The Magical Ping Pong Ball Era

[history2b]

Is coming to a close.

The luck of landing one magical ping pong that bounced in the Spurs favor in the 1997 draft lottery is clearly going to be remembered in the city of San Antonio for a long time. But the question remains, will the Spurs ever be so lucky again?

The 1997 draft was unique to other lotteries in that the prize was a bona fide concensus #1 pick, a once in a lifetime player. This is very different from say the 1998 draft the Clippers won and drafted Michael Olowakandi.

So it was not only dumb luck to tank a season increasing the draft lottery balls but also the coincidence that the 97 draft was a "super draft" due to Duncan's inclusion.

All that said does anyone here believe the Spurs will ever be able to produce another magical ping pong ball era in their lifetime? There may be a few young bucks on this board who may live long enough to see that day. Thoughts?

[johnnyblues]

http://epicallyfunnypictures.com/FunnyPictures/STFU/heman_stfu.jpg

[history2b]

No valid response = concession. Thanks for playing She-Ra

[Em-City]

It's the lottery... it's luck bro.

I think that due to the quality of the front office, we'll be able to obtain another great franchise player(s) after duncan retires, but will he be as good as duncan? who knows

[Bender]

ST is very lucky to have all these quality new posters flocking in...

[mudyez]

we had two of them: Robinson and Duncan! so why not have some more in the future!

after all its the way, smaller market teams work. LA, NY(lol), CHI, MIA may attract free agents or get players to tell the Hornets, that they don't want to play there, but SA has to either have some luck (which you cant count on) or do a good job scouting/handling the cap (which we are great at).

that brings me to another point:
its not like you only have to get lucky and be able to land this one player! like the Lebron situation or KG in minnesota shows, you also have to have a great organisation to make it work. and I wouldnt trade ours for any other.

i feel great with our organisation and even while a team like LA may win more chanpionships over the next 50 years, I think, we will be able to be better than them, when considering the market!

the new CBA may help :-)

[history2b]

ST is very lucky to have all these quality new posters flocking in...


No no. ST is lucky to have all these homers sitting around avoiding the obvious 24/7 pretending like the Duncan era will continue into infinity. That's the true power of delusion.

[mudyez]

btw.: in the candyyear, the Clipps passed on Nowitky, Pierce, Carter...none of them beeing a Duncan, but its the Clipps for gods sake!

[mudyez]

No no. ST is lucky to have all these homers sitting around avoiding the obvious 24/7 pretending like the Duncan era will continue into infinity. That's the true power of delusion.

show me a ST poster, that thinks we will compete for the next 5 years and I show you a Lakers homer, that has a broken heard, coz another warm weather city my cause some trouble!

[Ditty]

you know after a while if you make so many troll threads luva you do end up getting banned right?

Ain't being part of the lottery part of an nba franchise?

didn't lakers tank from 05-07 seasons o wait they just sucked that's how they got good again

spurs could do the same thing and tank for those 3 seasons and be back on the winning track that easy :)

[spectator]

let's hope we have a CONSENSUS hard cap. that way homers like you won't have money-infatuated, money-inflated, money-outside-of-the-court-room-settled teams to boast on other forums.

[history2b]

we had two of them: Robinson and Duncan! so why not have some more in the future!

after all its the way, smaller market teams work. LA, NY(lol), CHI, MIA may attract free agents or get players to tell the Hornets, that they don't want to play there, but SA has to either have some luck (which you cant count on) or do a good job scouting/handling the cap (which we are great at).

that brings me to another point:
its not like you only have to get lucky and be able to land this one player! like the Lebron situation or KG in minnesota shows, you also have to have a great organisation to make it work. and I wouldnt trade ours for any other.

i feel great with our organisation and even while a team like LA may win more chanpionships over the next 50 years, I think, we will be able to be better than them, when considering the market!

the new CBA may help :-)


Robinson is not on the level of Duncan but landing both within a few years of one another is just another dimension of luck.

Since 1980 there have been only perhaps 8 players who are mega-franchise players:

- Magic
- Bird
- Hakeem
- Jordan
- Shaq
- Kobe
- Tim
- Lebron

5 were consensus number 1 picks, 2 were overlooked by teams and 1 was pioneer.

Getting lucky enough to draft one of these guys is rare especially when you have to win a lottery draft and hope it's during a year that a player like one of these guys is available.

Given the odds, I say no, not in our lifetime will we see this type of luck produced again.

[ohmwrecker]

So it was not only dumb luck to tank a season increasing the draft lottery balls but also the coincidence that the 97 draft was a "super draft" due to Duncan's inclusion.

Agenda fail, Mr. "Basketball First"

The Spurs did not "tank" the season. Their best player broke his foot and played six games the entire season. The draft pick is legit. Sorry. Try again.


All that said does anyone here believe the Spurs will ever be able to produce another magical ping pong ball era in their lifetime? There may be a few young bucks on this board who may live long enough to see that day. Thoughts?

Who gives a shit?

[history2b]

let's hope we have a CONSENSUS hard cap. that way homers like you won't have money-infatuated, money-inflated, money-outside-of-the-court-room-settled teams to boast on other forums.


The Lakers are the only team to have continued success throughout every era of the NBA regardless of caps or not.

We're not the franchise who only became relevant upon winning a super draft lottery.

[mudyez]

The Lakers are the only team to have continued success throughout every era of the NBA regardless of caps or not.

We're not the franchise who only became relevant upon winning a super draft lottery.

their is no denying that and I won't even bother about the Gasol trade anymore (well, i just did...sorry!).

your a big market team, which should be successfull! NY does a bad job doing so...Chicago could do better. Boston does well.

So you get my props for that!

But on the other hand a team from San Antonio is the 4th winingest Team (behind BOS, LA, CHI) in league history??? holy S$%&!!!

Well, we must have done something right!

[noob cake]

Robinson is not on the level of Duncan but landing both within a few years of one another is just another dimension of luck.

Since 1980 there have been only perhaps 8 players who are mega-franchise players:

- Magic
- Bird
- Hakeem
- Jordan
- Shaq
- Kobe
- Tim
- Lebron

5 were consensus number 1 picks, 2 were overlooked by teams and 1 was pioneer.

Getting lucky enough to draft one of these guys is rare especially when you have to win a lottery draft and hope it's during a year that a player like one of these guys is available.

Given the odds, I say no, not in our lifetime will we see this type of luck produced again.

the fuck has LeBron done? don't put him name on that list ever since he won't ever win a ring as the first option now

[mudyez]

the fuck has LeBron done? don't put him name on that list ever since he won't ever win a ring as the first option now

agreed!

and with the super-team move he more or less erased himself from that list!

in 2 years from now we probably will include Durant though!

[ElNono]

The Lakers are the only team to have continued success throughout every era of the NBA regardless of caps or not.

We're not the franchise who only became relevant upon winning a super draft lottery.

I guess you forgot 2005 and 2006. Maybe you weren't born yet.

[Man In Black]

No no. ST is lucky to have all these homers sitting around avoiding the obvious 24/7 pretending like the Duncan era will continue into infinity. That's the true power of delusion.

The same way LAL fan thinks the Bean era will continue into infinity? 60% man, Bean himself said, he felt 60%. Yeah, he'll start to feel better, but Bean ain't a spring chicken either.

Predictably, here is where you'll attempt to wow us with Bean's supposed cloak of invincibility that prevents him from feeling the effects of Father Time.

Hey, you never answered the question...would you say the LAL won that last title in a dominating fashion?

[mudyez]

The Lakers are the only team to have continued success throughout every era of the NBA regardless of caps or not.

We're not the franchise who only became relevant upon winning a super draft lottery.

had to google it (of course not really):

ervin magic johnson: 1979 first round 1st pick...

...I know was not the lottery and so on, but its not like you got a mediocre and made him what he is, or stole a hidden gem late in the draft!

[YoMamaIsCallin]

We're not the franchise who only became relevant upon winning a super draft lottery.

"We" ?? So you're associated with the Lakers somehow?

http://a.onionstatic.com/images/products/productgroup/39/M-SportsTeamFromMy_400x400_2_jpg_400x400_upscale_q85 .jpg

[Man In Black]

had to google it (of course not really):

ervin magic johnson: 1979 first round 1st pick...

...I know was not the lottery and so on, but its not like you got a mediocre and made him what he is, or stole a hidden gem late in the draft!

That was another heist. Histrionics can thank the Gail for Earvin.

For James Worthy,who was another overall #1 pick that the LAL got as well, he can thank the 6th Beach Boy.

Funny thing about the 90's era of basketball was that outside of Jordan's 1st title, that was the only time the LAL went to the finals in that entire period, even though they got Shaq & Bean in 1996.

[ChumpDumper]

Whore.

[Darrin]

As far as the lottery is concerned, the era of the magical ping-pong ball has not been lost.

1st overall pick with less than 10% chance (since 1997)
2008: Chicago Bulls - 1.7% chance
2007: Portland Trailblazers - 5.3% chance
2006: Toronto Raptors - 8.8% chance
2005: Milwaukee Bucks - 6.3% chance
2002: Houston Rockets - 8.9% chance
2000: New Jersey Nets - 4.3% chance

As a matter of fact, with exception of the 1998 Los Angeles Clippers, 2003 Cleveland Cavaliers, and 2005 Orlando Magic, every team that has drafted first did it with a worse percentage of winning the lottery than the San Antonio Spurs in 1997.

[Ace]

Lol fat 60 yr old

[Man In Black]

Histironics won't answer if the LAL won last season in a dominating fashion? Means he knows they didn't-CHECK
Won't elaborate the GAIL or the 6th Beach Boy references indicates he really doesn't know his own team-CHECK
Uses the tank theorem to say the Spurs got Duncan indicates that he only reads shit on google or other LAL boards because it's regurgitated DRIVEL-CHECK

TRUTH-Injuries decimated the Spurs that season before Duncan, none more so than that of Robinson, who returned from back problems only to suffer a broken foot. The former MVP appeared in only nine games. Chuck Person was even less fortunate, missing the entire season following back surgery. Charles Smith missed 65 games with an arthritic right knee and Sean Elliott missed 43 games with tendinitis in the right knee. The loss of those four players, each among the top six scorers from the 1995-96 team, prompted the steepest one-year decline in NBA history, from 59 wins to only 20.

Again, if the LAL lost their 4 top players this year, you know what's going to happen?SUCKAGE. How you dickheads call it a tank is so, so wrong. To finish with the worst record and go for best statistical advantage would be a complete tank job. To finish with the 3rd worst is more akin to getting beat regularly because without your 4 best players, you don't have much of a chance.

RECOGNIZE...if you can, because basically you haven't shown that you have an iota of recognition.

[history2b]

Bump for reference.

[jjktkk]

Bump for reference.

For reference, or cause you ran out of kleenex?

[history2b]

Hook line and sinker!

[jjktkk]

Hook line and sinker!

Pretty easy tbh. Connect the dots: history failed thread, pwned, repeat. :sleep

[history2b]

Pretty easy tbh. Connect the dots: history failed thread, pwned, repeat. :sleep


Failed thread? lol

This thread more aptly characterizes the history of Spurs franchise than any other thread on Spurstalk.com.

It's a tough pill to swallow for current Spurs fans who are very prideful and a little spoiled but I can assure you, 20-30 years from now this is exactly how the franchise will be viewed.

[manufan10]

Can't start threads, so has to bump his old ones. :lol

[history2b]

Can't start threads, so has to bump his old ones. :lol


Who knew that the ability to start a thread on a random basketball message board meant so much to so many?

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, the lottery is a crock of shite. It just ups the inequality in the league. I don't see why they don't go to the same method the NFL uses.

[djohn2oo8]

history2b wants to talk about luck, when it was pure luck that a backhand deal was in place 4 Kobe

[history2b]

history2b wants to talk about luck, when it was pure luck that a backhand deal was in place 4 Kobe

Yup pure luck...

Just like the Gasol trade.

Just like the Shaq signing.

Just like the drafting of the Worthy.

Just like the drafting of Magic.

Just like the acquisition of Kareem.


All >just luck< :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Since 1980 there have been only perhaps 8 players who are mega-franchise players:

- Magic
- Bird
- Hakeem
- Jordan
- Shaq
- Kobe
- Tim
- Lebron

5 were consensus number 1 picks, 2 were overlooked by teams and 1 was pioneer.

Getting lucky enough to draft one of these guys is rare especially when you have to win a lottery draft and hope it's during a year that a player like one of these guys is available.

Given the odds, I say no, not in our lifetime will we see this type of luck produced again.

Assuming your list is total and complete (and why would anyone doubt that?) let's look at what the guys who drafted them managed to do in the years after drafting them. Seems fair enough, as luck gets you the player. Nothing more, nothing less. What you do with them after that is where most teams fall apart in the NBA.

I trust that no one needs a lesson on what the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls were able to after drafting Magic, Bird, and Jordan. All three stayed put their entire careers and were centerpieces of legit dynasties. Big props to them.

Hakeem got a couple of titles in Houston and repeated which is impressive. They took a franchise big man and put some title seekers like Drexler in there and struck gold with guys like Horry, Cassell, and Elie. Jordan worshippers will always stick an asterisk on them, which is unfortunate. They didn't totally fall off a cliff as Hakeem slowed down but following the championship seasons they were one-and-done in the postseason followed by a WCF loss the year after that and never returned to the title picture since. Basically as soon as Hakeem slowed down the Rockets did too in a big way

Orlando made a finals appearance on the strength of Shaq and Penny (another lottery pick). Then they couldn't hold onto Shaq as he chased the big money and crowds in LA. Threw a boat load of money at T-Mac and Hill with little to show for it and only recently returned to relevance by again being able to draft a franchise bigman that may well bolt as soon as he can. I think if any franchise could be seen as a poster child for magical ping pong balls it's the Magic. Kinda funny when you word it like that.

Cleveland and Lebron...um, yeah.

Kobe Bryant and the Charlotte Hornets. What the hell happened there? At present they've already moved once, on the verge of another move, and could be in for another drop into irrelevance since drafting a franchise caliber PG who has one foot out the door. Whether Kobe bitched his way off a lottery team, they really were that incompetent, or it's just some mix of the two I think this probably illustrates best exactly where luck stops and human input begins when it comes to making an NBA franchise work.

Then there's the Spurs and Duncan. 4 rings, ranking only behind Jordan and Magic for championships with the teams that drafted them. Tied with Bird if the asterisk idiots had their way. Even if you look past the talent on the team that he landed on that's three titles with a rotating cast put together with smart drafting and small but smart FA pickups. Lasting success, best record of the decade, winning past Duncan's prime, blah blah blah. I should know better to play with trolls but fact of the matter is that if the Duncan era Spurs are regarded as merely "lucky" in the history books it will only be because those books were written by people with the common sense of a 12 year old.

Check the rings, check the records, and answer honestly: Are Duncan's Spurs closer to Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers or are they closer to Shaq's Magic and Lebron's Cavs? Luck'll get you so far in this league, but it damn sure won't be as far as 4 rings.

[Blake]

The luck of landing one magical ping pong that bounced in the Spurs favor in the 1997 draft lottery is clearly going to be remembered in the city of San Antonio for a long time. But the question remains, will the Spurs ever be so lucky again?


how long do you think the NBA and it's current lotto system will be in existence?

[ElNono]

tbh, sounds you're pretty butthurt that when Kobe tanked and missed the playoffs, you guys only got Bynum...

Why would we even bother contemplating the team past Duncan when we can simply enjoy him playing right now? Only retarded Lakerfan dwells on that.

[Punchy]

Yup pure luck...

Just like the Gasol trade.

Just like the Shaq signing.

Just like the drafting of the Worthy.

Just like the drafting of Magic.

Just like the acquisition of Kareem.


All >just luck< :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Pure luck. If you argue otherwise, you don't know the history of your beloved Purple 'n Piss very well.

[history2b]

Assuming your list is total and complete (and why would anyone doubt that?) let's look at what the guys who drafted them managed to do in the years after drafting them. Seems fair enough, as luck gets you the player. Nothing more, nothing less. What you do with them after that is where most teams fall apart in the NBA.

I trust that no one needs a lesson on what the Lakers, Celtics, and Bulls were able to after drafting Magic, Bird, and Jordan. All three stayed put their entire careers and were centerpieces of legit dynasties. Big props to them.

Hakeem got a couple of titles in Houston and repeated which is impressive. They took a franchise big man and put some title seekers like Drexler in there and struck gold with guys like Horry, Cassell, and Elie. Jordan worshippers will always stick an asterisk on them, which is unfortunate. They didn't totally fall off a cliff as Hakeem slowed down but following the championship seasons they were one-and-done in the postseason followed by a WCF loss the year after that and never returned to the title picture since. Basically as soon as Hakeem slowed down the Rockets did too in a big way

Orlando made a finals appearance on the strength of Shaq and Penny (another lottery pick). Then they couldn't hold onto Shaq as he chased the big money and crowds in LA. Threw a boat load of money at T-Mac and Hill with little to show for it and only recently returned to relevance by again being able to draft a franchise bigman that may well bolt as soon as he can. I think if any franchise could be seen as a poster child for magical ping pong balls it's the Magic. Kinda funny when you word it like that.

Cleveland and Lebron...um, yeah.

Kobe Bryant and the Charlotte Hornets. What the hell happened there? At present they've already moved once, on the verge of another move, and could be in for another drop into irrelevance since drafting a franchise caliber PG who has one foot out the door. Whether Kobe bitched his way off a lottery team, they really were that incompetent, or it's just some mix of the two I think this probably illustrates best exactly where luck stops and human input begins when it comes to making an NBA franchise work.

Then there's the Spurs and Duncan. 4 rings, ranking only behind Jordan and Magic for championships with the teams that drafted them. Tied with Bird if the asterisk idiots had their way. Even if you look past the talent on the team that he landed on that's three titles with a rotating cast put together with smart drafting and small but smart FA pickups. Lasting success, best record of the decade, winning past Duncan's prime, blah blah blah. I should know better to play with trolls but fact of the matter is that if the Duncan era Spurs are regarded as merely "lucky" in the history books it will only be because those books were written by people with the common sense of a 12 year old.

Check the rings, check the records, and answer honestly: Are Duncan's Spurs closer to Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers or are they closer to Shaq's Magic and Lebron's Cavs? Luck'll get you so far in this league, but it damn sure won't be as far as 4 rings.


I agree that what you do after you draft them is what matters but that certainly isn't the only thing.

Equally important is the circumstance of the team that drafted the player, ie, was the team already a good team that just tanked the season to get that #1 or were they truly a down in the dumps team that had to build from scratch.

Also, the level of competition in each respective era has to be factored, you know, did the team/player have a legitimate rival, etc.

Agreed on Magic, Bird, Jordan and Hakeem.

Lakers-Charlotte had a pre-arranged deal, which is not against league rules, to draft Kobe Bryant for the Lakers at 13. This is not and should not be news. Go Jerry West!

Orlando lost out because Shaq decided to leave. SA could have been in the same boat in 2000 had Duncan (coincidentally) signed with Orlando, but DRob and Pop got on a plane and begged and pleaded not to send SA back into irrelevancy. Naturally the ability to retain your free agents is important but that is dependent on a whole set of other circumstances.

Cleveland/Lebron see above.

As for SA, they had the fortune of landing a super-draft blue chipper in a year when the HOF center had a season ending injury. How often does that happen for any team let alone for the same team twice? Never. If SA gets the #2 pick you land Keith Van Horn.

How many titles does SA win with Keith Van Horn even with the drafting of Manu, Parker, etc?

[history2b]

Pure luck. If you argue otherwise, you don't know the history of your beloved Purple 'n Piss very well.


Individually every move can be argued to be lucky.

But when lucky things just keep happening over and over again generation after generation it's not really luck so much as it is just greatness.

What other franchise has had success over 5 separate generations of the NBA?

[rascal]

It's the lottery... it's luck bro.

I think that due to the quality of the front office, we'll be able to obtain another great franchise player(s) after duncan retires, but will he be as good as duncan? who knows

The front office is not that great. Any front office could have won getting Robinson and Duncan to span 6 years together. The current spurs front office could only get 2 titles during their run together because of the weak supporting cast they surrounded those two with.

[cobbler]

TRUTH-Injuries decimated the Spurs that season before Duncan, none more so than that of Robinson, who returned from back problems only to suffer a broken foot.

Robinson was cleared to return and left out of the lineup regardless, no?

[history2b]

tbh, sounds you're pretty butthurt that when Kobe tanked and missed the playoffs, you guys only got Bynum...

Why would we even bother contemplating the team past Duncan when we can simply enjoy him playing right now? Only retarded Lakerfan dwells on that.


I know you aren't the brightest guy Nono, but I'm not asking anyone to dwell on anything.

I'm just pointing out that the Spurs have had real success for only one period in their entire history apart of the NBA and that era of success came from one lucky ping pong ball that bounced their way.

I mean think about...

The entire existence Spurstalk, 95% of its inhabitants who are bandwagon Tim Duncan fans only even know about the sport of basketball because in 1997 in a room in NYC a little plastic ball with a Spurs logo on it pop up in a draft lottery. Crazy when you really think about.

[rascal]

Agenda fail, Mr. "Basketball First"

The Spurs did not "tank" the season. Their best player broke his foot and played six games the entire season. The draft pick is legit. Sorry. Try again.



Who gives a shit?

The spurs did tank that season. Robinson could have come back towards the end of that year. I clearly remember that year and I was hoping the spurs tanked which they did.

[DMC]

Two words why this thread will never go anywhere:

Confirmation Bias (not a brother to Len)

[rascal]

Yup pure luck...

Just like the Gasol trade.

Just like the Shaq signing.

Just like the drafting of the Worthy.

Just like the drafting of Magic.

Just like the acquisition of Kareem.


All >just luck< :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Those are not moves of luck where a ping pong determined the outcome. The Lakers have more ammo in their gun to turn their team around with big star trades and free agent moves. Look how they got Gasol, Kobe and Shaq, one sided trades and free agency.

[Punchy]

Individually every move can be argued to be lucky.

But when lucky things just keep happening over and over again generation after generation it's not really luck so much as it is just greatness.

What other franchise has had success over 5 separate generations of the NBA?

Yeah, "greatness" is defined by trading for a pick in 1980, only for the team you traded with to post the worst record in the NBA two years later, ensuring you the number one pick. :lol

Luck.

The Lakers got Magic in a similar way. Because of a ridiculous and outdated rule (even by 1970s standards), the Jazz had to compensate the Lakers their number one pick when Gail Goodrich signed with them. The Jazz turned in the league's worst record in 1978, giving the Lakers the 1979 number one pick, which they used to draft HIV.

Yep, greatness. I guess a front office is great when it doesn't have to do anything and can just sit back and rely on a league rule to do the work.

[rascal]

Robinson was cleared to return and left out of the lineup regardless, no?

Homer spur fans are the ones who cannot accept that the spurs could even think about tanking. After all the spurs are the good guys of the NBA and never pull anything shady. :lol

[rascal]

Yeah, "greatness" is defined by trading for a pick in 1980, only for the team you traded with to post the worst record in the NBA two years later, ensuring you the number one pick. :lol

Luck.

The Lakers got Magic in a similar way. Because of a ridiculous and outdated rule (even by 1970s standards), the Jazz had to compensate the Lakers their number one pick when Gail Goodrich signed with them. The Jazz turned in the league's worst record in 1978, giving the Lakers the 1979 number one pick, which they used to draft HIV.

Yep, greatness. I guess a front office is great when it doesn't have to do anything and can just sit back and rely on a league rule to do the work.

No thats a smart move getting a first round pick through a trade that worked out.

[history2b]

Yeah, "greatness" is defined by trading for a pick in 1980, only for the team you traded with to post the worst record in the NBA two years later, ensuring you the number one pick. :lol

Luck.

The Lakers got Magic in a similar way. Because of a ridiculous and outdated rule (even by 1970s standards), the Jazz had to compensate the Lakers their number one pick when Gail Goodrich signed with them. The Jazz turned in the league's worst record in 1978, giving the Lakers the 1979 number one pick, which they used to draft HIV.

Yep, greatness. I guess a front office is great when it doesn't have to do anything and can just sit back and rely on a league rule to do the work.


The league rule landed Wilt? Kareem? Drafted Mikan and Jerry West too?

Maybe that's how we got Shaq, Kobe and Gasol too... that pesky league rule that keeps ruining it for everybody else.

:lol @ punchdrunk dork.

[Punchy]

I know you aren't the brightest guy Nono, but I'm not asking anyone to dwell on anything.

I'm just pointing out that the Spurs have had real success for only one period in their entire history apart of the NBA and that era of success came from one lucky ping pong ball that bounced their way.

I mean think about...

The entire existence Spurstalk, 95% of its inhabitants who are bandwagon Tim Duncan fans only even know about the sport of basketball because in 1997 in a room in NYC a little plastic ball with a Spurs logo on it pop up in a draft lottery. Crazy when you really think about.

A period has to start sometimes (yours in 1980*, ours in 1999), and it usually starts on a fortuitous turn of events (you getting lucky with Magic, us with Duncan).

*Titles won in Minneapolis when no one cared about basketball don't count. Neither do fluke, Miami Heat/Seattle Supersonic type titles, like the one won in 1972, when Willis Reed was out of the whole series because of an injury.

[history2b]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?

[history2b]

A period has to start sometimes (yours in 1980*, ours in 1999), and it usually starts on a fortuitous turn of events (you getting lucky with Magic, us with Duncan).

*Titles won in Minneapolis when no one cared about basketball don't count. Neither do fluke, Miami Heat/Seattle Supersonic type titles, like the one won in 1972, when Willis Reed was out of the whole series because of an injury.


And if we were limited to one era of success like you, you'd have a point.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Punchy]

The league rule landed Wilt? Kareem? Drafted Mikan and Jerry West too?

Maybe that's how we got Shaq, Kobe and Gasol too... that pesky league rule that keeps ruining it for everybody else.

:lol @ punchdrunk dork.

And Wilt and Jerry West won you sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o many titles :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Kareem was a nice signing. Can't hate on that.

[ChumpDumper]

Too bad lakerfan wasted all that time saying Duncan is no longer a factor. They shit all over this thread preemptively.

[Punchy]

And if we were limited to one era of success like you, you'd have a point.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Congrats. You're having your second era of success in the 2000s.

Maybe the Spurs will have another, maybe they won't. Who knows.

The Celtics are the only franchise that can really claim success across more than two eras.

They've won multiple titles in 4 different decades, while you guys are at 2*.

*:lol @ Minneapolis Lakers

[history2b]

And Wilt and Jerry West won you sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o many titles :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Kareem was a nice signing. Can't hate on that.




More than the Spurs in any era before Duncan

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[ohmwrecker]

The spurs did tank that season. Robinson could have come back towards the end of that year. I clearly remember that year and I was hoping the spurs tanked which they did.

I remember it too. There was no reason for Robinson to come back and possibly get injured again. Their record was too poor for it to make a difference. I also don't remember the Spurs purposefully trying to lose games. They didn't even finish last in the conference. The record only guaranteed them a lottery pick and certainly not the #1 (the Celtics had the worst records and highest odds of selecting first with 36 % chance).

The assertion that the Spurs purposefully tanked the season to get Tim Duncan is ludicrous and fantastical.

[ChumpDumper]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?Why does this matter so much to you?

[Punchy]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?

The same number of titles the Lakers win with Dave Greenwood.

[history2b]

Congrats. You're having your second era of success in the 2000s.

Maybe the Spurs will have another, maybe they won't. Who knows.

The Celtics are the only franchise that can really claim success across more than two eras.

They've won multiple titles in 4 different decades, while you guys are at 2*.

*:lol @ Minneapolis Lakers



They won't, lol. Because the evidence of the Spurs history clearly shows that the only success enjoyed by SA came from a plastic ping pong ball that bounced its way.

If you had just one other era of success I'd say, ok Punch, you gotta shot. But right now the evidence shows its only "the Magical Ping Pong Ball Era" and that's it.

[Punchy]

More than the Spurs in any era before Duncan

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

How about the era after Duncan?

[history2b]

I remember it too. There was no reason for Robinson to come back and possibly get injured again. Their record was too poor for it to make a difference. I also don't remember the Spurs purposefully trying to lose games. They didn't even finish last in the conference. The record only guaranteed them a lottery pick and certainly not the #1 (the Celtics had the worst records and highest odds of selecting first with 36 % chance).

The assertion that the Spurs purposefully tanked the season to get Tim Duncan is ludicrous and fantastical.


No it is not because holding out healthy players who can play is the definition of tanking idiot.

[history2b]

How about the era after Duncan?


You got a big fat 0 there too :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

[ChumpDumper]

No it is not because holding out healthy players who can play is the definition of tanking idiot.He wasn't healthy.

Again, why is this so important to lakerfan?

[history2b]

Why does this matter so much to you?


Maybe I want to see if Spurs fans have the balls to answer the question honestly.

My guess is no, not one solitary soul with have the balls and so far I am right.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe I want to see if Spurs fans have the balls to answer the question honestly.Why is that so important to you?


My guess is no, not one solitary soul with have the balls and so far I am right.You merely want them to agree with your opinion.

Kinda pathetic tbh.

[ohmwrecker]

No it is not because holding out healthy players who can play is the definition of tanking idiot.

To what end? Risk aggravating the injury or a new injury to your franchise player so you can have a highly unlikely, miraculous shot at a #1 draft pick?

Who's the idiot, really?

Your definition is absolutely incorrect also.

[history2b]

He wasn't healthy.

Again, why is this so important to lakerfan?


Cleared for play = healthy.

Holding him out because you didn't want to risk injury is what every player on every team can claim every night, aka bullshit.

Saying you had nothing to gain because you aren't going to make the playoffs is still tanking.

[Punchy]

They won't, lol. Because the evidence of the Spurs history clearly shows that the only success enjoyed by SA came from a plastic ping pong ball that bounced its way.

If you had just one other era of success I'd say, ok Punch, you gotta shot. But right now the evidence shows its only "the Magical Ping Pong Ball Era" and that's it.

Yeah. Cause signing Bruce Bowen, and seeing the potential in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili (the great Lakers FO drafted Devean George in the 1st round that year :lol) had everything to do with luck.

Have the Lakers ever made a lower round draft pick that resulted in an all-star caliber player other Nick Van Exel?

[ohmwrecker]

Saying you had nothing to gain because you aren't going to make the playoffs is still tanking.

I ask you again . . . for what purpose?

[history2b]

Why is that so important to you?

You merely want them to agree with your opinion.

Kinda pathetic tbh.


Not at all. Again, I want to see if anyone here has the balls to actually share that opinion whether it is the same is mine or not.

[ChumpDumper]

Cleared for play = healthy.Nope.


Holding him out because you didn't want to risk injury is what every player on every team can claim every night, aka bullshit.They can, it's often a legitimate concern.


Saying you had nothing to gain because you aren't going to make the playoffs is still tanking.Not really. There's no way of proving the team with Robinson would magically win out.

[history2b]

I ask you again . . . for what purpose?


For the purpose of it being one's job to play basketball under the contract signed with the NBA via the player's union?

Perhaps?

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all. Again, I want to see if anyone here has the balls to actually share that opinion whether it is the same is mine or not.Then you were lying before.

OK.

Why is it so important to you?

[ChumpDumper]

For the purpose of it being one's job to play basketball under the contract signed with the NBA via the player's union?

Perhaps?Show us that clause in the CBA.

Should be easy for you to find.

[ohmwrecker]

For the purpose of it being one's job to play basketball under the contract signed with the NBA via the player's union?

Perhaps?

No, shithead. What would be the Spurs purpose for tanking the season?

[manufan10]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?

Can't even use that. You don't even know if the Spurs would have chosen Van Horn with the #2 pick.

[history2b]

Nope.

They can, it's often a legitimate concern.

Not really. There's no way of proving the team with Robinson would magically win out.


So team doctors now clear unhealthy players for play now? Interesting.

I call pussy-ass bullshit on the part of a fanboy who wants to toot the horn of his favorite team tanking a season to get a better draft pick. It's ok to say this but at least be a man and come out admit it.

[rascal]

I remember it too. There was no reason for Robinson to come back and possibly get injured again. Their record was too poor for it to make a difference. I also don't remember the Spurs purposefully trying to lose games. They didn't even finish last in the conference. The record only guaranteed them a lottery pick and certainly not the #1 (the Celtics had the worst records and highest odds of selecting first with 36 % chance).

The assertion that the Spurs purposefully tanked the season to get Tim Duncan is ludicrous and fantastical.

No, Robinson was cleared to play and the spurs chose not to play him. If he was cleared to play then it was all right for him to play. The spurs were out of the playoff hunt but they won too many games early that year to have a shot at the worst record. They were trying to better their chances at landing the known franchise player- Duncan and sitting Robinson out was the smart thing to do.

[history2b]

Can't even use that. You don't even know if the Spurs would have chosen Van Horn with the #2 pick.

That was presuming the #2 pick of course.

Could have Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer or Adonal Foyle too.

[ohmwrecker]

No, Robinson was cleared to play and the spurs chose not to play him. If he was cleared to play then it was all right for him to play. The spurs were out of the playoff hunt but they won too many games early that year to have a shot at the worst record. They were trying to better their chances at landing the known franchise player- Duncan and sitting Robinson out was the smart thing to do.

That is so stupid. A 6% chance to land the sole potential franchise player in an extremely weak draft. Do you think the Spurs honestly thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of landing Duncan?

[ohmwrecker]

That was presuming the #2 pick of course.

Could have Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer or Adonal Foyle too.

or Billups or McGrady . . . answer my question, fuckhead.

[history2b]

No, Robinson was cleared to play and the spurs chose not to play him. If he was cleared to play then it was all right for him to play. The spurs were out of the playoff hunt but they won too many games early that year to have a shot at the worst record. They were trying to better their chances at landing the known franchise player- Duncan and sitting Robinson out was the smart thing to do.

Also known as TANKING.

[rascal]

They won't, lol. Because the evidence of the Spurs history clearly shows that the only success enjoyed by SA came from a plastic ping pong ball that bounced its way.

If you had just one other era of success I'd say, ok Punch, you gotta shot. But right now the evidence shows its only "the Magical Ping Pong Ball Era" and that's it.

The Gervin era was a success. That team came out of the ashes of the Dallas ABA franchise and made it into the NBA, which is remarkable for a small market ABA team to do.

[history2b]

That is so stupid. A 6% chance to land the sole potential franchise player in an extremely weak draft. Do you think the Spurs honestly thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of landing Duncan?

Obviously they did, lol

[Punchy]

What kind of damage did Tipsy wreak on your psyche in those ESPN days?

I've never seen a poster this butthurt about another team and their success in all my time posting on sports message boards.

I know you were gearing up to write your stock reply of "yeah, I'm really butthurt about the Spurs' 4 measly titles when my team has 11!*," but that won't hide the fact that the Spurs' success bothers you.

Why?

*:lol Minneapolis

[rascal]

Also known as TANKING.

I accept that the spurs tanked. I don't know why it is such a big problem for others to accept. I was hoping for the tank and it worked out. A very smart move by the Spurs.

[ohmwrecker]

The Gervin era was a success. That team came out of the ashes of the Dallas ABA franchise and made it into the NBA, which is remarkable for a small market ABA team to do.

The Spurs moved to San Antonio while they were still in the ABA . . .

You should disqualify yourself from this discussion tbh.

[history2b]

or Billups or McGrady . . . answer my question, fuckhead.

Ahahahahahaha, "fuckhead"

Now the Spurs were going to be pioneers and gamble on a high school player? :lmao

Maybe they take Billups, although they had a little general at that position already did they not? It makes more sense to think they take a 4 or a 2 being that the core of the team was Robinson, Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ and Avery.

Hence my references to Van Horn the consensus #2 pick in the draft.

[rascal]

That is so stupid. A 6% chance to land the sole potential franchise player in an extremely weak draft. Do you think the Spurs honestly thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of landing Duncan?

Yes they did. They had a better chance then most every other team.

[ohmwrecker]

Obviously they did, lol

Then why didn't they just lose more games to increase their chances? Robinson wasn't playing anyway, right?

[history2b]

I accept that the spurs tanked. I don't know why it is such a big problem for others to accept. I was hoping for the tank and it worked out. A very smart move by the Spurs.

I agree.

Kudo for you to actually admit the truth. I respect that.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?

It's an excellent question. The lockerroom environment of the Spurs consisting of Pop's toughness and David Robinson's mentorship allows Van Horn to reach his true potential. Rather than suffering from New Jersey air and water pollution that weakened his joints that would hamper him later in his career he develops a Kevin Willis-esque physique. They skate to 5 consecutive championships before tanking to get into the lottery of the ultra deep 2003 draft class, something the foolishly competitive Duncan would have refused to do. Their poor luck repeats itself and they only manage the #2 pick, with which they select Wade and launch yet another dynasty lasting until the decision to tank again in order to pass the torch Blake Griffin. So I guess really the Lakers are pretty lucky that the Spurs got the #1 pick and succumbed to the media pressure to select Tim Duncan.

[rascal]

The Spurs moved to San Antonio while they were still in the ABA . . .

You should disqualify yourself from this discussion tbh.

Who said they didn't. What is wrong with you.

[history2b]

Then why didn't they just lose more games to increase their chances? Robinson wasn't playing anyway, right?

Winning only 7 out of their last 30 games was not trying hard enough for you?

Wow.

[ohmwrecker]

Yes they did. They had a better chance then most every other team.

No. The Celtics and The Grizzlies had a much better chance.

[history2b]

Who said they didn't. What is wrong with you.


Haha, exactly!

This dude is seeing red and going nuts now!

[Punchy]

I agree.

Kudo for you to actually admit the truth. I respect that.

Now can you admit the truth that the Lakers colluded with Memphis to acquire Gasol?

[rascal]

Then why didn't they just lose more games to increase their chances? Robinson wasn't playing anyway, right?

They won too many games early that season because they had playoff hopes but after Robinson broke his foot the tank was on and there was no rush to get him back on the court.

[ohmwrecker]

Who said they didn't. What is wrong with you.

lol "out of the ashes of the Dalllas ABA franchise"

[rascal]

No. The Celtics and The Grizzlies had a much better chance.

Wow, a whole two teams had a better chance. Play again.

Just like I said the spurs moved up the chance draft board by not bringing back Robinson towards the end of that season. Good move on their part.

[Punchy]

Winning only 7 out of their last 30 games was not trying hard enough for you?

Wow.

The 05 Lakers?

[ohmwrecker]

Wow, a whole two teams had a better chance. Play again

Do you understand how percentages work?

[cobbler]

Two words why this thread will never go anywhere:

Confirmation Bias (not a brother to Len)

Never stops all you idiots who bring up the Gasol trade daily now does it?

[cobbler]

Homer spur fans are the ones who cannot accept that the spurs could even think about tanking. After all the spurs are the good guys of the NBA and never pull anything shady. :lol

It doesn't bother me. The season was over. No sense in subjucting DRob to further injury and you better your odds at the lotto. It was a prudent move. The fact that spur fans get all defensive and act like it never happened is what I find comical.

[ohmwrecker]

It doesn't bother me. The season was over. No sense in subjucting DRob to further injury and you better your odds at the lotto. It was a prudent move. The fact that spur fans get all defensive and act like it never happened is what I find comical.

This is what I am saying. I'm not defensive about what they did. I am just saying that there was no guarantee that they would get Duncan and the rest of the draftboard was extremely unimpressive.

[rascal]

It doesn't bother me. The season was over. No sense in subjucting DRob to further injury and you better your odds at the lotto. It was a prudent move. The fact that spur fans get all defensive and act like it never happened is what I find comical.

I agree. I like the spurs, I dislike many of the biased homers on this board.

[cobbler]

I remember it too. There was no reason for Robinson to come back and possibly get injured again. Their record was too poor for it to make a difference. I also don't remember the Spurs purposefully trying to lose games. They didn't even finish last in the conference. The record only guaranteed them a lottery pick and certainly not the #1 (the Celtics had the worst records and highest odds of selecting first with 36 % chance).

The assertion that the Spurs purposefully tanked the season to get Tim Duncan is ludicrous and fantastical.

If you dont think the upper brass got together and posed the question then you are a tad naive. As you said, their season was pretty much over and no sense in risking further injury to DRob (even though he was cleared to play). Of course they discussed it. Call it whatever you want, the Spurs made a conscious decision not to play one of their key players down the stretch wich increased their lotto odds.

Tank seems appropriate to me...

[history2b]

The 05 Lakers?


If they sat Kobe out so not to "risk" injury I'd say yes.

[rascal]

This is what I am saying. I'm not defensive about what they did. I am just saying that there was no guarantee that they would get Duncan and the rest of the draftboard was extremely unimpressive.

Whoever said they were guaranteed. They improved their chances by keeping Robinson out because it was a lost season anyways and it paid off.

[cobbler]

That is so stupid. A 6% chance to land the sole potential franchise player in an extremely weak draft. Do you think the Spurs honestly thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of landing Duncan?

did they?

[history2b]

If you dont think the upper brass got together and posed the question then you are a tad naive. As you said, their season was pretty much over and no sense in risking further injury to DRob (even though he was cleared to play). Of course they discussed it. Call it whatever you want, the Spurs made a conscious decision not to play one of their key players down the stretch wich increased their lotto odds.

Tank seems appropriate to me...


Naturally...

If the front office discussed nothing of the sort, they why was the decision made to sit him out? Usually when a player is injured and he recovers, it's a no brainer that he play the next game he is healthy.

So considering the fact that he did not, then we know the Spurs brass got together and made a collective decision that they felt would be most beneficial to their franchise.

[jjktkk]

This is what I am saying. I'm not defensive about what they did. I am just saying that there was no guarantee that they would get Duncan and the rest of the draftboard was extremely unimpressive.

It was all very good luck. The Spurs being able to land a once in every 10 year player in Duncan, just like the Lakers getting a all star caliber big man for peanuts, from a team whose owner was supposedly cash strapped and his GM/consultant just so happening to have very strong Laker ties.

[history2b]

did they?

Lol

[history2b]

It was all very good luck. The Spurs being able to land a once in every 10 year player in Duncan, just like the Lakers getting a all star caliber big man for peanuts, from a team whose owner was supposedly cash strapped and his GM/consultant just so happening to have very strong Laker ties.


Try to keep up with the thread big guy.

Lakers have repeated "luck" multiple times over multiple generations unlike the Spurs who've managed only to get this "lucky" once.

Hence the initial question posed in the very first post of this thread.

Lol @ this thread being "dead."

[Punchy]

It doesn't bother me. The season was over. No sense in subjucting DRob to further injury and you better your odds at the lotto. It was a prudent move. The fact that spur fans get all defensive and act like it never happened is what I find comical.

Not defensive in the slightest. Smart move is to tank.

What I find comical is when morons like history2b try to use it to discredit the Spurs franchise and their championships, while being oblivious to the fact that the Lakers had two very lucky breaks in 80s, which if didn't happen, likely means that Showtime never happens.

[jjktkk]

Try to keep up with the thread big guy.

Lakers have repeated "luck" multiple times over multiple generations unlike the Spurs who've managed only to get this "lucky" once.

Hence the initial question posed in the very first post of this thread.

Lol @ this thread being "dead."

The Spurs actually got lucky twice(87) with the Admiral. Now if we just could get Sam Presti to give Durant to us for Splitter, we be STACKEDDDDDD!!!!

[cobbler]

This is what I am saying. I'm not defensive about what they did. I am just saying that there was no guarantee that they would get Duncan and the rest of the draftboard was extremely unimpressive.

Of course there was no guarantee. But the losses did improve the odds. It was a tank and a gamble and it paid off. :toast

[history2b]

Not defensive in the slightest. Smart move is to tank.

What I find comical is when morons like history2b try to use it to discredit the Spurs franchise and their championships, while being oblivious to the fact that the Lakers had two very lucky breaks in 80s, which if didn't happen, likely means that Showtime never happens.


Not trying to discredit anything.

I am simply calling it out for what it is; an aberration.

[ohmwrecker]

If you dont think the upper brass got together and posed the question then you are a tad naive. As you said, their season was pretty much over and no sense in risking further injury to DRob (even though he was cleared to play). Of course they discussed it. Call it whatever you want, the Spurs made a conscious decision not to play one of their key players down the stretch wich increased their lotto odds.

Tank seems appropriate to me...

I never said they didn't discuss it. That's not the point. There were plenty of reasons to sit Robinson out.
I guess I'm a little hung up on the perceived definition of "tanking" here. I don't think keeping your franchise player out for the last stretch of games after he missed half the season qualifies. It makes more sense that they are protecting an investment. It may have increased their lotto odds, but it's not like playing Robinson off an injury would have pulled them out of the lottery either. They might have consciously taken a gamble on their odds at Duncan, but they were nowhere close to Boston in that regard.

They got extremely lucky. End of story.

[cobbler]

Not defensive in the slightest. Smart move is to tank.

What I find comical is when morons like history2b try to use it to discredit the Spurs franchise and their championships, while being oblivious to the fact that the Lakers had two very lucky breaks in 80s, which if didn't happen, likely means that Showtime never happens.

You dont win championshiops without luck.

[Punchy]

Try to keep up with the thread big guy.

Lakers have repeated "luck" multiple times over multiple generations unlike the Spurs who've managed only to get this "lucky" once.

Hence the initial question posed in the very first post of this thread.

Lol @ this thread being "dead."

Only two franchise have won championships over multiple generations.

And the way you worded your opening paragraph implies that the Lakers have dominated literally every decade since their inception. Compared to the Celtics, they're a relative newcomer. 80s and 00s* (Chokers and whipping boys in the 60s, the Miami Heat of the 70s, and the laughing stock of the 90s. :lol HIV and Randy Pfund.)

So congrats on having one more decade of success than the Spurs :tu

*:lol Minneapolis

[Punchy]

Not trying to discredit anything.

I am simply calling it out for what it is; an aberration.

No, an aberration is the West-era Lakers finally winning a championship. A single event that never happened previously or was repeated.

The Spurs stretched out their championship success over 9 seasons.

[cobbler]

No, an aberration is the West-era Lakers finally winning a championship. A single event that never happened previously or was repeated.

The Spurs stretched out their championship success over 9 seasons.

Was a painful time. And in it every year to lose by a point or two. Painful!

[Bito Corleone]

I liked it better when you couldn't start threads, and just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Punchy]

Was a painful time. And in it every year to lose by a point or two. Painful!

I've given you a lot crap over the last year, Cobbler, but it was all in fun. You're one who is entitled to his "ring smack" because you were there in the dark days.

These fans, like history2b, who jumped on the wagon during Showtime shouldn't be afforded that right.

[ohmwrecker]

These fans, like history2b, who jumped on the wagon during Showtime shouldn't be afforded that right.

I think you might be giving him too much credit there.

[cobbler]

I never said they didn't discuss it. That's not the point. There were plenty of reasons to sit Robinson out.
I guess I'm a little hung up on the perceived definition of "tanking" here. I don't think keeping your franchise player out for the last stretch of games after he missed half the season qualifies. It makes more sense that they are protecting an investment. It may have increased their lotto odds, but it's not like playing Robinson off an injury would have pulled them out of the lottery either. They might have consciously taken a gamble on their odds at Duncan, but they were nowhere close to Boston in that regard.

They got extremely lucky. End of story.

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/cobblerphoto/lottob.jpg

As you can see... win 2 more games and your odds decrease 20%.

[cobbler]

I've given you a lot crap over the last year, Cobbler, but it was all in fun. You're one who is entitled to his "ring smack" because you were there in the dark days.

These fans, like history2b, who jumped on the wagon during Showtime shouldn't be afforded that right.

I dont care when we get fans or not. All the more welcome to me. The whole bandwagoning thing is a joke.

[history2b]

I dont care when we get fans or not. All the more welcome to me. The whole bandwagoning thing is a joke.


Lol, he's wrong anyway. But he cannot help being a moron.

[cobbler]

Lol, he's wrong anyway. But he cannot help being a moron.

It's all good. I really dont care if you became a fan in the 60's or yesterday. The more the merrier! All is wonderful in the land of purple and gold.

:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt2:

[history2b]

It's all good. I really dont care if you became a fan in the 60's or yesterday. The more the merrier! All is wonderful in the land of purple and gold.

:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:
:lobt2:


Been a fan of the game and the Lakers since age 4 from a family of Celtics fans.

Midnightpsycho fail.

[Punchy]

Lol, he's wrong anyway. But he cannot help being a moron.

You're a bandwagoner. It's evident with every word you type. On top of that, you couldn't answer basic facts about Laker history, and any Laker fan who knows the history of their franchise, wouldn't be so quick to disparage other teams for being "lucky."

This is you in a nutshell:

1. Kobe fan
2. Kobe fan
3. Kobe fan
4. Lakers fan
5-99. Gay sex with Shaolin fan
100. Basketball fan

I know this because your hatred of the Spurs and their fans didn't start until Spurfan Tipsy starting trolling the Laker forum at ESPN, using Kobe as the trigger.

Your hatred of the Spurs is related to your obsessional love of Kobe Bryant.

[ElNono]

I'm not asking anyone to dwell on anything.


The luck of landing one magical ping pong that bounced in the Spurs favor in the 1997 draft lottery is clearly going to be remembered in the city of San Antonio for a long time. But the question remains, will the Spurs ever be so lucky again?

Now that we've established that you're lying, why would Spursfan dwell on that? More importantly, why would a lakerfan dwell on it?

[Punchy]

Been a fan of the game and the Lakers since age 4 from a family of Celtics fans.

Midnightpsycho fail.

You're not a fan of basketball. We've dispelled that myth a long time ago.

When you first waddled your social security collecting ass in here, complaining about the responses to your posts, I told you that no one would give you shit if your true intentions were to legitimately discuss basketball. But it's obvious the only agenda you have is to trumpet Lakers superiority, suck Kobe Bryant's cock, and aggravate Spur fans. All fine and good. We have plenty of Lakers trolls and welcome them all. However, where you differ from Lakaluva, AIDS, Culburn, etc, is that you present this self-righteous facade of objectivity, while they are shamelessly proud of their homerism. It's a douchebag phoniness that annoys everybody.

If it's a troll move, I give you props. I can respect that. But I believe this is the way you are in the real. A big, blood dripping douchebag.

[TipsytheLurker]

64,000 dollar question for Spurs fans... I dare anyone, even a silent lurker from upstairs to answer this one question:

How many titles do the Spurs win with Keith Van Horn (#2 pick) instead of Tim Duncan?

:lmao History, I played with you all day on Friday. I'm not going to go through your circular arguments with you every day.

I recommend pulling yourself out of the emotional tailspin I sent you into...it's been like 3 years man. Get a grip. I'm being as sincere as I can be in this virtual format. I'm rooting for you.

[TipsytheLurker]

You're not a fan of basketball. We've dispelled that myth a long time ago.

When you first waddled your social security collecting ass in here, complaining about the responses to your posts, I told you that no one would give you shit if your true intentions were to legitimately discuss basketball. But it's obvious the only agenda you have is to trumpet Lakers superiority, suck Kobe Bryant's cock, and aggravate Spur fans. All fine and good. We have plenty of Lakers trolls and welcome them all. However, where you differ from Lakaluva, AIDS, Culburn, etc, is that you present this self-righteous facade of objectivity, while they are shamelessly proud of their homerism. It's a douchebag phoniness that annoys everybody.

If it's a troll move, I give you props. I can respect that. But I believe this is the way you are in the real. A big, blood dripping douchebag.

He's just trying to emulate his hero....The phoniest douche bag to ever lace them up.

[jjktkk]

You're not a fan of basketball. We've dispelled that myth a long time ago.

When you first waddled your social security collecting ass in here, complaining about the responses to your posts, I told you that no one would give you shit if your true intentions were to legitimately discuss basketball. But it's obvious the only agenda you have is to trumpet Lakers superiority, suck Kobe Bryant's cock, and aggravate Spur fans. All fine and good. We have plenty of Lakers trolls and welcome them all. However, where you differ from Lakaluva, AIDS, Culburn, etc, is that you present this self-righteous facade of objectivity, while they are shamelessly proud of their homerism. It's a douchebag phoniness that annoys everybody.

If it's a troll move, I give you props. I can respect that. But I believe this is the way you are in the real. A big, blood dripping douchebag.

Punchy shedding some light on history's history. Have to give history props though. He works hard on being a douche. :lol

[Punchy]

:lmao History, I played with you all day on Friday. I'm not going to go through your circular arguments with you every day.

I recommend pulling yourself out of the emotional tailspin I sent you into...it's been like 3 years man. Get a grip. I'm being as sincere as I can be in this virtual format. I'm rooting for you.

It's pretty sad. I was there, too, front row, watching you troll the Lakers fans when Kobe was sucking ass and choking to the Suns. I didn't participate, because I was actually enjoying the conversations I was having with the good Lakers fans over there like Bizz, RajRerun, etc, and the mutual hatred of the Suns at the time kind of bonded Spurfan and Lakerfan. Plus, it's not my style to kick a man when he's down. But you kept kicking, and it's apparent those bruises and bones have yet to heal and mend.

Oh, and what's the story behind his ESPN banning? I wasn't there for that. You have to be a total dumbshit or psycho to get IP banned from that place.

[TipsytheLurker]

It's pretty sad. I was there, too, front row, watching you troll the Lakers fans when Kobe was sucking ass and choking to the Suns. I didn't participate, because I was actually enjoying the conversations I was having with the good Lakers fans over there like Bizz, RajRerun, etc, and the mutual hatred of the Suns at the time kind of bonded Spurfan and Lakerfan. Plus, it's not my style to kick a man when he's down. But you kept kicking, and it's apparent those bruises and bones have yet to heal and mend.

Oh, and what's the story behind his ESPN banning? I wasn't there for that. You have to be a total dumbshit or psycho to get IP banned from that place.

He's not IP banned. He posted something there the other day. I think enough spurs fans complained about his trolling they finally banned his ass.

I bet he flipped a fucking lid too. That site was his home. 10s of thousands of posts under that handle over like 12 years...the way he'd strut around like a peacock on that Laker board was why I took issue with him in the first place. Anybody that disagrees with him was a moron and knew nothing about the game. Just an all around dick that hides behind the anonymity of the internet professing his basketball knowledge.

[Punchy]

He's not IP banned. He posted something there the other day. I think enough spurs fans complained about his trolling they finally banned his ass.

I bet he flipped a fucking lid too. That site was his home. 10s of thousands of posts under that handle over like 12 years...the way he'd strut around like a peacock on that Laker board was why I took issue with him in the first place. Anybody that disagrees with him was a moron and knew nothing about the game. Just an all around dick that hides behind the anonymity of the internet professing his basketball knowledge.

I was hoping he had some epic public meltdown that resulted in his banning. It's funny that he lost his main account, though.

[WeNeedLength]

TBH, he already has some classic threads he made before the season about Spurs scraping to make the playoffs and win 45 games. This dipshit doesn't know his ass from his elbow but claims he does, therefore I treat him like a troll like a few others...:hat

[DMC]

It's ok to be a douche, just don't be a pussy and a douche, come clean, you win more friends with honey than vinegar... yeah that.

[ohmwrecker]

As you can see... win 2 more games and your odds decrease 20%.

Yeah, I'm not confused about that at all . . .

The point, which you Lakerfans seem to be missing, is that the Spurs (if they thought they had a slim chance at Duncan) were taking a big gamble. The draft was one of the weakest in years and one ping pong ball bounce could have left them with an unimpressive lottery pick. Duncan was the only prize. It was all or nothing. They could have played Robinson, but it wouldn't have done them, or him any service to do so. The team they fielded played competitively. The didn't intentionally try to lose games to get the worst record. It was as legit as an enormously lucky lottery ball bounce can be.
There is no point trying to use it as an agenda to discredit the franchise. If the Lakers are such a superior franchise then why does the Spurs' success seem to stick so deeply in the craw of some Lakerfans? It's puzzling.

[DMC]

I like pie

[jag]

I'm not even sure how to respond to lottery smack.

History2b has always been annoying and seemingly obsessive. It's hard to argue with a guy that cares so much. But after watching tipsythelurker shit all over this guy - with his "time to weigh in" kobe threads - it's making this whole thing kind of awkward/humorous to watch.

[ChuckD]

No no. Laker Nation is lucky to have all these homers sitting around avoiding the obvious 24/7 pretending like the Kobe era will continue into infinity. That's the true power of delusion.

[ChuckD]

their is no denying that and I won't even bother about the Gasol trade anymore (well, i just did...sorry!).

your a big market team, which should be successfull! NY does a bad job doing so...Chicago could do better. Boston does well.

So you get my props for that!

But on the other hand a team from San Antonio is the 4th winingest Team (behind BOS, LA, CHI) in league history??? holy S$%&!!!

Well, we must have done something right!

In overall all time NBA win %, Spurs are SECOND, ahead of even Boston. In championships, SA's fourth. They've made the playoffs 30 times in 34 years in their NBA history. Not bad for a small market low budget team.

[rascal]

That is so stupid. A 6% chance to land the sole potential franchise player in an extremely weak draft. Do you think the Spurs honestly thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of landing Duncan?

Check the chart again and recalculate. It wasn't a 6% chance of landing Duncan. Tanking and moving into the number 3 spot improved the spurs chances big time.

[ohmwrecker]

Check the chart again and recalculate. It wasn't a 6% chance of landing Duncan. Tanking and moving into the number 3 spot improved the spurs chances big time.

I know. I totally pulled that out of my ass because I didn't feel like looking it up, but a 15% discrepancy between Boston and San Antonio is still pretty substantial.

[BanditHiro]

its cool because the Lakers reign will end soon too they will have a run similar to the Celtics had before the Boston three party...and you will cease to be a fan.

[cobbler]

i know. I totally pulled that out of my ass because i didn't feel like looking it up, but a 15% discrepancy between boston and san antonio is still pretty substantial.

6%

[cobbler]

its cool because the Lakers reign will end soon too they will have a run similar to the Celtics had before the Boston three party...and you will cease to be a fan.

The Lakers history of being the quickest to rebuild contenders notwithstanding. :toast

[ohmwrecker]

6%

Yeah, there seems to be a discrepancy on the percentages depending on the source. I saw one that listed the Celtics at 36% and the Spurs at 21%. The percentages aren't really relevant to my point.

[xellos88330]

I think the Spurs got really lucky in the draft. Of course, you could answer this yourself, but apparently you are too dumb to know the answer, otherwise, you wouldn't be asking Spurs fans.

Here is an easy question for you. If you were to get paid a max NBA contract (back in '76 when the Spurs first joined the NBA), where would you rather play? In Los Angeles, or San Antonio?

See, I can ask retarded questions too.

Anyways, hopefully you can see the advantage a city like Los Angeles has over San Antonio. Of course you won't because you are just in a blind rage that the "lucky, old, boring, doomed, overrated" Spurs team just beat the defending back to back champs on their home court and extended the lead for home court out west.










PS: I think it is funny that you keep saying that Spurs fans are angry because of your posts. In reality, we are sitting atop the league in the regular season. Why should we be angry? Especially from posts from an extreme retard who lost all his credibility within his first 2 posts on this webesite as being a "pure basketball talk" guy. You mean nothing to me, and you never will. Sorry to disappoint you, but get used to it. Maybe your Lakers can make you feel like your life is actually worth living for another season. So far, it doesn't look good for you.

[jjktkk]

I think the Spurs got really lucky in the draft. Of course, you could answer this yourself, but apparently you are too dumb to know the answer, otherwise, you wouldn't be asking Spurs fans.

Here is an easy question for you. If you were to get paid a max NBA contract (back in '76 when the Spurs first joined the NBA), where would you rather play? In Los Angeles, or San Antonio?

See, I can ask retarded questions too.

Anyways, hopefully you can see the advantage a city like Los Angeles has over San Antonio. Of course you won't because you are just in a blind rage that the "lucky, old, boring, doomed, overrated" Spurs team just beat the defending back to back champs on their home court and extended the lead for home court out west.

Xello with the goods. :tu










PS: I think it is funny that you keep saying that Spurs fans are angry because of your posts. In reality, we are sitting atop the league in the regular season. Why should we be angry? Especially from posts from an extreme retard who lost all his credibility within his first 2 posts on this webesite as being a "pure basketball talk" guy. You mean nothing to me, and you never will. Sorry to disappoint you, but get used to it. Maybe your Lakers can make you feel like your life is actually worth living for another season. So far, it doesn't look good for you.

[xellos88330]

Here is another question for you...

If the Los Angeles had the same size market/publicity/appeal as San Antonio, could they have built a successful franchise like the Spurs have?

[Fernando TD21]

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/cobblerphoto/lottob.jpg

As you can see... win 2 more games and your odds decrease 20%.

6%
The fact that Boston owned 2 slots in the draft doesn't mean their percentage adds up?
I've seen quotes showing that Boston had a 36 percent chance of getting the number one pick.

[ChuckD]

http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/cobblerphoto/lottob.jpg

As you can see... win 2 more games and your odds decrease 20%.

We were winning that lottery. Don't know if you've ever heard the full story. They always do a "test pull" on the machine. That ball was San Antonio. The actual pick for #1 was pulled, and of course, that was San Antonio. They pulled for the second pick, and THAT ball was for San Antonio. The first three pulls from the machine were for the Spurs. God wanted us to have Tim Duncan.

[ElNono]

good luck to the OP in the lottery, tbh...