Rethinking San Antonio

[duncan228]

From a blog.

Rethinking San Antonio (http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html)

For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense? Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree. The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline. Gregg Popovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a shit about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the shit out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying. This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans. The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good." Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.

[Summers]

Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop

:lol I didn't realize the tear drop was gay.

Interesting blog, comparing the Spurs to psychopathic killers.

[L.I.T]

He should have just gone for the gold and referenced the Apologia.

[wildbill2u]

When hammering on a rock until it breaks is your game philosophy, I suppose it is boring---and a little scary because it represents a relentless purpose and will.

[SouthTexasRancher]

From a blog.

Rethinking San Antonio (http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html)

For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense? Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree. The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline. Gregg Popovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a shit about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the shit out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying. This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans. The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good." Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.


I wonder if Eva thinks Tony's teardrop is gay? That is the first time I've heard that.

[MarHill]

From a blog.

Rethinking San Antonio (http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html)

For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense? Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree. The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline. Gregg Popovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a shit about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the shit out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying. This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans. The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good." Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.

To be honest, these kind of articles are really getting old.

The Spurs have been contenders since 1999 and have been the most winningest franchise in all of pro sports since that time.

Think about that! More than the Yankees, Patriots, and Red Wings and it seems the public has been indifferent about it.

So be it!!!

Obviously, as a Spurs fan it is easy to be proud and delighted with their success from this vantage point.

But....if the outside has missed it then they have missed it. It will be written up in history what the Golden Age of the Spurs have done and will never be forgotten.

I'm just tired of Spurs fans being hypersensitive to the public perception of this team and also trying to prove to everyone outside of Spurs Nation how good this team has been.

Most of the NBA know what the Spurs are and have earned their peer's respect and that's what really matters.

The Spurs have given me everything I've asked for as a fan. A consistent championship contender, won mutliple titles, good character guys, and a team that cares about the community.

I will appreciate that as long as I'm a Spurs fan!!

Go Spurs Go!!!!!

:flag:

[LockBeard]

That's actually a pretty good comparison with the exception the Spartans would taunt the shit out of you on the battlefield more like KG of the Celtics.

They (The Spartans) really did not give a shit about the fluffy things in life much like the Spurs, and they left little record of their customs and only acquired attention from the outside world through reputation of being great warriors; much like the Spurs.

The Spartans were renowned for being extremely witty without having to use many words, just like Pop :lol Laconic definitely sums up the Spurs.

[Mr Bones]

This is the same old article on the Spurs, except with a reference to ancient Greece that is supposed to make it more intellectually insightful. This blogwriter has probably been trembling with anticipation to unveil his Spartan/Lacadaemon/Laconic theory. Ho-hum.

[superbigtime]

Success is never boring. Who cares what other fans think? There is nothing appealing about the "I have to be liked" mentality. Why are the Spurs not better liked? Because most casual fans buy into media driven hype.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol I didn't realize the tear drop was gay.

Interesting blog, comparing the Spurs to psychopathic killers.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

[EVAY]

This is brilliantly written. Now, I don't know if is accurate or not, or whether or not it is particularly insightful, but folks, do you realize that this sounds as though it was written by a novelist? It is a simply stunning display of language skills. Can anyone tell me where the blog originally appeared, or who wrote it?

[duncan228]

Can anyone tell me where the blog originally appeared, or who wrote it?

Here's the link, it's in the title as well.

http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

[EVAY]

Here's the link, it's in the title as well.

http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

Thank you.

[Man In Black]

I posted this YESTERDAY.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3133600&postcount=238

Laconic works for me. It would seem that all they care about is winning. They have as Pop says ofter,"Gotten over themselves."

[duncan228]

I posted this YESTERDAY.

So sorry, I missed it.

[Man In Black]

No biggie. It's all good.

[DarrinS]

Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop


:lmao

[Biggems]

:lol I didn't realize the tear drop was gay.

Interesting blog, comparing the Spurs to psychopathic killers.

effeminate doesn't mean gay. it means that one possesses female qualities.....which makes sense since half of everyone's chromosomes come from women.

you can be a very effeminate man and be as heterosexual as they come.....or you could display absolutely zero signs of femininity and turn out to be the biggest homosexual walking the face of the Earth.

Basically, I took it as the author saying that the tear drop belonged in women's basketball.

[phyzik]

So.... We are Sparta????

http://photo.matusiak.org/zweblog/2008/Sparta-1.jpg

[Summers]

effeminate doesn't mean gay. it means that one possesses female qualities.....which makes sense since half of everyone's chromosomes come from women.

you can be a very effeminate man and be as heterosexual as they come.....or you could display absolutely zero signs of femininity and turn out to be the biggest homosexual walking the face of the Earth.

Basically, I took it as the author saying that the tear drop belonged in women's basketball.

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought he meant Parker fucks men.

[Blake]

From a blog.

Rethinking San Antonio (http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html)

For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense?
win or loose?

Has this writer not watched, read any articles or at the very least checked the stats on the Spurs before asking if the source is their defense?


Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

someone forgot to proofread before posting.

and I guess no, there is nothing at all worthy to consider about them, so no need to write any further.


During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree.

Gee, maybe the Spurs were the litmus test in 2007-2008 because they were the 2006-2007 champs?

How can a point be "so clearly stated that it is unavoidable and so thoroughly manifest" but also be "not obvious"?


The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

It's the quiet dynasty because the championships have been spread out apart over the past decade and 2 of them were bookends to the Lakers threepeat.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline.

That explains a lot.


Gregg Popovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a shit about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

not only is the tear drop "effeminate" but it's "belligerently effeminate"......as if it's beating the writer over the head with it's femininity.

This paragraph is full of crappy big words that when put together make little sense. The writer also apparently loves the word "manifest".


Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

99% of the readers were lost by the rattling off of random names like Herodotus, Plutarch, etc.

In so many words, the Spurs have been referred to as laconic thousands of times over.
I do like the reference to the Spartans, although I would say the base of that comes from the rest of the Spurs following the lead of Duncan and Pop.

I wonder how many Spartans in ancient times were accused of having belligerently effeminate spear throws.


The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the shit out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying.

So the Suns are wild, crazy and loud? Maybe. But the big Mouth himself has 4 rings and 5 finals appearances in the last 10 years.....more appearances than Duncan.


This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

I assume you mean George Hill? He's been a very nice rookie, but I wouldn't quite call him a shockingly consistent role player just yet.

All of the other role players are veterans that the Spurs have picked up.


The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans.

So if a Spur wrote a book.....


The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good."

What exactly is "the good" in the NBA? What virtue are the Spurs communally obsessed with? If it's not smothering defense is he talking off the court behavior or their desire to commit to Pop's system?
All I see are big words floating around in an attempt to wrap it up quickly and hope nobody notices that there is no substance.


Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.

Oh.... virtue is a virtue. Got it.


Mediocre hack job by yet another 2 bit blogger trying to throw out his 2 cents about the Spurs dominance in the Duncan era.

C- only because the Spartan comparison was not bad