Winning 'ugly'

[ElNono]

I keep hearing about 'ugly win' or 'moral loss' from NASF, but back in the early glory days of the Duncan era, Spurs used to 'win ugly' all the time, tbh. Back when 4down was the first, second, third and fourth play in the playbook.

The Spurs would also lay an egg here or there during some meaningless regular season game (still remember losing to the 37-45 Knicks at home back in mid-March '03).

Now it's true that back then Timmy was much younger and healthier, and with the likes of Bowen and the Admiral around it was rare that the team would give up over 100 pts in a game, but they were fairly close contests regardless.

We have our current best player down (a 21 ppg , 7.6 ast man at that), and we've buckled down and can proudly show a 4-2 record for the stretch so far. And it's been done primarily with defense. On 3 out of the 4 games we've won during this stretch, the Spurs have only allowed 83pts(Chicago), 93pts(Thunder) and 91pts(Dallas). Even the aberration that was the Cleveland game, the team managed to lock them down to 23 pts in the final quarter to get the win.

There's obviously some more consistency needed going towards the playoffs (especially the Portland loss, since the Timberwolves loss didn't feature the two active players that are, IMO, our best defenders), but this team has shown they can really defend the ball when they put forth the effort. A returning Parker should also help, and things really need to be put in perspective: this team has lost only 4 games at home all season long. And two of those were in November. Only OKC sports such a record at home. If you remove the outlier that was the Portland game with 136 points, the Spurs have only allowed an average of 89.5ppg(!) at home for the season so far.

Personally, I longed for the days we would 'win ugly' again. To me it associates with stout defense, and winning even when your offense isn't clicking. Being able to get a stop when you need it. A must-have attribute of any contending team.

Let's hope we get Parker back, and everyone stays healthy for the stretch run, especially this jumpy Duncan. And we keep winning. Ugly or not.

[Pop]

The thing is, if you're gonna start making excuses for the team, then it works both ways, OKC was playing its 4th game in five nights and it's 7th game in 11 nights or something, and both Chicago and Dallas have some of the worst PG rotations in the league.

Now taking it up the ass by an Irving less Cavs team, there's no excuse for that, there's no way you can somehow find a positive in that kind of performance.

I for one am for saying that this team is flawed and that losing TP may end up being a positive because it highlights the flaw that were already there but less obvious with him :

- some of the worst point guard defense in the league when TP is sitting, could be fixed by giving Cojo the job, he probably wouldn't have gotten the opportunity without TP getting injured

- one of the softest frontline in the league when Duncan is sitting, could be fixed by integrating Baynes in the rotation but the clock is really ticking at that point

That's the two glaring flaws imo, yes we're strong and will be stronger with TP but that doesn't mean the team doesn't have problems.

[spurraider21]

Ugly wins for bad teams are foolsgold. Ugly wins for good teams shows we can play like complete shit and still manage to win. Prime Timmy Spurs would win ugly ALL the time, as you mentioned. We would build good leads, offense would go stagnant, we'd allow runs, etc, etc, but we'd end up winning games in much closer fashion than they should have been. If the guys are gna coast it against Minnesota, Cleveland here and there, I'm ok with that. As long as they show up for the big games. The last time we lost to a playoff team was Golden State in overtime. Prior to that, it was a 3 point loss at Memphis on January 11. We've been playing fine. Our losses have come to scrubs like Phoenix, Detroit, Portland (not THAT scrubby tbh), Minnesota. These are games where guys just didn't play hard because of who was on the schedule. I'm not that worried about it. As long as Tim is playing at this high level, Kawhi is making huge strides, and we are managing to pick up wins and cling to the #1 seed with TP out, I'm not complaining

[Obstructed_View]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.

[Arc]

do you wanna know why we don't completely destroy teams? because we're not aided by the refs like LA, Miami, and OKC. we normally shoot less, around the same, or just a little bit more FTs than the competition.. never a lot more like those three teams. i hate to play the ref card, but go take a look at the free throws for those teams. LA is shooting 30 a night. KD and westbrick shot more 'throws than the entire mavs team. lol competitive sports.. shit's rigged boys.

[therealtruth]

do you wanna know why we don't completely destroy teams? because we're not aided by the refs like LA, Miami, and OKC. we normally shoot less, around the same, or just a little bit more FTs than the competition.. never a lot more like those three teams. i hate to play the ref card, but go take a look at the free throws for those teams. LA is shooting 30 a night. KD and westbrick shot more 'throws than the entire mavs team. lol competitive sports.. shit's rigged boys.

We don't have guys that are good at drawing free throws. Manu's probably our best. Guys need to be aware of it because it helps in the playoffs. You need every advantage you can get and being able to get to the line can really help.

[temujin]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.

This.

[Chinook]

As I said in another thread, when Pop shortens his big-man rotation, a lot of problems will be fixed. Parker coming back will settle the starting lineup, and both Joseph and De Colo have gotten valuable time, and I feel more confident now that one of them will be able to handle playoff minutes. Parker's return will help Green and Ginobili out immensely. With Leonard coming into his own and Jackson and Diaw seeming to be moving toward playoff form, the Spurs are looking pretty good.

[Obstructed_View]

As I said in another thread, when Pop shortens his big-man rotation, a lot of problems will be fixed. Parker coming back will settle the starting lineup, and both Joseph and De Colo have gotten valuable time, and I feel more confident now that one of them will be able to handle playoff minutes. Parker's return will help Green and Ginobili out immensely. With Leonard coming into his own and Jackson and Diaw seeming to be moving toward playoff form, the Spurs are looking pretty good.

Manu and Duncan going into a postseason completely healthy would be nice for a change.

[TJastal]

As I said in another thread, when Pop shortens his big-man rotation, a lot of problems will be fixed. Parker coming back will settle the starting lineup, and both Joseph and De Colo have gotten valuable time, and I feel more confident now that one of them will be able to handle playoff minutes. Parker's return will help Green and Ginobili out immensely. With Leonard coming into his own and Jackson and Diaw seeming to be moving toward playoff form, the Spurs are looking pretty good.
This is all well and good but I worry that Pop will shorten the rotation too much. We will go from all out chaos of Pop's frenetic 12 man rotations to a 7 man rotation without even as much as a hiccup in between. This is why I wish coach Bud had been granted the head coaching responsibility back when Pop decided to play hookey from work for 2 weeks. I have no faith in Pop to make the correct decisions and it will cost the spurs once again. In his stints as head coach Bud has delivered and provides the team much more stable and rationale decisions which in turn will have a calming and settling effect allowing less distractions and ultimately benefit the team.

[benefactor]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.
As do I, but it's a different NBA now. If we have the latter ugly win and it was accompanied by key stops down the stretch of the game I will take it.

[TJastal]

As do I, but it's a different NBA now. If we have the latter ugly win and it was accompanied by key stops down the stretch of the game I will take it.


Agreed. The old defensive identity onlty teams of the past wouldn't cut it today. Especially in lieu of the fact that thanks to beanie-boy the league is now even more superstar driven and the league (an lesser extent media) pick their preferences and these annointed ones get special coddling from the league enforcers (refs).

For example if the old "bad boy" pistons were to play against the thunder today Duhrant and Westbrick would each shoot 20 free throws apiece.

[Seventyniner]

As I said in another thread, when Pop shortens his big-man rotation, a lot of problems will be fixed. Parker coming back will settle the starting lineup, and both Joseph and De Colo have gotten valuable time, and I feel more confident now that one of them will be able to handle playoff minutes. Parker's return will help Green and Ginobili out immensely. With Leonard coming into his own and Jackson and Diaw seeming to be moving toward playoff form, the Spurs are looking pretty good.

I know the sample size is extremely small, but playing only 3 bigs didn't seem to help against Cleveland. Blair got 7 minutes, but I don't count that as a 4-big rotation.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.


Bingo.

The D has fallen off a cliff lately, and it's more than just Parker being out.

[diego]

The thing is, if you're gonna start making excuses for the team, then it works both ways, OKC was playing its 4th game in five nights and it's 7th game in 11 nights or something, and both Chicago and Dallas have some of the worst PG rotations in the league.

Now taking it up the ass by an Irving less Cavs team, there's no excuse for that, there's no way you can somehow find a positive in that kind of performance.

I for one am for saying that this team is flawed and that losing TP may end up being a positive because it highlights the flaw that were already there but less obvious with him :

- some of the worst point guard defense in the league when TP is sitting, could be fixed by giving Cojo the job, he probably wouldn't have gotten the opportunity without TP getting injured

- one of the softest frontline in the league when Duncan is sitting, could be fixed by integrating Baynes in the rotation but the clock is really ticking at that point

That's the two glaring flaws imo, yes we're strong and will be stronger with TP but that doesn't mean the team doesn't have problems.

While I agree the team has some flaws (it'd be a miracle if it didnt), you cant read into the cavs game that much. The heat were seconds away from losing to a spurs team down 4 of its top players, but they're still far and away favorites to win it all. Even if the spurs "took it up the ass" from the irving-less cavs, they won and that game doesnt say a whole lot either way for our playoff chances.

Its not 2005/07 anymore where the spurs can swing from one play style to another seamlessly, and even then you always need luck and rhythm to go all the way. I feel much better about this year than last, even considering last year's win streak. I dont see how we as fans can ask for much more than that, its more improvement/change than even the biggest optimist could hope to get from an old team.

[ElNono]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.

No doubt I liked the 1999 version better too, especially since Duncan was just getting warmed up. But Cavs notwithstanding, I've been hearing the ugly win, moral loss argument even when we beat Dallas 92-91. Holding an opponent to 91 points in today's NBA is quite a feat. And it's not just them, add in OKC, the top offense in the league at the moment. And while Chicago is the lowest scoring team in the league, holding them 10pts below their average is still pretty impressive IMO.

These are all games within the last week or two, not some long time ago. I think people that like to focus on the Portland or Cavs game are missing the forest from the tree.

[Fabbs]

Personally, I longed for the days we would 'win ugly' again. To me it associates with stout defense, and winning even when your offense isn't clicking. Being able to get a stop when you need it. A must-have attribute of any contending team.
But it's been so "pretty" looking from 2008 til now.
Do you really want to disrupt that?

[ElNono]

But it's been so "pretty" looking from 2008 til now.
Do you really want to disrupt that?

I don't think we had this kind of defense since Bowen was traded/retired. We likely didn't have the personnel either. Kawhi's growth in that area, along with Green being up and down in that area too has helped be where we are. We probably defended better back then, especially since Duncan had a few less years, but this team is probably the closest to getting back to that.

[Fireball]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.

This was last year when our offense seemed unstoppable ... for most of this year we seem to win 100-95 or something and thats fine by me.

[Chinook]

Manu and Duncan going into a postseason completely healthy would be nice for a change.

Agreed. That's why Pop has the long rotations right now. When the playoffs start, though, he'll keep on of Duncan and Splitter on at all times.


This is all well and good but I worry that Pop will shorten the rotation too much. We will go from all out chaos of Pop's frenetic 12 man rotations to a 7 man rotation without even as much as a hiccup in between. This is why I wish coach Bud had been granted the head coaching responsibility back when Pop decided to play hookey from work for 2 weeks. I have no faith in Pop to make the correct decisions and it will cost the spurs once again. In his stints as head coach Bud has delivered and provides the team much more stable and rationale decisions which in turn will have a calming and settling effect allowing less distractions and ultimately benefit the team.

I don't think it will shrink THAT much. I'm thinking something like this: Parker/Joseph (or De Colo), Green/Ginobili, Leonard/Jackson, Splitter/Diaw (and some Jackson) and Duncan/Splitter (and some Diaw in certain matchups). That's nine players, which is a pretty healthy rotation for the post-season. Mostly, he'll try to stick with a back-up point and stop playing Blair and Bonner.


I know the sample size is extremely small, but playing only 3 bigs didn't seem to help against Cleveland. Blair got 7 minutes, but I don't count that as a 4-big rotation.

Besides sample size, you can also chalk it up to the players not being used to each other, the fact that Pop didn't keep one of Duncan and Splitter out there at all times, which he's more likely to do in the playoffs (Diaw with small-ball is no better than using Diaw and Blair) and that Parker didn't play, which means the starting unit is still out of sync on both ends.

[Cane]

Winning your mother is not very nice

Spurs can rely on their d this season. Anyway tbh I'm worried about the offense when it looks ugly. Spurs really don't have the players to make lemonade like say a Durant can. What will happen when our 3 point shooters are chased off the line and Parker is hounded by a SF? At least Kawhi has been working on his midrange junk game

[Fireball]

Manu and Duncan going into a postseason completely healthy would be nice for a change.

That happened last season. After all the past seasons I asked myself what if the Big 3 had been healthy? That "excuse" went down the toilet last season. Spurs were rolling. Spurs were healthy. Spurs lost in the WCF. Of course we had other excuses (the refs, Ibaka & Perkins shooting like they were Ray Allen, etc.), but this year we might be healthy and we are playing better defense ... thats whats nice.

[phxspurfan]

In 1999, an ugly win was when the Spurs scored 80 and held the opponent to 75. This year, and ugly win is when the Spurs score 120 and hold the opponent to 115.

I liked the 1999 version better.

Sorry gramps, but the NBA has changed since the 90s. I too long for the days when I would watch a game to see Anthony Mason elbow dudes in the chops when going for boards but now we have monkeyball.

[Horse]

I think losing both the games before and after the thunder game just shows that the thunder and the playoffs is what the Spurs are concerned with. I don't think their all that worried with the #1 seed and it seems they get bored from time to time. I believe they have a bad taste in their mouth from last season and now that the playoffs are approaching they just want to get it on with the top teams. Which could cause them to overlook the lesser insignifigant teams.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is all well and good but I worry that Pop will shorten the rotation too much. We will go from all out chaos of Pop's frenetic 12 man rotations to a 7 man rotation without even as much as a hiccup in between. This is why I wish coach Bud had been granted the head coaching responsibility back when Pop decided to play hookey from work for 2 weeks. I have no faith in Pop to make the correct decisions and it will cost the spurs once again. In his stints as head coach Bud has delivered and provides the team much more stable and rationale decisions which in turn will have a calming and settling effect allowing less distractions and ultimately benefit the team.

Just I think you cannot come up with something more inane, you somehow manage it.

Bravo!

[rjv]

our defense rarely sucked in those days. it has been atrocious over the past week.

[EVAY]

I am also one of those who prefers watching defense-oriented basketball. But, as so many of you have pointed out, Stern et.al. changed the rules to allow more points to be scored, believing (with some reason) that offensive derring-do outshines defensive clamp-downs for the average, casual fan.
That is who Stern went after in trying to expand the base of tv watchers and sell more ad revenues, the casual fan. Fans of the game itself like the way it used to be played, but there aren't enough people like that willing to pay the prices the owners want. That, plus the marketing of celebrity-driven basketball also pulls in the more casual fan.

One thing that I think we all have to give credit to Pop etc. for is the change they have created in the team's approach. When we were playing defense-first basketball, we also had two hall of fame 7 footers, and all the perimeter guys had to do was force the shooters off the 3 point line into the waiting blocks of Duncan and Robinson. When we lost Robinson, it took Pop longer than I thought it should have to figure out that our perimeter guys were still playing the same defense as they had been before, but now they were forcing shooters to go to the rim to be met by the like of Nesterovich and Perdu. It didn't work, and the league kept changing the rules to enable more and more scoring. Plus, our offense hadn't changed and it was still considered boring by casual fans.

Finally, Pop got both the message and the perimeter talent to change the offensive set around a catch and shoot game that relies on ball movement more than the Duncan 'bounce, bounce, bounce, back into the paint and shoot over somebody' game that was getting us wins but little ad revenue or national accolades. The offense we have now doesn't get as many foul calls as other teams because we are moving so much. Teams like OKC and Miami rely on superstars who go one-on-one and get foul calls. I still prefer to watch our kind of basketball, and I think that the coaching staff has done a terrific job of getting and utilizing talent that remains consistent with a true basketball fan's approach to the game, even if we can't win championships because the league remains celebrity and big-market driven.

All of the above is why I still prefer to watch our team play than most others, why I believe that we will win lots of regular season games, but that, as many of you have pointed out, we are not going to be able to win the whole thing because the league is going to want its product to remain what it has become.

To sell the Spurs, the league would have to sell basketball as a game. The league would have to educate the public to appreciate the game itself. That is not going to happen. Dunk contests and celebrity one-on-one play will continue to be rewarded.

We have to accept our reward as being able to watch the best basketball being played the right way from a small market and non-celebrity team as long as we can.

I like this team. We don't always play well. But we play right most of the time, and we play basketball. That's pretty much enough for me.

I have never bought into the 'real season is the playoffs', precisely because that is when the last thing that is important to winning is how well the game is being played. Of much greater import is who is playing and what sells. Thus, refs count more and celeb players count more in the playoffs than in the regular season. That is the product that is being sold.

[EVAY]

By the way, E-N, thanks for starting a thread that is actually thoughtful and thought provoking.

[pad300]

For example if the old "bad boy" pistons were to play against the thunder today Duhrant and Westbrick would each shoot 20 free throws apiece.

Utterly untrue and a complete slander on the Bad Boys. After the 3ed phantom foul call (6th FT), Rick Mahorn would break Westbrook in half on his next drive - they'd carry Westbrook off on a stretcher...Lets see you shoot those FT's from a hospital bed punk!

[ElNono]

By the way, E-N, thanks for starting a thread that is actually thoughtful and thought provoking.

:toast

[therealtruth]

I am also one of those who prefers watching defense-oriented basketball. But, as so many of you have pointed out, Stern et.al. changed the rules to allow more points to be scored, believing (with some reason) that offensive derring-do outshines defensive clamp-downs for the average, casual fan.
That is who Stern went after in trying to expand the base of tv watchers and sell more ad revenues, the casual fan. Fans of the game itself like the way it used to be played, but there aren't enough people like that willing to pay the prices the owners want. That, plus the marketing of celebrity-driven basketball also pulls in the more casual fan.


As much as the NBA has handcuffed defenders they've also relaxed illegal defense rules. It's now harder to be a 20+ game scorer.

[pgardn]

Hand/forearm checking away from the basket, defensive 3 seconds not employed, we are watching a very different game today.

very hard for me to approach as the game is so different.

I will agree that 99 was great. Funneling players to the baseline daring them to try Robinson/Duncan out...
That year was so fun watching us just grind teams down in the playoffs, we just slowly but surely sucked the will out of opponents. It was close to torture. The inevitability of slow, complete strangulation.

[pgardn]

As much as the NBA has handcuffed defenders they've also relaxed illegal defense rules. It's now harder to be a 20+ game scorer.

You can play zone. But, you cant park a big man under the basket. Huge advantage offense IMO.

[Obstructed_View]

Sorry gramps, but the NBA has changed since the 90s. I too long for the days when I would watch a game to see Anthony Mason elbow dudes in the chops when going for boards but now we have monkeyball.

Oh bullshit. The Spurs didn't hold the opposing team's scoring down because of excessive hand-checking. I'm not pining for the days of VanGundyBall, where you run seven-seconds-or-less after dribbling the ball for 17 seconds first. The Spurs did it by keeping teams out of the paint and running them off the three point line. The Spurs defended with their feet and their length, not with their hands. They have the roster to do it this year, which is frankly the only shot they have at a title.

[Obstructed_View]

That happened last season. After all the past seasons I asked myself what if the Big 3 had been healthy? That "excuse" went down the toilet last season. Spurs were rolling. Spurs were healthy. Spurs lost in the WCF. Of course we had other excuses (the refs, Ibaka & Perkins shooting like they were Ray Allen, etc.), but this year we might be healthy and we are playing better defense ... thats whats nice.

Duncan wasn't exactly injured last year, but he was a shadow of what he's been this year. As far as excuses, I'd certainly put going cold from three point range and lack of defense above refs or Perkins and Ibaka.

I've said over and over that the Spurs likely missed their window last year. It sure would have been nice to have this resurgent belief in the importance of defense from Pop last season. Barring that, I'm sure happy to have it going forward.

[therealtruth]

Duncan wasn't exactly injured last year, but he was a shadow of what he's been this year. As far as excuses, I'd certainly put going cold from three point range and lack of defense above refs or Perkins and Ibaka.

I've said over and over that the Spurs likely missed their window last year. It sure would have been nice to have this resurgent belief in the importance of defense from Pop last season. Barring that, I'm sure happy to have it going forward.

It would have been better if Pop never lost faith in defense. Because he stopped believing in it he let good defenders like Malik Hairston get away.

[Obstructed_View]

It would have been better if Pop never lost faith in defense. Because he stopped believing in it he let good defenders like Malik Hairston get away.
Worse, he let Matt Bonner eat up all those minutes.