SI article mentioning the spurs and tanking in 97

[trypldubl]

SI has this article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_rosenberg/02/16/teams.decline/index.html?eref=sihp

Basically giving us the biggest W-L drop off in sports. The writer brings up the Spurs 96-97 season. He did not come strait out and accuse the Spurs of tanking. However, he did bring up IF they did tank then it would have been the greatest crime in pro sports history.

It made me think about two things. One is are we always going to be associated with the whole tanking to get Tim Duncan thing? I knew we had no hope of sniffing the playoffs after D-Rob went down and found myself hoping that we would have a good chance of getting the number one pick that year. I remember that it was basically between the Spurs and Denver as far as second worst record in the league (Vancover could not get the first pick becaus they were still under the expantion rule if I remember).

Denver had a ten game losing streak going into their final regular season game against Dallas. If Denver were to loose that game, then we would have been tied with them record wise and head to head it was also tied at 2-2. I remeber reading in the express news that Denver would have had the better chance of winning the lottery because they had a worse conference record. Well, Denver won that game and I remember reading that they just wanted to end the seaon with a win.

The spurs final ten games were against 8 playoff teams that year. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1997_games.html

We beat the Lakers in LA minus shaq but still. We actually beat Denver at Denver and were competitve in the final two home games against the Suns and Rockets. But seriously, how can you be expected to win games with this line up?

Starters:
Vinney Del Negro
Carl Herrera/Charles Smith (sometimes)
Dominique Wilkins/Monty Williams (sometimes)
Greg Anderson
Avery Johnson

Bench:
Cory Alexander
Will Purdue
Vernon Maxwell
Jamie Feick

If the Spurs really were tanking don't you think they would have tanked that Denver game and making sure they were not to close in those final few games?


The second thing is if Denver did lose out and we ended up with the fifth pick, do we still take Tony Battie, maybe take a chance on T-Mac or would Pop have traded the pick? At the time our biggest holes were at PF and SG.

Imagine if this had happend? This team would be totally different. Whose to say we still would have a team here? Whose to say that after a few years of suffering we got lucky in 2003 and drafted LeBron but to have him leave here and break our hearts......yea I am stretching :downspin: but just throwing that out there.

Maybe no matter what, Tim was meant to be here and it would not have mattered if we had the first or fifth pick. We should just feel pretty blessed/fortunate that things fell the way they did. It makes me savor this season and past ones :lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:even more :toast

[TampaDude]

With the lottery system, tanking is no guarantee like it is in the NFL.

Spurs were lucky to get Duncan. But luck is part of the game.

[Cane]

Maybe no matter what, Tim was meant to be here ......

I more or less agree with that. Duncan had his opportunity to leave to go to Orlando or really anywhere he wanted but instead he chose to stay in SA.





We should just feel pretty blessed/fortunate that things fell the way they did. It makes me savor this season and past ones :lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:even more :toast

Yup. The city of San Antonio has been pretty spoiled by having one of the best eras any major sports team has seen. The amount of success the Spurs have had is :wow:wow:wow

[lefty]

They butthurt
We stacked

[greyforest]

You know why they don't bitch about any other teams that tanked and got a lottery pick?

None of them won any championships.

Fuck the haters!

[m33p0]

what happened happened and couldn't have happened any other way.

[xmas1997]

Lucky also means going through the season relatively injury free.
It's all part of the game.

[Obstructed_View]

First of all, with the Spurs still in San Antonio, four championships and the best power forward of all time, I say "thanks for tanking". If Popovich twirled his mustache and put a Gilooly on Robinson's ankle while he slept, hindsight tells us it was the best move of his hall of fame career.

Second, the Spurs did tank that season. Nobody got rushed back from injuries during a dreadful season. Therefore, they weren't doing everything in their power to win every single game. Poll the coaches and GMs of the league and ask if they're going to sacrifice a hall of famer in the prime of his career for a terrible season. Pop already had one hall of famer carrying the team that year.

Third, none of this is relevant. The Spurs got not just the first, but the first AND SECOND ping pong balls the lottery, meaning there's no fucking way anyone else was going to get Duncan.

[GSH]

Yeah, losing a franchise player had nothing to do with it. We all see how well that worked out for Cleveland this season.

And who had the best chance of winning the lottery that season? That's right, the Celtics. And they are still bitter about it. And didn't Ryan Gomes out the Celtics for tanking a season a few years later? (In case you've forgotten: Gomes attracted the attention of the national media for comments he made following a Celtics' loss to the Milwaukee Bucks on April 13. Neither Gomes nor starting point guard Rajon Rondo played in the game's final, decisive minutes. After, Gomes said, "I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different.")

Some people don't want to believe that a team would intentionally tank games to get a better shot at a lottery pick. But it was really hard to come to any other conclusion after those last few games. Gomes' was young and stupid for commenting publicly, but he was in position to know what was going on. True or not, it was very believable. And the league office had a minor meltdown about it. But they refused to do an inquiry into the way those late games were coached.

Funny how history gets all... twisty after some time passes.

[JsnSA]

Well, the key injuries in 96 were legit for the most part. Once it was clear the season was lost there would be no point rushing anyone back and risking more injuries. You can't really complain about that.

Whats funny is that other than Tim, Chauncey Buh-buh-buh-billups and TMac the 97 draft was pretty bad as far as available talent goes. Its funny seeing Antonio Daniels in there at the 4th pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_NBA_Draft

[coyotes_geek]

We tanked. I'm fine with it. I hope we do it again and get similar results.

[ajh18]

Third, none of this is relevant. The Spurs got not just the first, but the first AND SECOND ping pong balls the lottery, meaning there's no fucking way anyone else was going to get Duncan.

I had never heard this. Is this really the case?

[coyotes_geek]

I had never heard this. Is this really the case?

Yes. It's three separate drawings for the top 3 picks, all with the same odds. The Spurs number came up for both the 1st & 2nd picks.

[UnWantedTheory]

what happened happened and couldn't have happened any other way.

[Bartleby]

Since we're speaking in hypotheticals, I'd say trading an All-Star for scraps through a back-door deal is a bigger crime.

[ajh18]

Yes. It's three separate drawings for the top 3 picks, all with the same odds. The Spurs number came up for both the 1st & 2nd picks.

Very cool. Thanks.

[WildcardManu]

Since we're speaking in hypotheticals, I'd say trading an All-Star for scraps through a back-door deal is a bigger crime.

http://www.tvgasm.com/wp-content/uploads/pretty-bird-300x212.jpg

Just like selling a dead bird to a blind kid.

[coyotes_geek]

Since we're speaking in hypotheticals, I'd say trading an All-Star for scraps through a back-door deal is a bigger crime.

Perhaps, but when one comes along I sure as hell wouldn't turn it down.

[Sisk]

They butthurt
We stacked

[GSH]

Perhaps, but when one comes along I sure as hell wouldn't turn it down.

Obviously missed the Pao Gasol reference.

[K-State Spur]

If the Spurs did tank, they did a shitty job - both Vancouver and Boston lost 5+ more games.

Really, that team was built with a bunch of veteran role players surrounding Robinson expecting him to carry them as far as they can go. David's back goes out, and you're left with the Human Highlight Phlegm as the team's best player.

[Blake]

If the Spurs did tank, they did a shitty job - both Vancouver and Boston lost 5+ more games.

Really, that team was built with a bunch of veteran role players surrounding Robinson expecting him to carry them as far as they can go. David's back goes out, and you're left with the Human Highlight Phlegm as the team's best player.

and Rick Pitino took the job in Boston thinking Duncan was basically a done deal.

[Blake]

we tanked. I'm fine with it. I hope we do it again and get similar results.

+1

[coyotes_geek]

Obviously missed the Pao Gasol reference.

Got the reference, but might have missed on who bart was saying committed the crime.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only way you can really claim a team featuring a 37 Wilkins intentionally lost games is if Robinson could have come back and Pop sat him anyway. I remember that season and those teams played their asses off for Pop. they stayed in games for 48 minutes they just did not have the firepower to seal the deal on either end of the court.

The thing is that Pop has shown a tendency to err on the side of caution concerning injury his entire coaching career.

[CGD]

No, if there was a team that could have been accused of tanking that year it was Patino's Celtics, not the injury depleted Spurs.

Then again in 2006-07 the C's were actually accused of tanking ahead of the Oden/Durant draft, shortly after which they traded for Allen and Garnett.

[dbreiden83080]

Tanking was the best decision ever..









http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/81429060.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5484CE1FE36FE472640 F7B6A78CBF29A8A9FAB7D954516BB741

[Obstructed_View]

The thing is that Pop has shown a tendency to err on the side of caution concerning injury his entire coaching career.

Excellent point. When has he EVER rushed anyone back for any reason?

[Man In Black]

No tank. A true tank is to get the most balls in the hopper. Boston had 3 1st round opps to get Tim. No go.

Chronic, in this case, sucked because it meant injuries.

[tuncaboylu]

Maybe Spurs tanked that season.

But what about the other parts of big 3 which provides us 3 more championships? Did we tank to draft Tony Parker or Manu?

[Yorae]

Maybe Spurs tanked that season.

But what about the other parts of big 3 which provides us 3 more championships? Did we tank to draft Tony Parker or Manu?

This. It takes a team.

[venitian navigator]

One point to take into consideration is the kind of injury suffered by the Admiral.
If it's true that it was the back injury, well...we've seen the seasons after how that injury has limited Robinsn's carrier : in the last years (see 2001, 2002) he was suffering a lot at the point than when he had to play to his strenghts - see O'Neal- it was obvious that he didn't have any chance to handle him.

So, if the entity of the injury was so strong to 'cause the (partial, at least) decline of D.Rob., the choice not to hurry him back is not only legitimate, but inevitable...and with no chance of a Robinson's came back, the Spurs were in no way a playoff team and their behavior during that season was no more tanking than the one of all the other teams involved in the last places of the standings (see what has already being said about Celts, Denver...).

[rascal]

First of all, with the Spurs still in San Antonio, four championships and the best power forward of all time, I say "thanks for tanking". If Popovich twirled his mustache and put a Gilooly on Robinson's ankle while he slept, hindsight tells us it was the best move of his hall of fame career.

Second, the Spurs did tank that season. Nobody got rushed back from injuries during a dreadful season. Therefore, they weren't doing everything in their power to win every single game. Poll the coaches and GMs of the league and ask if they're going to sacrifice a hall of famer in the prime of his career for a terrible season. Pop already had one hall of famer carrying the team that year.

Third, none of this is relevant. The Spurs got not just the first, but the first AND SECOND ping pong balls the lottery, meaning there's no fucking way anyone else was going to get Duncan.

Those balls that got Duncan would have had another teams logo on it had the spurs not chose to sit Robinson the entire season.

[rascal]

No tank. A true tank is to get the most balls in the hopper. Boston had 3 1st round opps to get Tim. No go.

Chronic, in this case, sucked because it meant injuries.

They tanked by sitting Robinson. They moved up and increased their chances to the 2nd best to land Duncan.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Those balls that got Duncan would have had another teams logo on it had the spurs not chose to sit Robinson the entire season.

Well they didn't really choose to sit him the entire season, did they?

[polandprzem]

Lottery changed my life

[K-State Spur]

They tanked by sitting Robinson. They moved up and increased their chances to the 2nd best to land Duncan.

chances were third best - it was just that boston had 1st and 2nd best chances.

when you hear Laker or Mav fan talk about it, they make it sound like San Antonio won 10 less games than anybody else and wound up with a 90% chance to win the lottery. san antonio had a 1 in 5 chance of winning the lottery after that season. there was no reason to expect a shot at getting duncan despite the struggles that year.

the "tanking" was just as much about protecting robinson for 1997-1998 than it was getting a high pick.

[ambchang]

Funny how people choose to believe the media and ignore obvious factors.
Forget Robinson actually came back for 6 games before fracturing his foot. It is not uncommon for foot fractures to take up to 16 weeks to heal. Robinson broke his foot around Christmas time, add 4 months to that, and it takes you to April. Forget about the time it takes for a professional athlete to come back full force and play at an NBA level, it's just logical and obvious that Robinson shouldn't have played that season.

Additionally, as already mentioned, Popovich is the kind of coach that would not sacrifice the career of an athlete for short term glory. We saw that in 2000 with Duncan out of the playoffs. Did Pop tank the playoffs that year?

[Budkin]

Everyone thought TD was going to Boston.

[ohmwrecker]

The problem here is the definition of tanking. To me, tanking is purposefully losing games to gain advantage on your chances at a high draft pick. To others, it means holding your best player out of the last 20 games after being legitimately injured for half of an already pointless season.
Tim Duncan was the only prize and a sure #1 pick in an otherwise very weak draft pool. Did the Spurs make decisions that would buoy their chances? Yes. Did they make these decisions with the faith that it was a sure thing that they would get Duncan? Absolutely not. It was a measured risk, but a risk nonetheless.
They took a pretty big gamble and they won. If that is what the universally accepted definition of tanking is, then I will have to agree.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

The problem here is the definition of tanking. To me, tanking is purposefully losing games to gain advantage on your chances at a high draft pick. To others, it means holding your best player out of the last 20 games after being legitimately injured for half of an already pointless season.
Tim Duncan was the only prize and a sure #1 pick in an otherwise very weak draft pool. Did the Spurs make decisions that would buoy their chances? Yes. Did they make these decisions with the faith that it was a sure thing that they would get Duncan? Absolutely not. It was a measured risk, but a risk nonetheless.
They took a pretty big gamble and they won. If that is what the universally accepted definition of tanking is, then I will have to agree.

Tanks a lot. Well said.

[Blake]

It was a measured risk, but a risk nonetheless.
They took a pretty big gamble and they won.

There was no risk or gamble involved. It was the only play.

[K-State Spur]

They took a pretty big gamble and they won. If that is what the universally accepted definition of tanking is, then I will have to agree.

How was it a gamble? If we rush a less than 100% robinson back, the Spurs win 27-28 games instead of 20. There was nothing on the line.

[easjer]

The thing is that Pop has shown a tendency to err on the side of caution concerning injury his entire coaching career.

Clearly that was CIA Pop covering his tracks. All these years.

[Cane]

How was it a gamble? If we rush a less than 100% robinson back, the Spurs win 27-28 games instead of 20. There was nothing on the line.

The safest bet was just to sit David Robinson out than rush him back. Especially for a big man as athletic as he was.

[Phenomanul]

How was it a gamble? If we rush a less than 100% robinson back, the Spurs win 27-28 games instead of 20. There was nothing on the line.

That's just it... the remainder of Robinson's career was on the line.
Robinson had a major back injury and then broke his foot... [it was a lost season period].

Spurs nation should be grateful that Robinson's injuries coincided with Duncan's draft eligibility - a consensus #1 pick. That said, ask the Rockets or the Cavs how drafting a consensus #1 pick automatically guarantees one a championship (Yao, Bron). Robinson didn't plan on being hurt.

Duncan is a special player... the Spurs simply "made limonade" out of that horrible season.

The Spurs ended the season by winning games (games against the very teams that they were jockeying lottery position with)... I don't know how that could be considered tanking...

Boston had two top 5 picks that year and by far the highest chance of winning the Lottery... but like most here already mentioned (from the Bill Simmons article)

The Spurs not only landed the "TEST" ping-pong ball.
The Spurs were drawn on the second ball. (1st legitimate ball = 1st pick)
and The Spurs were drawn the third ball. (ignored since we had already obtained the first pick).

There was no way anyone else would have landed Duncan that year. It was meant to be.

[said7]

Even after we got the #1 pick there was still speculation that we'd take duncan. We cad a center already.

[coyotes_geek]

Even after we got the #1 pick there was still speculation that we'd take duncan. We cad a center already.

:lol

No there wasn't.

[K-State Spur]

That's just it... the remainder of Robinson's career was on the line.
Robinson had a major back injury and then broke his foot... [it was a lost season period].

Oh - I agree. I'm saying that there was no gamble in NOT playing Robinson (i.e. tanking as some people are calling it). There was nothing to be gained in playing him, thus there was no opportunity cost in sitting him.

[ohmwrecker]

There was no risk or gamble involved. It was the only play.


How was it a gamble? If we rush a less than 100% robinson back, the Spurs win 27-28 games instead of 20. There was nothing on the line.

The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?

It was a weak draft pool. Tim Duncan was the only sure thing.

I agreed that holding back Robinson was wise. Did you not read that part?


To others, it means holding your best player out of the last 20 games after being legitimately injured for half of an already pointless season.

[K-State Spur]

The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?


but there was NOTHING to be gained by rushing robinson back. any way you slice it, he was unavailable for most games and wouldn't have been near 100% for others. playoffs were out of the question.

there was no added risk to "tanking" vs. not tanking.

for it to be a gamble - we would have had to be risking on losing out on something of value by not rushing David back.

i may be arguing semantics here, but i don't think "gamble" was the right word.

[Blake]

The risk was in hoping the balls to bounce in their favor for the consensus #1 pick. What's your consolation prize? Keith Van Horn?

that makes no sense.


I agreed that holding back Robinson was wise. Did you not read that part?

I agree that you agreed it was wise.

I disagree that there was a gamble to do so.

If anything, the gamble would have been to play Robinson and risk injury.

[ohmwrecker]

but there was NOTHING to be gained by rushing robinson back. any way you slice it, he was unavailable for most games and wouldn't have been near 100% for others. playoffs were out of the question..

I'm not arguing this point. I don't see what is so difficult to understand here.


there was no added risk to "tanking" vs. not tanking.

Exactly what I said . . . again, you are arguing a moot point.


for it to be a gamble - we would have had to be risking on losing out on something of value by not rushing David back.

i may be arguing semantics here, but i don't think "gamble" was the right word.

Apparently so . . . the "gamble' they took was on the future of the franchise. Tim Duncan was the only franchise player in the draft. If they wanted to hedge their bets, they could have lost more games. They played out the season with their best hand (not risking Robinson) and let the ping pong balls fall were they may.

[ohmwrecker]

that makes no sense.

Why? Boston had the greatest chance of getting the #1 pick.



I agree that you agreed it was wise.

I disagree that there was a gamble to do so.

If anything, the gamble would have been to play Robinson and risk injury.

I'm talking about gambling on the lottery, not the season.

[Blake]

I'm talking about gambling on the lottery, not the season.

They were already in the lottery. There was no gambling involved.

[ohmwrecker]

They were already in the lottery. There was no gambling involved.

They certainly weren't guaranteed Duncan at #1. The rest of the draft was not going to yield a franchise player. That's the risk they took. Playing a lottery game with one prize is technically gambling.

It seems kind of pointless to argue the semantics of language when we basically agree on the whole of the argument.

[Blake]

They certainly weren't guaranteed Duncan at #1. The rest of the draft was not going to yield a franchise player. That's the risk they took. Playing a lottery game with one prize is technically gambling.

It seems kind of pointless to argue the semantics of language when we basically agree on the whole of the argument.


They took a pretty big gamble and they won.

If it was a big gamble on the Spurs part to sit Robinson, then I'm wondering what the safe bet would have been.

If we are in agreement, then it's really not an issue of semantics.......you just misspoke.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Fucking shit. Can we just move on? Richard Jefferson's gayness wasn't debated this heavily.

[ohmwrecker]

If it was a big gamble on the Spurs part to sit Robinson, then I'm wondering what the safe bet would have been.

Again . . . never said it was a gamble to keep Robinson out.


If we are in agreement, then it's really not an issue of semantics.......you just misspoke.

How many championships do the Spurs win if they picked Keith Van Horn or Chauncey Billups in '97?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

OMG. Has anyone seen this yet?
Makes me wonder if RJ might be gay...

http://cdn.everyjoe.com/files/2010/08/richard-jefferson-gay.jpg

[Blake]

Again . . . never said it was a gamble to keep Robinson out.


Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

[ohmwrecker]

Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Then what exactly was the big gamble the Spurs took?

Extending Tony Parker.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

Did you watch the Criminal Minds spinoff last night? I'm curious about wheter to watch it. Forrest Whittaker is a great actor and I'm wondering how he does on TV.

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure I answered that question several times already. Don't you ever get tired of pointless arguing?

I already told you your explanation makes no sense.

You said sitting Robinson was no gamble.

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I already told you your explanation makes no sense.

You said sitting Robinson was no gamble.

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

There was no gamble. Now shut the fuck up.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Let's agree to disagree and just enjoy the rest of this great season.


Sounds like a plan. GO SPURS.

[Blake]

Did you watch the Criminal Minds spinoff last night? I'm curious about wheter to watch it. Forrest Whittaker is a great actor and I'm wondering how he does on TV.

I'm betting there are plenty of trolls that will give you all the attention you are craving downstairs in the nba forum.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I'm betting there are plenty of trolls that will give you all the attention you are craving downstairs in the nba forum.

I don't ever post in the NBA forum.

[ohmwrecker]

Since they did just that, what exactly was the gamble the Spurs took?

That they would get Duncan with a lucky ping pong ball bounce. If we can agree that was indeed the goal, and we can agree that, other than keeping Robinson out, they did not intentionally lose games to increase their odds of selecting the #1 pick, then I fail to see why we are still arguing.

[Blake]

I don't ever post in the NBA forum.

since you are a whore begging for attention, I recommend you try it.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

since you are a whore begging for attention, I recommend you try it.

I'm begging for attention? I'm just bored. You're the one that is craving to be told "you were right".

[Blake]

That they would get Duncan with a lucky ping pong ball bounce. If we can agree that was indeed the goal, and we can agree that, other than keeping Robinson out, they did not intentionally lose games to increase their odds of selecting the #1 pick, then I fail to see why we are still arguing.

I'm not arguing just yet. I'm asking for clarification on your use of the word "gamble".

Keeping Robinson out was no gamble. Tanking games was no gamble.
You stated the Spurs took a big gamble.

I'm asking you to specifcally state what the gamble was.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm asking you to specifcally state what the gamble was.

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

[Blake]

I'm begging for attention? I'm just bored.

Great, the NBA forum downstairs will give you all the attention you need to relieve your boredom.


You're the one that is craving to be told "you were right".

Na, attention whore telling me I'm right means nothing to me.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Great, the NBA forum downstairs will give you all the attention you need to relieve your boredom.



Na, attention whore telling me I'm right means nothing to me.

I just checked out the NBA forum and it looked like just a bunch of off topic stuff so I didn't stick around.

Do you know any funny/interesting websites?

[duncan228]

Everyone thought TD was going to Boston.

Yup.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/oddsandends/dynastythatwasnt.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/oddsandends/celticsstpic.jpg

[Spurminator]

It would have been stupid to bring David Robinson back to play the final few games of a lost season. Call it tanking if you want, but I would have been pissed as a fan that we were jeopardizing DRob's future for a few meaningless wins.

We got lucky in the Lottery, but someone has to win it. Given the amount of great work that has gone into not only KEEPING Duncan in San Antonio but surrounding him with talent and remaining elite all of these years, to say all of the Spurs' success is based on their tank job in 1997 is pretty narrow minded.

[Blake]

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

so it was not a gamble to sit Robinson but they gambled that they would get Duncan.

sorry you don't understand what it means to gamble.

[rascal]

That they would get Tim Duncan. I just can't state it any more simply. Sorry.

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

[ohmwrecker]

so it was not a gamble to sit Robinson but they gambled that they would get Duncan.

sorry you don't understand what it means to gamble.

Gambling the future of the franchise on a 21% chance that a bunch of ping pong balls bounce your way? If you can honestly tell me that the Spurs would've been just as successful with KVH as their #1 draft pick, or that their decision to leave Robinson out wasn't at least partially based on the small chance of getting Duncan in the draft, and that after making that decision they did not try to intentionally lose games to increase their chances, then you, sir, just cannot be reasoned with.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.

[rascal]

I'm not arguing this point. I don't see what is so difficult to understand here.



Exactly what I said . . . again, you are arguing a moot point.



Apparently so . . . the "gamble' they took was on the future of the franchise. Tim Duncan was the only franchise player in the draft. If they wanted to hedge their bets, they could have lost more games. They played out the season with their best hand (not risking Robinson) and let the ping pong balls fall were they may.


They did not play the season with their best hand as Robinson was cleared to play but held out.

[rascal]

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.

So it was more of a gamble to sit Robinson instead of playing Robinson to decrease the odds of getting Duncan in a lost season?
Now that doesn't make any sense.

[rascal]

LOL. What? It fits the classic definition of a gamble.


There was nothing to lose since the spurs were not going to make the playoffs anyways by sitting Robinson. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and mess up their odds to get Duncan.

[HarlemHeat37]

Hey rascal, sorry about the Lakers' loss to the Cavs last night, uh, must have hit hard..

[wontstartdumbthreads]

There was nothing to lose since the spurs were not going to make the playoffs anyways by sitting Robinson. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and mess up their odds to get Duncan.

I agree. There was no real wager the Spurs made. Nothing risked.

[ohmwrecker]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

We've been over that already. The Spurs made a decision to keep Robinson out for the last 20 games (approx.). This decision was at least partially based on the fact that ONE legit franchise player was available at the #1 pick in the draft. Knowing that it would only increase their chances at the #1 pick to "lose out" the remainder of the season, The Spurs, to the best of my knowledge, played out the remainder of the season in a competitive manner with the limited roster that they had. Therefore, "risking" crucial % points in the lottery.

[Blake]

Thats not at all a gamble. It was more of a gamble to play Robinson and increase the odds of getting more wins to decrease the odds to land Duncan.

^ he gets it.


Gambling the future of the franchise on a 21% chance that a bunch of ping pong balls bounce your way? If you can honestly tell me that the Spurs would've been just as successful with KVH as their #1 draft pick, or that their decision to leave Robinson out wasn't at least partially based on the small chance of getting Duncan in the draft, and that after making that decision they did not try to intentionally lose games to increase their chances, then you, sir, just cannot be reasoned with.

You aren't going to reason with me regarding the definition of "gamble".

The gamble would have been if they would have played Robinson as they might have won more games and risked injury.

The safe play was to let him sit, rest up and increase the odds of getting Duncan. There was no risk and no loss in doing that.

You simply had it backwards. No worries. :tu

[ohmwrecker]

You simply had it backwards. No worries. :tu

My position is not pro or con the decision to rest Robinson for the remainder of the season. You keep trying to make that my argument, but it's not and it never was. What I am saying is that once that decision is made the Spurs are obviously saying, "We are going after Duncan in the draft." My idea of "tanking" at that point, would be to try to lose as many games as possible to increase your odds at the #1 pick. Which, it seems, they did not do. And that . . . was the gamble.

[Blake]

My position is not pro or con the decision to rest Robinson for the remainder of the season. You keep trying to make that my argument, but it's not and it never was. What I am saying is that once that decision is made the Spurs are obviously saying, "We are going after Duncan in the draft." My idea of "tanking" at that point, would be to try to lose as many games as possible to increase your odds at the #1 pick. Which, it seems, they did not do. And that . . . was the gamble.

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

[ohmwrecker]

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

The underwhelming nature of a Spurs roster minus David Robinson and Sean Elliott is not under debate. Did they purposefully lose games?

[Blake]

Did they purposefully lose games?

I don't think they did.

I don't think forfeiting the games is an option.

Therefore there is no gamble involved.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

[coyotes_geek]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

So, what does the word "tank" actually mean?

Different people have different definitions of what qualifies and what doesn't.

[Blake]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

I think they tanked as much as they thought they could without breaking any rules.

[rascal]

so you think starting Cory Alexander, Carl Herrera, Cadillac Anderson, Vinny Del Negro and an old Dominique Wilkins was a big gamble in that those guys might have won too many games.

thanks for finally clarifying.

Maybe he expected the spurs to field a team full of 10 day contracts.

[rascal]

Hey rascal, sorry about the Lakers' loss to the Cavs last night, uh, must have hit hard..

Never liked the Lakers.

[rascal]

The underwhelming nature of a Spurs roster minus David Robinson and Sean Elliott is not under debate. Did they purposefully lose games?

The players tried to win, management did not try to field the best team by sitting Robinson. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

[rascal]

Anyone who says the Spurs tanked in 97 simply doesn't know what the word tank actually means.

OK big shot what does the word tank mean to you?
This guy thinks he is the biggest know it all on this site.

Manny is God. Don't tell me your name is Manny. :lol

[ohmwrecker]

The players tried to win, management did not try to field the best team by sitting Robinson. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?

It's not. That's exactly what I said.

[rascal]

It's not. That's exactly what I said.

Then we all agree management tanked by not fielding the best team that they could. Thats what I call tank, when you don't try to the best of your ability to win.

[ohmwrecker]

And . . . full circle.

[Blake]

And . . . full circle.

I think we get it now.

You think the Spurs took a big risk/gamble by putting 5 mediocre players out on the court.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

I think we get it now.

You think the Spurs took a big risk/gamble by putting 5 mediocre players out on the court.

Whew. I was worried this thread was going to die out.

[Blake]

Whew. I was worried this thread was going to die out.

good thing you helped keep it at the top

[FilSpursFan]

Is tanking against the rule? Do you think the CAVS is doing it right now? Do they have a superstar in sight?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

good thing you helped keep it at the top

Just taking a gamble.

[Blake]

Just taking a gamble.

good bump. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

So, what does the word "tank" actually mean?

Different people have different definitions of what qualifies and what doesn't.

Tank means intentionally losing games. They didn't intentionally lose a single game that year. They were barely in the lottery at all and were if not for a crazy statistical oddball they would have landed a player what would have done very little in the long run.

I remember that year Monty Williams was probably our second best player and unknowns like Jamie Fieck made the rotation because there were games we couldn't suit more than 8 players due to injuries.

The Spurs didn't have to try to lose games because injuries and a lack of talent took care of that for them.

[Blake]

Tank means intentionally losing games. They didn't intentionally lose a single game that year. They were barely in the lottery at all and were if not for a crazy statistical oddball they would have landed a player what would have done very little in the long run.

I remember that year Monty Williams was probably our second best player and unknowns like Jamie Fieck made the rotation because there were games we couldn't suit more than 8 players due to injuries.

The Spurs didn't have to try to lose games because injuries and a lack of talent took care of that for them.

true or false: David was cleared to play at/near the end of the season.

[Spurminator]

Even if the worst they could do was 10th seed, if they were out of the Playoffs why would they bring Robinson back and risk further injury? That's not tanking, that's smart personnel management.

[bus driver]

We tanked. I'm fine with it. I hope we do it again and get similar results.

+1


and if you dont like it than :flipoff

[Blake]

That's not tanking, that's smart personnel management.

it's both, imo.

[ambchang]

They did not play the season with their best hand as Robinson was cleared to play but held out.

Was Robinson cleared to play? When was that?

[Spurminator]

it's both, imo.

I don't think so. While the chance of landing a high pick certainly was a fortunate byproduct of losing, I don't think the possibility of getting Duncan (or KVH or Ron Mercer) even entered into the decision to hold Robinson out. He's a HOF-level franchise player.

It would have been tanking if Robinson had been playing all season, was perfectly healthy, and we just decided to bench him the last ten games because we were out of the Playoff hunt. I'd have even supported that, but I would have called it tanking.

[Blake]

I don't think so. While the chance of landing a high pick certainly was a fortunate byproduct of losing, I don't think the possibility of getting Duncan (or KVH or Ron Mercer) even entered into the decision to hold Robinson out. He's a HOF-level franchise player.


With no shot at the playoffs, there was no need to play Dave so it makes sense to have sit him to avoid injury.

But the thought of getting Duncan crossed my mind at the time, so I'm pretty sure it crossed theirs as well.

If for some stupid reason they ever were to come and admit they sat Dave in order to improve the lottery odds, I'd still be cool with it.

[MannyIsGod]

true or false: David was cleared to play at/near the end of the season.


Even if the worst they could do was 10th seed, if they were out of the Playoffs why would they bring Robinson back and risk further injury? That's not tanking, that's smart personnel management.

[MannyIsGod]

it's both, imo.

It can't be both. Not playing a player with legitimate injury concerns completely negates the thought that you're intentionally trying to lose. You're either trying to lose or you have legitimate reasons to keep your player sidelined and with David it was obviously legitimate. He was also cleared to play mid season when he got hurt and he wasn't exactly young at that point in his career.

What the Spurs did is not tanking.

[Spurminator]

But the thought of getting Duncan crossed my mind at the time, so I'm pretty sure it crossed theirs as well.

Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still help Robinson out?

[rascal]

Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still help Robinson out?

Question 1- Yes
Question 2- No

[rascal]

It can't be both. Not playing a player with legitimate injury concerns completely negates the thought that you're intentionally trying to lose. You're either trying to lose or you have legitimate reasons to keep your player sidelined and with David it was obviously legitimate. He was also cleared to play mid season when he got hurt and he wasn't exactly young at that point in his career.

What the Spurs did is not tanking.

Robinson could have played at the end of that season. I remember that year and I remember Robinson was held out at least 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the season. Robinson could have played but the spurs saw no point in it.

[ohmwrecker]

You think the Spurs took a big risk/gamble by putting 5 mediocre players out on the court.

No.


Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still held Robinson out?


Question 1- Yes
Question 2- No

Beep! Beep!

[rascal]

Was Robinson cleared to play? When was that?

Doubt if anyone will find any info on when but towards the last month of the season.

[Blake]

It can't be both. Not playing a player with legitimate injury concerns completely negates the thought that you're intentionally trying to lose. You're either trying to lose or you have legitimate reasons to keep your player sidelined and with David it was obviously legitimate. He was also cleared to play mid season when he got hurt and he wasn't exactly young at that point in his career.

What the Spurs did is not tanking.

so Dave was cleared to play, but didn't.

What do you call it when they aren't trying very hard to win?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still help Robinson out?

They would have still won a title with Van Horn next to DRob.

[Blake]

No.


Since forfeiting games is out of the question, that's exactly what you are saying.

If it's not, explain again in one clear sentence what the big gamble/risk was.

[wontstartdumbthreads]

Since forfeiting games is out of the question, that's exactly what you are saying.

If it's not, explain again in one clear sentence what the big gamble/risk was.

That Van Horn wasn't NBA ready becuase he came out of Utah. Duh.....

[Spurminator]

Question 1- Yes
Question 2- No

You think they would have brought Robinson back to play in a few meaningless games at the end of a season that he sustained two injuries? For what? You just said they "saw no point in it," how does the elimination of Tim Duncan from the scenario give incentive to playing Robinson?

[wontstartdumbthreads]

You think they would have brought Robinson back to play in a few meaningless games at the end of a season that he sustained two injuries? For what? You just said they "saw no point in it," how does the elimination of Tim Duncan from the scenario give incentive to playing Robinson?

They would have overplayed him with the hope of him incurring an injury that would keep him out of the next season and then give them a shot at the lottery after that.

[Blake]

Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still help Robinson out?

1 - I think it was one reason of several, so yeah.

2 - yeah

Why would they not care about getting the #1 pick, regardless of who is in it?

and why are you making this to be either one reason or the other?

I think they sat Dave for both reasons.

[rascal]

You think they would have brought Robinson back to play in a few meaningless games at the end of a season that he sustained two injuries? For what? You just said they "saw no point in it," how does the elimination of Tim Duncan from the scenario give incentive to playing Robinson?

Because they had nothing to gain by sitting him if Duncan was not in the draft. There was no franchise player for Robinson to sit for.

[Phenomanul]

Because they had nothing to gain by sitting him if Duncan was not in the draft. There was no franchise player for Robinson to sit for.

That's the part you're not getting... Robinson was sitting for a franchise player.... HIMSELF!

[rascal]

That's the part you're not getting... Robinson was sitting for a franchise player.... HIMSELF!

You're not getting it.
So you believe he was still injured that entire season.
I believe he was healthy and good to play towards the last month of that season.

[Obstructed_View]

You're not getting it.
So you believe he was still injured that entire season.
I believe he was healthy and good to play towards the last month of that season.

I think the argument is that Robinson was sitting toward the end of that season because he was a hall of fame player in the prime of his career and they didn't want to risk reinjury of a broken foot for the sake of meaningless games. They still put all their healthy players on the floor and tried to win every game. There's no requirement that teams force their players back on the floor. The Celtics a few years ago ran end-game plays with the purpose of losing the game, which is something completely different.

[rascal]

I think the argument is that Robinson was sitting toward the end of that season because he was a hall of fame player in the prime of his career and they didn't want to risk reinjury of a broken foot for the sake of meaningless games. They still put all their healthy players on the floor and tried to win every game. There's no requirement that teams force their players back on the floor. The Celtics a few years ago ran end-game plays with the purpose of losing the game, which is something completely different.

Reinjury would imply that he was not healthy enough to play.

[rascal]

I think the argument is that Robinson was sitting toward the end of that season because he was a hall of fame player in the prime of his career and they didn't want to risk reinjury of a broken foot for the sake of meaningless games. They still put all their healthy players on the floor and tried to win every game. There's no requirement that teams force their players back on the floor. The Celtics a few years ago ran end-game plays with the purpose of losing the game, which is something completely different.

Fear of reinjury would imply that he was not healthy enough to play without an increase of risk of injury.
Again it goes back to if you thought he was over the injury and healthy enough to play .

[Obstructed_View]

Reinjury would imply that he was not healthy enough to play.

You can be healthy enough to play before a bone is completely healed, and you can also risk reinjury when you haven't been playing and don't have your rhythm. You never really know with a foot injury anyway. If the Spurs had been a contender Robinson might have played, and they'd have taken those risks to try to win a title. You certainly don't risk your franchise player during a lost season. Kevin Garnett was held out of the last few games of several seasons when he was a Timberwolf.

[rascal]

I think the argument is that Robinson was sitting toward the end of that season because he was a hall of fame player in the prime of his career and they didn't want to risk reinjury of a broken foot for the sake of meaningless games. They still put all their healthy players on the floor and tried to win every game. There's no requirement that teams force their players back on the floor. The Celtics a few years ago ran end-game plays with the purpose of losing the game, which is something completely different.

Did you even follow the spurs back then? Many arguing here did not even follow the team back then and don't even remember that season.

[rascal]

You can be healthy enough to play before a bone is completely healed, and you can also risk reinjury when you haven't been playing and don't have your rhythm. You never really know with a foot injury anyway. If the Spurs had been a contender Robinson might have played, and they'd have taken those risks to try to win a title. You certainly don't risk your franchise player during a lost season. Kevin Garnett was held out of the last few games of several seasons when he was a Timberwolf.

I doubt if that is true about being able to play on broken bones in the foot not yet healed. And i never heard of that being the case with Robinson.

So his bone was not healed completely now. If that is not your argument then why bother bringing it up.

We are not talking about the Timberwolves.

[Obstructed_View]

Did you even follow the spurs back then? Many arguing here did not even follow the team back then and don't even remember that season.

Um, yeah I followed the Spurs back then. Not sure why it matters. I remember that season clearly. There were a number of games where guys could have played and were held out.

a) Popovich has done that every year since then

b) The Spurs tried to win every game with the players they had on the floor

c) The Spurs did not end with the worst record in the league.

[Obstructed_View]

I doubt if that is true about being able to play on broken bones in the foot not yet healed. And i never heard of that being the case with Robinson.

So his bone was not healed completely now. If that is not your argument then why bother bringing it up.

We are not talking about the Timberwolves.

lol You're an idiot, and you're clearly not interested in actually debating or listening. Teams routinely keep superstars out of meaningless games. Foot injuries are always something to worry about (ask the Rockets, even though we are "not talking about them"). Broken bones, especially in the foot, require recovery times anywhere between 4-12 weeks, and that's for people who aren't incredibly athletic professional athletes.

[Spurminator]

1 - I think it was one reason of several, so yeah.

2 - yeah

Why would they not care about getting the #1 pick, regardless of who is in it?

and why are you making this to be either one reason or the other?

I think they sat Dave for both reasons.

Let me ask the question a different way.

Say there was NO draft in 1997, so there is no hope for the Spurs improving their team with a rookie pick. Robinson is coming off his second injury of the season and the Spurs are out of the Playoff picture. Does he still sit?

Unless you're rascal, you'd probably answer Yes. So it wasn't for both reasons. Robinson's status as a franchise player was THE reason. The draft pick was a lucky byproduct of that decision, but was not a factor.

[Blake]

Let me ask the question a different way.

Say there was NO draft in 1997, so there is no hope for the Spurs improving their team with a rookie pick. Robinson is coming off his second injury of the season and the Spurs are out of the Playoff picture. Does he still sit?

Unless you're rascal, you'd probably answer Yes. So it wasn't for both reasons. Robinson's status as a franchise player was THE reason. The draft pick was a lucky byproduct of that decision, but was not a factor.

yes, he still sits...... because you are saving him from playing this year in order to improve your chances of winning next year.

I'd still call it a tank job. I'd be fine if someone wants to call it sandbagging.

You saying that them sitting Dave for health reasons only is an opinion that you or I will never be able to prove one way or the other.

[trypldubl]

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/duncan228/oddsandends/dynastythatwasnt.jpg

:lol Still have this issue. I kept it because for one Tim looks rediculous in that Celtic green and I wanted to read it again after a few years.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7962/imag0104h.jpg

The article states, how the Celtics put all their eggs in one basket. They seriously thought that Tim was going to go there without a doubt. That he was going to save the franchise and bring it back from the dark times since the deatch of Reggie Lewis. The Sporting News even came up with a fake time line of what would have happended had they got Duncan.

97: Draft Duncan and they take a risk on T-mac because Duncan is sure thing.

98: After getting eliminated by the Bulls, the Celts trade Dana Barros to Pheonix for Nash
99: Celtics lose to the Blazers in the Finals (thats right Tlong:lobt2: )
2000: After winning 70 and having been in the most watched Finals in NBA history the Celtic beat LA.

2001-2004: the Lakers and Celtic meet in the finals for four more years and the NBC renews its contract with the NBA. Jordan joins up with the lakers in '02 and the lakers win the next two with the Celtics winning in 04

2005-present: Billy Donavan is now the coach of the Celtics and Duncan and nash keep are in the eastern finals every year. The spurs win the lottery in '07 and draft the next great big man in Greg Oden. :(

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1064/imag0105b.jpg

They went into more detail but that was just the highlight of timeline they came up with. Talk about not letting go.

[ambchang]

Doubt if anyone will find any info on when but towards the last month of the season.

I remember the Spurs were saying that Robinson would be available end of Feb, then the whole thing just dropped off the map with no mention.

That said, Robinson went through a pretty significant surgery with screws in his ankles around Christmas time, so the original time of end of Feb was really aggressive.

Makes perfect sense to sit Robinson at that point in the season, or you'd risk something like a Brandon Roy by pointlessly rushing a franchise player to play absolutely meaningless games.

[Obstructed_View]

If you're on the fence about bringing Robinson back from that injury, the potential of getting Tim Duncan makes that a pretty easy decision. There was clearly nothing, and I mean NOTHING to gain by bringing Robinson back. Giving him an extra four months for the bones in his foot to knit and getting a good player in what was considered at the time a very deep draft was a no brainer.

[ohmwrecker]

I don't think the '97 draft pool was ever considered "deep". I remember that Duncan was widely considered the one and only prize of that draft.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't think the '97 draft pool was ever considered "deep". I remember that Duncan was widely considered the one and only prize of that draft.

It's true that Duncan was historically good, and the only absolute no-brainer superstar in the draft, but guys like Van Horn, Billups, Thomas, Daniels, Battie, Mercer, were all projected to be good pros, and though few of them were standouts, a huge percentage of those guys turned out to be legit NBA players.

I did a lot of reading on draft boards that year because I didn't think the Spurs had any chance at Duncan. The Spurs probably would have been pretty good with Billups. There's no telling how AD might have turned out if he'd been in a situation like San Antonio instead of Vancouver. Thomas

[ohmwrecker]

I was pretty sure the Spurs were going to wind up with KVH. You can imagine my relief and elation.
Billups would've been an upgrade, as would a few of those players, but there was no one else outside of Tim that would have improved the Spurs significantly.

[Johnny RIngo]

I don't think the '97 draft pool was ever considered "deep". I remember that Duncan was widely considered the one and only prize of that draft.

Duncan probably would have went first in '96 if he declared after his Junior year. Probably top 5 if he declared after his 2nd year in college.

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

If they tanked, it was the best and greatest tank in history. I'd hope they'd do it again if they went back again in a time machine.

[Johnny RIngo]

I was pretty sure the Spurs were going to wind up with KVH. You can imagine my relief and elation.
Billups would've been an upgrade, as would a few of those players, but there was no one else outside of Tim that would have improved the Spurs significantly.

Assuming SA never got Duncan, they're probably still a 50 win team up until 2000. Portland more than likely wins the 'ship in '99. Not sure about after that as DRob was in decline mode by then. Lakers probably four-peat.