spectator
05-05-2011, 05:50 PM
on a light note after the play-off exit, i did a quick research - ever since the spurs joined the nba (76-77 season), no 60+ game winning team (even percentage adjusted for the 99 lock-out season) has missed on having at least 1 player on the all-nba team.
other than the 88-89 detroit pistons.
curiously though, 88-89 was the season when the all-nba team expanded to include 3 teams, instead of 2.
here's the thing, normally ppl would look into stats and try to find out why other players like mark prince made it over isiah thomas. that's fine. however, most fans here - like me - were only -5 to 10 years old when that happened, and have no historical context whatsoever. just google that team if you don't have the time to read a book about it. you'll shortly find out that it was the most hated team in all sports. all time.
that might explain some of the media ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
fast forward to this season - just by looking at the espn b(s) experts votes for the all-nba team, i find it hard to believe that there is no consensus on one spurs player to make the team. granted, they are not the only media members that get to vote, but they offer a partial view of greater picture.
you may wonder what is my interest in this story - to have a certain spur in the all-nba team? not so much. i am a big duncan fan. more than ginobili and parker and hill and ... together. would i be happy if duncan got one more selection? yes. will he get it? no. does he deserve it? not for power forward. too many this year. for center? borderline. PER-wise, he deserves it. (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=c&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dc)
spurs-record-wise, he deserves it. you can also make other arguments why he does not. it matters not to this end; i am more than happy with duncan's 13 all-nba selection (3rd most all time).
here is my question that i offer for debate - if no spur makes (at least) the 3rd all-nba team this year, what argument would you make to explain this? (assuming the big 3 are the only players in the discussion)
1. the league has better players at those positions: PG, SG, C
2. the spurs do not receive enough credit from the media - being eliminated in the 1st round does not help; media's (antipathy and indifference combined) towards the spurs is somewhat similar to the pistons hate in a year when the league has so many exciting/more marketable stories.
3. the "at least 1 all-nba selection for a 60+ winning team" rule had to be broken at some point in history; the rule does not guarantee that a player should make that team (detroit team excluded for previously mentioned arguments)
4. <insert your own definition/explanation>
lastly, i would say that anyone could make a point for each of the aforementioned suggestions. i do not think that one is entirely better than the other. i would welcome a civil conversation on the topic.
other than the 88-89 detroit pistons.
curiously though, 88-89 was the season when the all-nba team expanded to include 3 teams, instead of 2.
here's the thing, normally ppl would look into stats and try to find out why other players like mark prince made it over isiah thomas. that's fine. however, most fans here - like me - were only -5 to 10 years old when that happened, and have no historical context whatsoever. just google that team if you don't have the time to read a book about it. you'll shortly find out that it was the most hated team in all sports. all time.
that might explain some of the media ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
fast forward to this season - just by looking at the espn b(s) experts votes for the all-nba team, i find it hard to believe that there is no consensus on one spurs player to make the team. granted, they are not the only media members that get to vote, but they offer a partial view of greater picture.
you may wonder what is my interest in this story - to have a certain spur in the all-nba team? not so much. i am a big duncan fan. more than ginobili and parker and hill and ... together. would i be happy if duncan got one more selection? yes. will he get it? no. does he deserve it? not for power forward. too many this year. for center? borderline. PER-wise, he deserves it. (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=c&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dc)
spurs-record-wise, he deserves it. you can also make other arguments why he does not. it matters not to this end; i am more than happy with duncan's 13 all-nba selection (3rd most all time).
here is my question that i offer for debate - if no spur makes (at least) the 3rd all-nba team this year, what argument would you make to explain this? (assuming the big 3 are the only players in the discussion)
1. the league has better players at those positions: PG, SG, C
2. the spurs do not receive enough credit from the media - being eliminated in the 1st round does not help; media's (antipathy and indifference combined) towards the spurs is somewhat similar to the pistons hate in a year when the league has so many exciting/more marketable stories.
3. the "at least 1 all-nba selection for a 60+ winning team" rule had to be broken at some point in history; the rule does not guarantee that a player should make that team (detroit team excluded for previously mentioned arguments)
4. <insert your own definition/explanation>
lastly, i would say that anyone could make a point for each of the aforementioned suggestions. i do not think that one is entirely better than the other. i would welcome a civil conversation on the topic.