Setting Sun or Sonic Fade which comes first!

[Rummpd]

Suns with an assist from Nash's injury went from 31 and 4 and talk of a 70 game series to 41 and 13 in a flash. Most telling is that even with him back they have lost at home consecutively to Spurs, Sonics (who were on back to back) and Mavs. Seem primed to fade.

Sonics two straight losses after seemingly stabalizing. This team has been in a serious fade after 30 games they were still around .0800 now they are 35 and 14.

Which will fade out of race fastest if Spurs get their usual season end surge?

I am predicting the Suns fade first - over last 2-3 weeks even when winning they are not blowing teams out like before.

[Jimcs50]

Suns with an assist from Nash's injury went from 31 and 4 and talk of a 70 game series to 41 and 13 in a flash. Most telling is that even with him back they have lost at home consecutively to Spurs, Sonics (who were on back to back) and Mavs. Seem primed to fade.

Sonics two straight losses after seemingly stabalizing. This team has been in a serious fade after 30 games they were still around .0800 now they are 35 and 14.

Which will fade out of race fastest if Spurs get their usual season end surge?

I am predicting the Suns fade first - over last 2-3 weeks even when winning they are not blowing teams out like before.


They are 10-3 since Nash came back. They are not going to fade. they will win division and finish ahead of Seattle....I will bet you any amt of money on that, right now, deal?

[The_Game]

hmm..the Spurs lost to the Heat...only a matter of time before they fade as well... :rolleyes

give me a freaking break...neither team will fade

stupid topic

[exstatic]

Uh, Jim? Seattle and PHO are not in the same division any more. They'll both win their divisions, as will we, barring injury.

[boutons]

Suns aren't going away. Probably the most consistently excellent of all the top teams. The 3 recent losses @PHX were all due to the other team playing very well (eg, SA needed 48 from Manu) and the loss @MEM took a huge game from Griz to do it. The Suns don't give away games like the Spurs do, you have to beat them, you're best hope being that they shoot a little cold (like last night) and that your offense is humming.

Had Nash not been out for 5 games, Suns would be 46 - 8, or 47 - 9 worst case. Suns really seem to enjoy playing, unlike the qtr-long or game-long or week-long funks SA gets into when nobody can find their ass on either end of the court with both hands. Suns don't seem to have any lockerroom problems. Barring injury to their starters, they will be neck-and-neck with SA.

I don't think the Sonics will go away (any more than they already have) either, having already dropped 4 games back of SA/PHX. Seems there will be traffic jam at 4-6 games back of SA/PHX, for WC 3-7 seeding.

The real question and biggest risk is whether the Spurs can start averaging, ie consistently, a decent Spurs performance (PHX can do it, why not the Spurs?) to avoid the "bad" losses that will lose HCA to PHX.

There will be a dogfight for 8th between MIN and LAL, but I think the WC 1-7 seeding group is set now:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings?season=2005&group=conference&column=winPercent&order=false&seasontype=2

SA's first round opponent will probably MEM, LAL, MIN.

[Rummpd]

When I say fade it is relative, these are strong teams but not the superpowers they looked like at 1/3 of the season.

Most tellingly, the Suns are seemingly crashing down to earth as a contender of being a great team, how can you overlook their 3 consecutive games at HOME however it happens to other good to great teams! Don' t be suprised if they play 2/3 at best ball rest of way. Sonics also do not have great record over last 10-15 games at all. Whose to say that trend will not continue or get worse?

Excuses about injuries are also BS. Suns losing 6 in a row even with Nash down to me is a sign of a team without great depth. Spurs have been hurt by Duncan's injury, Rasho's injury (don't laugh, Horry, Rose, Manu at times) and I believe would have beat both the Wizards and Miami with TD and some of others fully healthy. Spurs could also have 9 losses easily, but the records are what they are no excuses.

I am not sure which will fade most, but I for one would not be surprised for both to RELATIVELY struggle. Suns have like Spurs most of games at home but that doesn't seem to matter they are still losing to good team there.

The real question is do you think either will hang with the Spurs? I don't, especially if the Spurs win at least 75% of games rest of way, which Spurs very capable of doing and history suggests they will, especially with many games at home and their incredible home record so far.

[boutons]

"how can you overlook their 3 consecutive games at HOME"

WTF "consecutive"? Between the Spurs, Sonics, Mavs losses, Suns also won at home vs NJN, NYK, UTA?

Suns ain't doing no fucking crashing nowhere. That's wishful thinking.

The Spurs also had a pretty sucky Jan/Feb, and the RRT sucked, could easily have been 4-3. Are the Spurs crashing down?

"Suns losing 6 in a row even with Nash down to me is a sign of a team without great depth"

We know that about the Suns.

But when I say the Spurs and their widely acknowledged, historic depth should have won @Wiz and @Heat, I'm told the Spurs are mediorce crap unless Duncan is 100%.

So Duncan is as necessary to the Spurs as Nash is to the Suns, depth be damned?

As I said, the real question/risk is not whether the Suns can hang with the Spurs, but whether the Spus can stop losing "badly" to hang with the Suns. Both will get beaten by better efforts/bad breaks, but I doubt the Suns will start giving away games to lottery teams like the Spurs have done 7 or 8 times this year.

[GrandeDavid]

I'm not sure how much the Spurs will surge being that this is a relatively atypical year for them since they started the season with general familiarity with the system. At best I'm guessing the Spurs will continue along the path they are on now and win around 63 games.

I nominate the Sonics to fade, but I trust neither the Sonics or the Suns over the long haul, especially the playoffs.

[T Park]

Bring on the Lakers in the first round.


Time for some serious playoff ass kicking payback mfers.....

[Extra Stout]

Probably the most consistently excellent of all the top teams.

BZZZZT! Wrong, sorry, thanks for playing. The Suns are less consistent than the Spurs, and I can back it up statistically.

The most technically correct measure of consistency is the standard deviation of a team's point differential. The lower it is, the more even a team's play is. The higher it is, the less consistent the team.

For the Spurs, it is +/- 11.7 points per game.
For the Suns, it is +/- 12.1 points per game.

Betcha weren't expecting me to know that.

[Jimcs50]

Tpark is right....I want LA in first round for the first time in years.

Houston can be dangerous with their slow ugly ball. Memphis can also win some games against SA, but LA is the team that we can sweep.

[Jimcs50]

Uh, Jim? Seattle and PHO are not in the same division any more. They'll both win their divisions, as will we, barring injury.


The question was not if Phoenix wil beat out Seattle for division, I am saying that Phoenix will not finish any lower than 2 seed....leaving Seattle in their dust.

[T Park]

Memphis can also win some games against SA

THey might win 1 game this year, but they are still the same team as last year, and the Spurs would win in 5. 6 at the most...

Houston would force a 6 maybe 7 game series.

Lakers would be a 4 game sweep EASY.

[boutons]

"The most technically correct measure of consistency is the standard deviation of a team's point differential."

That may be a measure, but it's not the only measure, and certainly does not agree with any observer who follows the Suns and Spurs. When I said on this forum that I expected the Spurs to turn just an average game consistently (like win @NO, nothing specatular, just basic ball to get the w) to beat inferior teams, I was told it just won't happen with the Spurs, who are said to be inconsistent. So fuck your sigmas. Don't mean shit in the real world.

Suns don't play bad games and give them away to inferior teams. If you want to beat the Suns, you have to play well, sometimes extremely well.

If you want to beat the Spurs, you might get lucky, esp if your team is lottery bound, and the Spurs will give you a freebie W, even if you play your average/crappy game.

ie, the Suns beat the teams they are supposed to beat, and lose to teams who must play very well to get the W.

The Spurs have lost 7 or 8 games that they should have won, played crappy against an inferior team who played average ball to get the W.

[Extra Stout]

and certainly does not agree with any observer who follows the Suns and Spurs. Oh, fuck you. It only does not agree with boutons. Get off your damn high horse like you are some damn consensus expert. "Any observer," my ass.

Losses to lottery teams:
Spurs - 3
Suns - 3

Where's this huge difference in losses to bad teams? Are you judging whether the other team brought their "A" game based upon aesthetics? Based upon your own opinion?

Every time a team beats the Sonics, Suns, Heat, Mavericks, or anybody else, you say the other team played a great game, and it doesn't reflect anything bad about the elite contenders. Every time the Spurs lose, it's because they are inconsistent and they suck and it means they're going to lose in the playoffs. You are full of shit.

Margin of defeat:
1-5 points (squeaker): Spurs 6, Suns 5
6-10 points (solid loss): Spurs 5, Suns 4
11-20 points (blowout): Spurs 1, Suns 3
20+ points (ass-whoopin'): Spurs 0, Suns 1

Where's the huge difference? Looks like the Suns fail to bring their A-game more often than the Spurs do.

Opponent winning percentage:
Spurs: 0.514
Suns: 0.490

Hmm.. so the Spurs aren't doing it against weaker competition...

Isn't it true that your impressions of these teams are just your own subjective opinions based upon limited information, like box scores? Isn't it true that the measures you come up with to judge how the Spurs are doing have no correlation whatsoever to the historical performances of NBA teams, champions or otherwise? Isn't it true you make shit up to go along with whatever your opinion is, and try to pass that off as expertise?

[FromWayDowntown]

20+ points (ass-whoopin'): Spurs 0, Suns 1


Hmmm. I wonder where that 1 loss came from?

Then again, I don't know why either of us bother with empirical proof, ExtraStout. If you don't bring empirical proof, boutons will tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and that stats would prove boutons right. When you do have empirical proof to disprove boutons' theories and "consensus observations," you're cherry picking and disregarding subjective analysis.

[T Park]

hahahaha^

[wildbill2u]

Fade is a relative term. The road to the Western Confernece Championship is going to be tough, no matter who we play.

[exstatic]

Spurs and Suns are on one level, Sonics and a couple of other teams are below. The difference? Duncan and Stoudemire in the post. Seattle both lives and dies by the jump shot, and the later in the year and into the playoffs, the more tired their legs will be. Seattle does a pretty good job of disguising their weaknesses up front, but none of those guys are going to entice you into a double team.

[NCaliSpurs]

\.

Had Nash not been out for 5 games, Suns would be 46 - 8, or 47 - 9 worst case.


Hey Tard. Nash played in 10 Suns losses.

Do you just pull these numbers out of your ass?

[Rummpd]

Bouton, explanation, when I said 3 consecutive losses at home I meant to elite teams.

That being said your negativity and over-hype of other teams borders on the extreme.

Do you really believe in the Spurs? My guess is even if they were 45 and 8 you would still be dissing that accomplishment.

Face it 41 and 12 is a hell of an accomplishment, especially considering have played more road games and have rodeo trip out of way.

Spurs based on history most likely to surge, who knows other teams, my guess is a relative adios Sonics and Suns. One cannot deny that they have slipped and are no longer, especially Suns, seemingly unbeatable. I recall when you and so many expected Suns to absolutely thump Spurs x 2. I and a few brave Spurs fans have stuck consistently to our belief that this Spurs team is a special team and will win a championship this year and probably the #1 seed. If not this year then surely they will win another within the next 2-3 years for 3 in less than 10 years = how spoiled are many of you to expect more!

You and Segu and the like continually diss the Spurs while I listen to GM and players call them the MODEL franchise.

When the next parade comes please stay out of the way of the bus and don't jump back on the bandwagon.

[boutons]

"consecutive losses at home I meant to elite teams."

details any mindreader could recognize

"that being said your negativity"

I point out some weaknesses in the Spurs as trying to find out what's going to stop them in playoffs. Probably a useless exercise, but the 4 straight losses to LAL after SPAM and 17 straight wins incites me to look now for weaknesses. If you don't like it, use IGNORE.

"over-hype of other teams borders on the extreme."

BS, I don't over-hype other teams and you can't document that BS claim. I compare the Spurs with the most probable obstacle to getting out of the WC, and that's PHX, at this point. I don't "hype" PHX, I point out they are more consistent than the Spurs, don't give away games, must be beaten by a solid effort, and, except for the 4 games lost where Nash was out, they'd be 2 or 3 games ahead of the Spurs, and probably uncatchable for HCA.

"Do you really believe in the Spurs?"

I'm deeply touched by your question. I believe in the Spurs a lot more than others here. eg, I believe the Spurs' depth should be able to win without Duncan against dreck like @Wiz(without Hughes) but with a solid replacement contributions from Malik and Rasho. Other "fans" say, effectively, the Spurs are pretty crappy unless Duncan plays, _AND_ plays at 100%. ie, no Duncan, no Spurs, and the depth is useless even in making up for a Duncan who isn't playing 100%.

"especially Suns, seemingly unbeatable"

I never considered the defense-less Suns to be unbeatable. But if you want to beat the Suns, you have to play a solid game, because they will consistenly. I consider the Spurs to be too soft (eg, @MIA, SEA@SBC, etc), the offense too easily stoppable, too inconsistent, too emotionally up/down from quarter to quarter, from game to game, defense too erratic (no defense, no Spurs), and as beatable as the Suns. All of those Spurs negatives are qualified "so far".

"this Spurs team is a special team and will win a championship this year"

well, duh. I believed that last year when the Spurs were riding a 17-game winning streak, easily up 2-0 vs LAL, and the collapsed. THAT was a "special", even historic Spurs. I've seen nothing, like road toughness, consistency, killer-instinct, this season that says whatever fuck caused the Spurs to disappear last May has been purged, "yet".

"You and Segu and the like continually diss the Spurs while I listen to GM and players call them the MODEL franchise."

Grouping me together with a sicko poster like Sequ confirms what a BS post yours is.

[Rummpd]

The Spurs lost last year to a great team that finally decided to play great and the Spurs did not rise to the occassion and also got a freak play that was probably a bad call on 0.4 against them. However, this is this year.

Early in the year the Suns and Sonics were off to the races, but the resilient Spurs continue to hang tough and now have top record again with most of games on road. Most tellingly, this Spur team is honestly deeper, better on offense with more players gettnig involved, and more mature than last year - why should we be so negative?

You do however make valid criticism & sorry about the grouping with Segu.

[texbumTHElife]

Head to head record is the only way to break down Spurs vs. Suns and we all know who wins that battle.

Someone pull up records vs. all like opponents if the head to head record isnt enough.

[td4mvp21]

^But playoffs are completely different than head-to-head matchups during the regular season.

[texbumTHElife]

The playoffs are a whole other beast all together. It doesnt matter who collapses in the regular season. All that matter is what you do in the playoffs. However for use in this topic head to head record is relevant.

It would also be nice too see a breakdown of playoff records per player/per starting 5.

[NCaliSpurs]

Had Nash not been out for 5 games, Suns would be 46 - 8, or 47 - 9 worst case.

Nash has played in 10 Suns losses.

How could they have been 46-8?

[boutons]

Nash got hurt in the IND game, played 11 minutes, Suns lost without Nash over half the game.

Then the Suns lost the next 3 games, 4 straight, with Nash out.

I figure those 4 losses without Nash would be 4 wins, or 3-1. ie, had Nash played, the Suns would be 45-9 or 44-10.

( Nash comes back for Spurs@PHX, and lose their 5th straight.)

[NCaliSpurs]

And the Spurs would be 53-0 if Timmy had been 100% all season.

Whatever. The numbers are what they are, no if ands or buts.

[Matrix]

Not sure what to expect with the suns they started off hot but are 10-9 in last 19. I don't care if they are 10-3 with nash back but its just horrible sometimes to watch the lackluster D they play, I mean I really like the turnaround but I think they are starting to buy into their own hype. Yeah we beat the teams we are suppose to, but we're not doing to good against teams at the top. 0-2 vs spurs, 1-1 v mavs 1-1 against the kings and 1-1 1-0 against the rockets and 1-1 agaisnt the sonics thats 5-5 and not getting it done. The good thing we do having going for us is that we are young, Im not sure I am buying into D'antoni as a coach, sometimes he just makes bad bad decisions. But, I wasn't expecting them to do this well, so i guess i shouldn't be too greedy. We just got to take baby steps and start playing good at both ends of the court....

[NCaliSpurs]

It's still a great team. I fully expect a Spurs-Suns matchup in the WCF finals.

I just don't like some that downplay the Spurs record while simultaneously hyping other team's records.

I really like the Suns, but I hate the Nash MVP talk. How long has he been in the league and never been in the top 3 for consideration?

[Extra Stout]

If we're talking Spurs' weaknesses, how about these?

1. Stamina -- there have been a few occasions where the team appears worn down after a particularly hectic part of the schedule, such as back-to-backs, three games in four nights, or near the end of a long road trip. This has led to losses @POR, @WAS, @MIA, and some lackluster performances for a significant portion of the game, such as @NJN. The 2003 team appeared to persevere better through physical trials, and that team was older than this one overall. That's just my impression. The postseason does not feature the rapid-fire schedule of the regular season, but nevertheless is uniquely taxing on mind and body. On paper, this team appears dominant, but will a lack of stamina allow a better-conditioned or tougher team to pull an upset?

2. Small forward -- If a team has an athletic small forward, 6'9" or taller, athletic, with good scoring ability, he will give the Spurs fits unless they can just focus on stopping him alone. See Grant Hill, Shawn Marion, Rashard Lewis, Darius Miles, Tracy McGrady. All have figured prominently either in Spurs losses, or in near-misses. Either they go off, or the Spurs have to pay some much attention to them that another perimeter player (Ray Allen, Steve Francis) can dominate. Three such players loom in potential playoff series. Is this the Achilles heel like perimeter shooting was last year?

3. Wilting -- last year, it looked like Tony Parker had turned the corner. He played terrific over the final third of the season, and continued to excel for six playoff games. Then his game fell out from under him. There's no way of knowing whether that will happen again until he is placed into that situation again.

4. Free-throw shooting -- turns close wins into close losses.

5. Defending Tim Duncan -- Karl Malone showed it can be done. Tim is not as dominant as in years past due to wear and tear from Athens. Karl's not around anymore, but talented defensive big men like Rasheed Wallace and Danny Fortson can watch tape and learn the tactics. If a team can contain Tim without extensive double-teaming, we may see a reprisal of the clang-fest from Games 3-6 in last year's LA series.

6. Brent Barry -- we all thought Hedo eventually would come around. Even Steve Smith saw his 3pt% go UP, not down, when he joined Tim Duncan's team. There's no reason to think Barry suddenly will turn it on in the postseason. What we see is what we'll get.

These are concerns, but I think other teams have much bigger concerns. Seattle is one of the worst teams in the league in pts allowed per 100 possessions. How will they get stops in close playoff games? Phoenix still has a short bench and a pronounced tendency to wear down late against good teams. On those teams, only Steve Nash is a starter with much experience in the later playoff rounds. Dallas and Houston have even bigger question marks. Sacramento is hardly worth discussing.

I think even the 2003 championship team had bigger concerns than this one. That team couldn't hold onto a lead to save its life, and was a turnover machine. You never knew what you would get from SJax. This year's offense is a clinic compared to that one.

I think boutons has some points. As good as this team has been, they have had an opportunity to be up there with the greatest of the Bulls and Lakers teams, and have squandered some opportunities (statistically, they ought to be on pace for 68-70 wins, but they're not). They are not as consistent as some other elite teams, like Miami, though they are stronger overall. And all the apparent dominance in the world can evaporate in a flash when a proven championship team flips the switch on defense (*ahem,* Detroit).

He just doesn't know how to back up his gut feeling with facts.

[Rummpd]

"Defending Tim Duncan -- Karl Malone showed it can be done. Tim is not as dominant as in years past due to wear and tear from Athens. Karl's not around anymore, but talented defensive big men like Rasheed Wallace and Danny Fortson can watch tape and learn the tactics. If a team can contain Tim without extensive double-teaming, we may see a reprisal of the clang-fest from Games 3-6 in last year's LA series."

This is revisionary BS, the only reason Malone played half way decent on Duncan was:

1) Shaq was backing him up and there were many double and sometimes triple teams and Turk and others chocked and clanged from midrange and afar.
2) Tim not assertive enough, that blame is on him but he could have drawn more fouls.
3) Tim was mugged through out


Duncan has owned Malone in his career period, the last 4 games of last year were an abberation.

[Extra Stout]

This is revisionary BS, the only reason Malone played half way decent on Duncan was:

1) Shaq was backing him up and there were many double and sometimes triple teams and Turk and others chocked and clanged from midrange and afar.
2) Tim not assertive enough, that blame is on him but he could have drawn more fouls.
3) Tim was mugged through out


Duncan has owned Malone in his career period, the last 4 games of last year were an abberation.While Duncan owned Malone in Utah, his tactics last year were effective enough that Pop was concerned about facing him if he had signed with Miami or Minnesota.

Even if Tim was mugged, if the refs now consider those tactics "legit" because Mailman got away with them for an entire series, then other physical defenders likewise might get away with them. It is, after all, the postseason, where obvious fouls don't get called on the road.

[FromWayDowntown]

While Duncan owned Malone in Utah, his tactics last year were effective enough that Pop was concerned about facing him if he had signed with Miami or Minnesota.

Even if Tim was mugged, if the refs now consider those tactics "legit" because Mailman got away with them for an entire series, then other physical defenders likewise might get away with them. It is, after all, the postseason, where obvious fouls don't get called on the road.

I think this, along with Tony's ability to find ways to be productive even if teams clog the lane and limit his drives, are imperitive issues for the postseason.

It's not revisionist BS to say that Malone slowed Tim. He did. And his success in employing those tactics will encourage others, who lack any other answer, to try the same methods. Tim is going to be pushed and shoved and hacked on the block. Others might not be as strong as Mailman (for example, I don't think that Amare Stoudemire or Juwan Howard is physically strong enough to push Tim out; but guys like Dampier or Jerome James/Danny Fortson might be) but the contact will be there and Tim has to find ways to make teams pay for employing those strategies. He can do it by attacking the rack and drawing some calls or by becoming more effective with his face-up game, among other options, but he can't just passively accept the tactic.

I don't lament the Spurs inconsistencies. To me, many of the issues that lead to any semblance of inconsistency this season (things like back-to-backs, threes-in-four, and lack of preparation time for an opponent) don't really exist at playoff time. I do, however, think the Spurs need to find ways to attack on the offensive end, rather than just comfortably settling for three after three. If they can use the three as a complementary piece, rather than an offensive focus, they'll be very hard to beat.