeing the writing on the wall is merely being realistic. I'd be more hopeful if they'd gotten blown out. You can rationalize maybe they're tired, they were nervous about being on SA's home floor, just having a bad game, rusty....blah blah blah. OKC played lights out and it wasn't good enough. That's the bottom line.

 

[Borgminister]

Problem is, when you have Perk with 5 fouls, how is he going to play on the inside? Ibak wouldn't have had that to worry about. I think that was a coaching mistake more than anything else.

That and Westbrook was just a tad out of control.

Pop the Borg Queen? <shudder>

 

[Dorian Thompson]

In terms of his basketball acumen and the tools he has at his disposal with this year's team, yes he's the Borg queen. He alone recognized the potential of Leonard. Popovich has got it going on. There's no denying it. They'd better beat Miami or I'm really going to throw a shit fit about my Thunder losing. You have to lose for a higher purpose, you know.

We'll see Tuesday night if Brooks tweaks anything. However, I think SA will be back in form by then. Perk or Ibaka playing may be a moot point if SA is on top of its game. SA played really, really lousy ball on Sunday. That's why I lack any realistic hope of the Thunder taking the series. That really drove the point home. Now I'm just hoping OKC wins a game. They haven't won a single game against a full strength SA team this season. I'm not ready to stop having fun, but I'm steeling myself for the inevitable. They are the Borg. May they never have another day's luck if they don't beat Miami in the finals.

 

[gblews]

No, it's game five. I've now watched Oklahoma City play the Spurs five times since Christmas. You haven't, gblews. It's always a variation of the same story. This Thunder team is incapable of beating this Spurs team four times in their next six games. They simply aren't good enough. I've come down from my playoff high, accepted the inevitable and it's a major fucking buzz kill after such promise. They threw everything they had, played absolutely lights out on the road in front of a hostile crowd and it wasn't good enough. They can't do any better than they did tonight. There's no way to tweak the defense. There's no magic formula or game plan. San Antonio might have a bad game in the next week and a half, but they aren't going to have four bad games in the next week and a half. Some of it is maturity issues, but there's a talent and most definitely a depth discrepancy between the 2012 Thunder and the 2012 Spurs. I can't wish it away. It's not negativity. I'm not having a fit. It's simply what is and it sucks for me, but life goes on. I'll bitch and moan and get over it. Popovich is too good and the Spurs are too deep.

What does it matter that I haven't seen all 5 of their games this season? That would not change anything I just posted. It would still just be a game 1 loss with a chance to steal HCA in game 2.

If your point is that you think the Spurs are simply better than than the Thunder this season then why all the hysterics over the loss? I could understand your frustration if you thought the Thunder were a better team than the Spurs this season but just played lousy ball against SA. But according to you, that isn't the case since the Thunder have lost 4 of 5 and there are 'no adjustments or tweaks that can be made' to salvage the series. Sounds like you definitely believe the Spurs are the better team. That being the case, all you can hope for is for the Thunder to play hard and hope for an upset.

My point is that from what you have posted, you have little to no hope of the Thunder winning the series. That being the case, your reaction to game 1 makes no sense.

Game one is the least important? Not in this series it isn't.

If that is true then the Spurs must be way better than the Thunder because that is the only time a game 1 decides the series winner. If this is the case, you might as well relax because according to you, the series is already over.

If the Thunder manage to pull an upset in game 2, then the series is up in the air. I that were to happen, I think the Spurs will eventually win the series but will at least be interesting.

 

[gblews]

Should've played Ibaka instead of Perk when he picked up number 5.

That would have been like opening the flood gates for SA's low post players because Ibaka is not a good one on one post defender. He is a shot blocking specialist. But it is hard to imagine any one player who might have helped OKC's defense in that 4th quarter. They gave up 39 points -- incredible.

 

[Borgminister]

Yeah but if you have Perk playing tentative, he's no good in the post either... With Ibaka, you'd have had some fouls to give.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

The paper had a column today criticizing Brooks for not playing Ibaka. Perkins was more suited for the Laker series. That's where he earned his money. Ibaka being more suited for this series is becoming the general consensus, right or wrong.

 

[gblews]

If Ibacka had been in there at the end of the game, Pop would have had his team feeding his post players, especially Duncan who is too big for Durant and too fundamentally sound for Ibacka. But really, giving up 39 in one quarter, especially the 4th, is a strong indicator that the problem went far beyond Ibacka vs, Perkins.

Hmm, seems like you guys may have some match up problems.

 

[Neroon]

Boston / Miami is going to be one heckuva series, provided there are no more injuries. If Bosh can get back into things... whoa. It's going to be fun to watch, and frankly I don't care who wins!

 

[Borgminister]

Boston's way too shorthanded, dinged up and old... I'm puzzled why Marquis Daniels isn't playing more.

 

[SmoothieX]

How is Game 1 the least important?

It sets the tone for the series and puts one team in a hole. I would put it behind Game 7 (someone goes home) and Game 5 (Up 3-2 vs. down 3-2 is huge, or 3-1 up or down, or eliminated/moving on) in the order of importance.

As for the East, my guess would be Heat in 6. The Celtics are deeper and mesh together better, but the Heat have 2 (and when healthy, 3) stars in their prime and don't have as many miles on the tires as Boston's stars.

 

[Neroon]

You know... with the way that game went in the 4th quarter, I'm not sure how good of a series this will be, after all. And if Chris Bosh does make it back ... it could be even worse for the Celtics.

Regarding the first game's importance, stats show that the winner of Game 1 of a 7 game series wins the series over 80% of the time.

 

[Borgminister]

On the other hand, this is Boston we're talking about. Anyone remember 2008?

Still, unless Allen grows another foot, he's threes are pretty much out the door, and without a lock-down pesky defender like Bradley, pride will only take you so far.

 

[Neroon]

True, and AI won game 1 from the Lakers in 2001, only to lose the next 4

 

[gblews]

How is Game 1 the least important?

It sets the tone for the series and puts one team in a hole. I would put it behind Game 7 (someone goes home) and Game 5 (Up 3-2 vs. down 3-2 is huge, or 3-1 up or down, or eliminated/moving on) in the order of importance.

Regarding the first game's importance, stats show that the winner of Game 1 of a 7 game series wins the series over 80% of the time.

Game 1 doesn't "set the tone" for anything except game 1 unless one team capitulates.

Game 1 is least important because if the road team wins, it means they have won HCA and put themselves in position to seize control of the series ...IF they win game 2. The road team seizing HCA can happen in game 1 or 2. Regardless of what happens in game 1, either team can right the ship to varying degrees in game 2. If the home team wins game 2, then their task is simple, they need to win one of games 3 and 4. If they do that, it negates what happened in game 1. The winner Game 1 doesn't necessarily set the tone for anything more than game 1.

That stat, which the talking heads love to trot out prior to and during game 1's, includes all game 1 match up's including those where one team, (usually the home team and the one with HCA), is head and shoulders better than the road team. This fact totally skews the stat and renders it nearly meaningless. If you look at the games 1's between teams who are relatively evenly matched, I doubt the game 1 winner has much of an advantage at all. When one team is head and shoulders better, they usually have won game 1 and go on to win the series.

...and AI won game 1 from the Lakers in 2001, only to lose the next 4

Um hm, when one team is head and shoulders better than the other, the game 1 winner is particularly irrelevant, yet these types of series are included in that "80%" stat.

 

[Neroon]

No need to be patronizing. All I am saying is what has actually happened. You can interpret it however you wish. Winning game 1 may make a difference depending upon who wins - the underdog, the visitor, etc. But it still remains that the team winning the first game wins a significant majority of the series. Why it happens doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Dorian Thompson]

Am I allowed to be pessimistic now, gblews? Massive thunderstorms are deluging Oklahoma City as I speak. The power is flickering and looks to go out here really quick. It's out all over the north of the metro. Looks like that may be a blessing. Can't even listen to the radio now. If I don't comment further...I haven't committed hari kari. Just no lights.

Sob. They just don't have an answer for San Antonio. Such is life, sometimes.