Predict how the Spurs will lose this year

[Thebesteva]

I'm going to go with Duncan finally gets a season ending injury and the Spurs get bounced in the playoffs. Obviously just a guess but if Spurs ring I will be shocked. I have been wrong before, don't need to go digging for old posts to confirm it. But I just think this Spurs team reminds me of the Lakers 2004 team, already crowned champions on paper

[apalisoc_9]

I think the team will struggle in getting their offense going. From Aldridge wanting to average 23ppg to Parker knowing his role or not...

In the end, they will lose simply because other teams are just better built.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Critical bad call near the end of a huge playoff game.

You heard it here first. The board pays me $1,000 per user registered in the database if true

[Buddy Mignon]

I honestly don't see them getting a top four seed so its a really good chance they play the Lakers in the first round in a 4/5 matchup. I see the Lakers being too versatile for the aging Spurs. If that matchup doesnt happen you can just expect the Spurs to lose to a weaker team like they did with the Clippas this year.

[Spurtacular]

Injuries; not match-ups is the potential downfall; just like last season.

[Mark Celibate]

Lack of defense and toughness at the low post will be my main concern. LMA and West are great additions to their squad, but neither of them is known for their defensive game, and losing Splitter for nothing doesn't help that cause which is obvious. Duncan is still solid on both ends of the floor but he's like 40yr old next year. Also, the departures of Bellineli, Baynes and Joseph make the Spurs bench rather thin compared to previous seasons, which is definitely not good news for a team that is mainly composed of veterans. Only time will tell whether losing so much depth just to land LMA is a good move, or a bad one.

[The Franchise]

Parker shitting the bed.

[StrengthAndHonor]

It would have to be health with Clippers finally beating the Spurs in the playoffs.

[ambchang]

Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

[DMC]

How? Who knows.

When? That's easy... Long after the Lakers do.

[DMC]

Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

Double standard. If they lose does that speak negatively of Tim's leadership abilities?

If they win it all it speaks volumes for them.. and their opponents, and what "all" really means.

[SAGirl]

My concern is really Manu and Tony. Both old, and have been for the past years but really steadily declining finally and very close to the point where they are not guys you should be relying on. Kawhi and LMA need to be dominant. The team will go where Kawhi and LMA will take them. I have my doubts about them obviously as LMA is no Timmy and Kawhi has been inconsistent. Winning has been a team effort where he was thrived, but he was not the go to guy and when he was this pas year he struggled at times which is expected. The team will fail if they come up short. Can't blame a loss in the playoffs on the old legs at this point TBH. Also, some young roleplayers will be needed to step up, but ultimately it will be on Kawhi and LMA.

[Kidd K]

If the Spurs lose. . .

Likely because a Manu or TP injury. Or a jumpshooting team like GSW just getting red hot at the right time.



I honestly don't see them getting a top four seed so its a really good chance they play the Lakers in the first round in a 4/5 matchup. I see the Lakers being too versatile for the aging Spurs. If that matchup doesnt happen you can just expect the Spurs to lose to a weaker team like they did with the Clippas this year.

Lakers won't even finish with the 9 seed, much less be the 5th seed or be any kind of challenge in a playoff series to ANY contending team, much less the Spurs.

[Reck]

Manu shits the bed per par. One last turd before he goes to argie forever.

[Mark Celibate]

Spurs can still make a serious run for championship but first of all they need to add some toughness to their paint. You ain't winning no championship with your best defensive big being 40yr old and 2nd best being Boris Diaw, imho. LMA's game is much more dependent upon fineness rather than fitness, and playing alongside a defensive hardcore may pretty well cover up such weaknesses, but it's obvious the Spurs don't have a Tyson Chandler or Brook Lopez type of guy on their squad.

[Koolaid_Man]

I'm preparing for the Spurs to win it all...I'm not gonna stick around to witness it....if would be really sad and unfair...the basketball gods just refuse to be unkind to the Spurs...sickening tbh

[DMC]

Devil's Advocate: If the Spurs lose (and the odds are that they will), it will be due to Pop's on again/off again coaching style and "ain't I cute and unpredictable" antics where he doesn't secure the best possible scenario in the playoffs just because "Tony needed some burn".

[hater]

Injuries; not match-ups is the potential downfall; just like last season.

Huh? We got bounced in the 1st round completely healthy

[hater]

Cavs are hand down favorites. I'd say they have a 80% chance to ring.

Spurs are at same level or below worriers and cripples. Imo

It's wide open any of those 3 can win. And if there's injury a 4th team could easily win.

Aside from injury I can see spurs losing to whichever team matt Barnes plays for

[Mitch]

Reasons Spurs lose: Injuries or LMA really isn't as big an impact as so many make him out to be.

The Spurs' core is a year older past the expiration date, their new acquisitions will be have to perform in order to fill in the gaps left by father time.

[daslicer]

If the Spurs lose its because Kawhi chokes and gets outplayed by a scrub player like Barnes again.

[Silver&Black]

When? That's easy... Long after the Lakers do.

http://media.giphy.com/media/U1XhGr8CWqvVC/giphy.gif

[Spurtacular]

Huh? We got bounced in the 1st round completely healthy

Please. Splitter was not healthy.

[Clipper Nation]

Porker will chuck the Spurs out of the playoffs in an attempt to be The Man, just like he did in 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013, and 2015. And due to blind loyalty, Poop won't bench him.

[Clipper Nation]

It would have to be health with Clippers finally beating the Spurs in the playoffs.
"Finally?" Fake fan doesn't realize that we just beat the Spurs last year :lol

:lol Lakertroll exposed

[Silver&Black]

^
And after every Clippers win of the series CN would say, "Don't worry. You guys still got it. We'll choke it away."

:lol Spursfan exposed

[apalisoc_9]

Porker will chuck the Spurs out of the playoffs in an attempt to be The Man, just like he did in 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013, and 2015. And due to blind loyalty, Poop won't bench him.

Easily a top 10 Spurstalk poster of all time.

[Spurtacular]

Easily a top 10 Spurstalk poster of all time.

Please do your reach arounds in private, faggot.

[Kool Bob Love]

^
And after every Clippers win of the series CN would say, "Don't worry. You guys still got it. We'll choke it away."

:lol Spursfan exposed

:lmao

[ambchang]

Double standard. If they lose does that speak negatively of Tim's leadership abilities?

If they win it all it speaks volumes for them.. and their opponents, and what "all" really means.

If winning it all is a positive sign of Duncan's leadership, not winning it all does not necessarily mean it is a negative sign of it.

How what issue was a double standard is beyond me. Did I say winning it all would be a negative sign of anybody's leadership? Where is the double standard?

If you don't know what all means in winning it all, then try looking it up.

[StrengthAndHonor]

"Finally?" Fake fan doesn't realize that we just beat the Spurs last year :lol

:lol Lakertroll exposed
Don't get too excited, it was a sarcasm :rolleyes

[DMC]

If winning it all is a positive sign of Duncan's leadership, not winning it all does not necessarily mean it is a negative sign of it.

If Duncan's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning. He cannot only benefit without risk.


How what issue was a double standard is beyond me. Did I say winning it all would be a negative sign of anybody's leadership? Where is the double standard?

You just said it in your response, which I predicted was your intent in your post to which I first responded.

Your responses are tiresome and lack abstract thought.


If you don't know what all means in winning it all, then try looking it up.
See above, Balky.

[ambchang]

If Duncan's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning. He cannot only benefit without risk.

Not true. If a bunch of high school kids beat the Spurs, the leader of that high school team deserves credit. If they lost, it's simply because they were out matched. Your bias assumption was faulty.


You just said it in your response, which I predicted was your intent in your post to which I first responded.


Your responses are tiresome and lack abstract thought.

Your assumptions lack basic logic.


See above, Balky.

Use you brain, fat hands.

[Killakobe81]

Man I hate to agree with DMC, but isnt that what common fans do? In fact isnt that EXACTLY what you accuse Kobe stans of doing? Absolving him of blame for losses and providing him the lion's share of credit when they win?

Amb you are a good poster and excellent at trolling Kobe fans but you are inconsistent. When Kobe or some player you are not a fan of wins it's a team game but when Tim/Pau win it's their leadership and unselfishness. but when Tim/Pau lose in the first round, it's someone else's fault.

[Killakobe81]

And before the inevitable ... Kobe post, or defensive missive. I dont have the time or energy to show you examples but Im sure if anyone wants to can find it in many of your Kobe or Pau themed posts.

We get it, you love Pau/Timmy/Moses/Bird hate Kobe. Patterns are easy to see and you have every right to hate Kobe and or his game both have traits that are easy to hate. Just stop playing dumb and naive ...

[ambchang]

Man I hate to agree with DMC, but isnt that what common fans do? In fact isnt that EXACTLY what you accuse Kobe stans of doing? Absolving him of blame for losses and providing him the lion's share of credit when they win?

Amb you are a good poster and excellent at trolling Kobe fans but you are inconsistent. When Kobe or some player you are not a fan of wins it's a team game but when Tim/Pau win it's their leadership and unselfishness. but when Tim/Pau lose in the first round, it's someone else's fault.

I didn't say it was solely due to Duncan, I said you have to give credit to his leadership abilities, which we have seen plenty of evidence already, but would certainly be enhanced if the Spurs can somehow, against odds, win the championship this year.

Kobestans, OTOH, sabotage his own team's success to prove a point, shoot his team out of a very winnable series, win MVPs that does not belong to him, and try to equate himself to Jordan although it is just pure embarrassment for him to do so.

[ambchang]

And before the inevitable ... Kobe post, or defensive missive. I dont have the time or energy to show you examples but Im sure if anyone wants to can find it in many of your Kobe or Pau themed posts.

We get it, you love Pau/Timmy/Moses/Bird hate Kobe. Patterns are easy to see and you have every right to hate Kobe and or his game both have traits that are easy to hate. Just stop playing dumb and naive ...

I don't particularly love certain players for unfound reasons. You'd notice how MVPau, Duncan, Moses, and Bird are all team players. I love that aspect of the game.

I also love Magic's game, David Robinson, Pippen, Dumars, Elliott, Hakeem (post diva days), Fat Lever, and Pierce. Great team players, and learned to win over time.

[baseline bum]

I'm not so worried about Duncan even though he's old as fuck. His offensive game has already fallen way off anyways, but unless he blows out a knee I'm confident he'll still be a strong interior defender, rebounder, and garbage guy at the rim. Parker is the huge question mark, his game has fallen off a cliff since 2012-13. He was still decent in 2013-14, though nowhere near the player he was from about 2006-13, but if the Spurs lose it will be because they got completely demolished at the PG position just like in the Clipper series last year. As a Spurs fan that's what makes me nervous this year, that 2015 Parker is just who Parker is now, when the West is loaded with really strong points like Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Conley, Lawson and then Irving would be waiting in a potential Finals matchup.

[Killakobe81]

I didn't say it was solely due to Duncan, I said you have to give credit to his leadership abilities, which we have seen plenty of evidence already, but would certainly be enhanced if the Spurs can somehow, against odds, win the championship this year.

Kobestans, OTOH, sabotage his own team's success to prove a point, shoot his team out of a very winnable series, win MVPs that does not belong to him, and try to equate himself to Jordan although it is just pure embarrassment for him to do so.

Against the odds? outside of the Cavs easier road how are the Spurs not at LEAST a top 3 favorite to win the title? You respect the Warriors as champions but repeating is not easy (as any Spur fan can tell you). Spurs are no sure thing but you are not overcoming major odds to win either ...stop it.

[Killakobe81]

I didn't say it was solely due to Duncan, I said you have to give credit to his leadership abilities, which we have seen plenty of evidence already, but would certainly be enhanced if the Spurs can somehow, against odds, win the championship this year.

Kobestans, OTOH, sabotage his own team's success to prove a point, shoot his team out of a very winnable series, win MVPs that does not belong to him, and try to equate himself to Jordan although it is just pure embarrassment for him to do so.

LOL and there he goes ... but I wont dance this with you. MVP's are media awards and they have been shitty and inconsistent for years. Who cares?!

[ambchang]

Against the odds? outside of the Cavs easier road how are the Spurs not at LEAST a top 3 favorite to win the title? You respect the Warriors as champions but repeating is not easy (as any Spur fan can tell you). Spurs are no sure thing but you are not overcoming major odds to win either ...stop it.

Warriors, Cavs and Clippers are all better talents on paper.

Houston and Spurs are on similar ground. So yes, the Spurs have to climb over 3 guys that are above them to win it all, likely having to go through all 3 in order to do so. I'd say that is against the odds.


LOL and there he goes ... but I wont dance this with you. MVP's are media awards and they have been shitty and inconsistent for years. Who cares?!

I do. Cp3 deserved it in 08, MVPau deserves at least 1 of the 2 FMVPs.

[Killakobe81]

Warriors, Cavs and Clippers are all better talents on paper.

Houston and Spurs are on similar ground. So yes, the Spurs have to climb over 3 guys that are above them to win it all, likely having to go through all 3 in order to do so. I'd say that is against the odds.



I do. Cp3 deserved it in 08, MVPau deserves at least 1 of the 2 FMVPs.

:lol
:rollin

So write about how Malone robbed MJ too or does not that not matter?

Houston will be better but not better than the Spurs. Tim at his age has been more durable than Dwight and are led by stars with questionable mental make-ups (though I love Harden more than most here).

No way do Spurs ...if they play this season the right way and dont tank games late have to face all those teams. At worst you may face two plus dem Cavs ...

Spurs get the poor man's MVPau ... and David West (think PJ Brown for 2008 Celts) for peanuts but winning a title is overcoming the odds? Spurs are a solid top 3 West team and arguably the #1 favorite.

[Killakobe81]

Amb just don't want to eat the same shit sandwiches he served when the Kobe/Dwight/Nash/Pau Lakers crumbled ...

Spurs are loaded. If they do not make at LEAST WCF ... heck, if they dont ring it's a failure.

Spurs arguably have a top 5 player at Center, PF and SF ... along with proven winners at PG/SG and depth. A HOF coach. They should win.

[Koolaid_Man]

amb just dont want to eat the same shit sandwiches he served whenthe Kobe/Dwight/Nash/Pau Lakers crumbled ...

Spurs are loaded and if they do not make at LEAST WCF heck if they dont ring it's a failure.

SPurs arguably have a top 5 player at Center, PF and SF ... along with proven winners at PG/SG and depth. A HOF coach. They should win.

Kobe vs Ambchang summed up....:lol and this may be generous for the couch potatoe....

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/bogues_zpstaxrqyfi.jpg

[Killakobe81]

For the record Cavs are the Vegas faves at 11/4 followed next by Spurs at 4/1 but according to Amb that is overcoming the "odds" LOL

[ambchang]

:lol
:rollin

So write about how Malone robbed MJ too or does not that not matter?

You haven't heard me ranting about that pedophile? The case against him is even worse, he should be ranked behind Stockton, let alone Jordan.

Which brings me to another point, Kobe isn't ranked behind CP3 and MVPau, and I won't rank him that low either, but the fact that he had to steal MVPs from players who are worse than him speaks to itself.


Houston will be better but not better than the Spurs. Tim at his age has been more durable than Dwight and are led by stars with questionable mental make-ups (though I love Harden more than most here).

No way do Spurs ...if they play this season the right way and dont tank games late have to face all those teams. At worst you may face two plus dem Cavs ...

Spurs get the poor man's MVPau ... and David West (think PJ Brown for 2008 Celts) for peanuts but winning a title is overcoming the odds? Spurs are a solid top 3 West team and arguably the #1 favorite.

LMA is not a poor man's MVPau, he doesn't have the low post moves or smarts that MVPau has, he can pass like MVPau could, he can't defend like MVPau could, they are very different players. Yes, MVPau > LMA, but they are different players.


Amb just don't want to eat the same shit sandwiches he served when the Kobe/Dwight/Nash/Pau Lakers crumbled ...

Spurs are loaded. If they do not make at LEAST WCF ... heck, if they dont ring it's a failure.

You act as the West is a cake walk. GSW, HOU, MEM, LAC are all strong teams. If the Spurs had an injury at any time (playoffs would be deadly, but RS would mean lower seeding) or an untimely cold streak in the playoffs, they are done (true for the other teams as well).

The only possible failure this year is if the Cavs don't make the ECF (or those strong teams not making the playoffs, but I don't see that happening). I think people are underestimating Chicago, but I say that every year, so take it with a large lump of salt. In the West

[QUOTE=Killakobe81;8195841]Spurs arguably have a top 5 player at Center, PF and SF ... along with proven winners at PG/SG and depth. A HOF coach. They should win.

Have you seen Parker in the Euroleague? He's playing HORRIBLE. Forget about a starting PG on a championship team, he isn't even a rotation player at this point. Last year showed it, the Euroleague drove that point home. Parker is done. And Ginobili has been done for a few years. People thought it's 2008 for Ginobili and 2011 for Parker, it's not. They are both a long way away from their primes.

Duncan is arguably a top 5 C, but it speaks to how weak the C position is than how strong he is. Marc Gasol, Dwight are clearly better. MVPau is as well if you count him as a C. LMA is probably a top 5 PF. Leonard is definitely a top 5 SF.


Kobe vs Ambchang summed up....:lol and this may be generous for the couch potatoe....

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Mobile%20Uploads/bogues_zpstaxrqyfi.jpg

I'd say it's about right, Jordan: Kobe is about Bogues: Me. I mean, Bogues averaged double digits assists a few years, led the league in assists to TO ration multiple years, ranked high in steals a few years, ran the fast break as good as anyone, and he is about a billion times better than me as a basketball player. Jordan is about that much better than Kobe.


For the record Cavs are the Vegas faves at 11/4 followed next by Spurs at 4/1 but according to Amb that is overcoming the "odds" LOL

You are using Vegas now? What were the odds of Lakers winning the championship in 04 and 12 again?

Trust me, the Spurs are not well constructed. They will miss Splitter a LOT during certain parts of the playoffs.

[Killakobe81]

You haven't heard me ranting about that pedophile? The case against him is even worse, he should be ranked behind Stockton, let alone Jordan.

Which brings me to another point, Kobe isn't ranked behind CP3 and MVPau, and I won't rank him that low either, but the fact that he had to steal MVPs from players who are worse than him speaks to itself.



LMA is not a poor man's MVPau, he doesn't have the low post moves or smarts that MVPau has, he can pass like MVPau could, he can't defend like MVPau could, they are very different players. Yes, MVPau > LMA, but they are different players.

[QUOTE=Killakobe81;8195847]Amb just don't want to eat the same shit sandwiches he served when the Kobe/Dwight/Nash/Pau Lakers crumbled ...

Spurs are loaded. If they do not make at LEAST WCF ... heck, if they dont ring it's a failure.

You act as the West is a cake walk. GSW, HOU, MEM, LAC are all strong teams. If the Spurs had an injury at any time (playoffs would be deadly, but RS would mean lower seeding) or an untimely cold streak in the playoffs, they are done (true for the other teams as well).

The only possible failure this year is if the Cavs don't make the ECF (or those strong teams not making the playoffs, but I don't see that happening). I think people are underestimating Chicago, but I say that every year, so take it with a large lump of salt. In the West



Have you seen Parker in the Euroleague? He's playing HORRIBLE. Forget about a starting PG on a championship team, he isn't even a rotation player at this point. Last year showed it, the Euroleague drove that point home. Parker is done. And Ginobili has been done for a few years. People thought it's 2008 for Ginobili and 2011 for Parker, it's not. They are both a long way away from their primes.

Duncan is arguably a top 5 C, but it speaks to how weak the C position is than how strong he is. Marc Gasol, Dwight are clearly better. MVPau is as well if you count him as a C. LMA is probably a top 5 PF. Leonard is definitely a top 5 SF.



I'd say it's about right, Jordan: Kobe is about Bogues: Me. I mean, Bogues averaged double digits assists a few years, led the league in assists to TO ration multiple years, ranked high in steals a few years, ran the fast break as good as anyone, and he is about a billion times better than me as a basketball player. Jordan is about that much better than Kobe.



You are using Vegas now? What were the odds of Lakers winning the championship in 04 and 12 again?

Trust me, the Spurs are not well constructed. They will miss Splitter a LOT during certain parts of the playoffs.

So who odds should we use? Joe the local bookie or the all knowing basketball savant Ambchang's personal assessment of where teams rank?

Not winning a title has nothing to do with who is the favorite pre-season. You like to point out what a huge failure the 2012 Lakers were...isnt that based on pre-season odds and predictions for that team not because of what happened in season? Because if that is the case, how could that team be the colossal failure you claim, when anyone could see the injury and chemistry issues of that team once they started playing? Does pre-season status only matter when it's helpful to your own arguments? Wasnt it a failure because of the hype and expectations placed on that team by Vegas, media and Laker fans? How does that not apply here, Amb?

Answer me this. Put these Spurs in NY or LA ... wouldnt they have similar hype to the 2012 Lakers? Even in SA arent they getting plenty of national hype and praise for their off-season moves?

no I have not watched Euro, only seen snippets of Dirk and Pau. I am not a Parker fan. but respect what he has done ... Is it not a true story that Parker is proven PG on multiple title teams? Same with Manu at SG. Sure they aren't as good as they were in 2007 or even 2014 but neither were the Lakers in 2012. You didnt offer those excuses for the 2012 Lakers so the 2015 Spurs dont get an out here either, buddy. Besides at least you have Kiwi just entering his prime ...The 2012 Lakers had no prime stars except a hobbled Dwight.

You aint getting away with this shit sandwich. I think you will ring so it wont matter ...but if you don't I will ram that same turd sandwich down your virtual pie hole so far, my hand will be coming out your ass.

Remember, I told you, El, DPG, Kool everyone that posted regular that year that the 2012 Lakers had a WCF ceiling ... no one would listen to me then ...and I aint trying to hear you now. You are trying to do the same with the 2015 Spurs and you may be right.. same as me ...but it has never stopped you from bringing that shit up regularly.

So you will get no quarter here, Amb. if you do not win this shit (and again I think you will win) eat it.

Note: not sure why you bring up 2004 they made the Finals if you are favorite and lose in the Finals it's still an upset but not a failure like 2012 ...And in regards to 20112 ...Unless you predicting another 1st round loss not sure how that will apply here ..no way Spurs lose in back to back 1st rounds ...will they?

[Killakobe81]

Also when I say poor man's MVPau (LMA) I dont mean game-wise ... I mean impact wise. Getting LMA now while just entering his 30's, in his prime is like adding Pau to the Lakers in 2008. You are adding LMA to a prime Kiwi plus still have the the aging big 3 just two years removed from back to back Finals. So yes, the expectations are high. LMA does have a mid-range high post game like Pau's otherwise I agree their games are not similar Pau is a much better pure on the block player with great counters ...LMA is primarily a turn around jumper guy ...Pau is a better passer/rebounder too when locked in.

[ambchang]

So who odds should we use? Joe the local bookie or the all knowing basketball savant Ambchang's personal assessment of where teams rank?

I'd say common sense. But regardless, the Spurs aren't even title favourites, so what's the big deal. I mean, we are not talking about 2004 Lakers or 2012 Lakers, or even 2008 post-MVPau trade Lakers. Unless the Spurs finish worse than 7th seed in the west and get kicked out of the 1st this season, they will never be worse than the 2012 Lakers.


Not winning a title has nothing to do with who is the favorite pre-season. You like to point out what a huge failure the 2012 Lakers were...isnt that based on pre-season odds and predictions for that team not because of what happened in season? Because if that is the case, how could that team be the colossal failure you claim, when anyone could see the injury and chemistry issues of that team once they started playing? Does pre-season status only matter when it's helpful to your own arguments? Wasnt it a failure because of the hype and expectations place don that team by Vegas media, fans?

I can see injury as their issue, chemistry is something they could have worked out. They couldn't, and the biggest issue they had was not running the offense through MVPau.


Answer me this. Put these Spurs in NY or LA ... wouldnt they have similar hype to the 2012 Lakers? Even in SA arent they getting plenty of national hype and praise for their off-season moves?

They should get praise for their off season move, because they got the biggest FA, and got David West for a total steal, but there comes a cost, and people forgot about those.


no I have not watched Euro, only seen snippets of Dirk and Pau. I am not a Parker fan. but respect what he has done ... Is it not a true story that Parker is proven PG on multiple title teams? Same with Manu at SG. Sure they aren't as good as they were in 2007 or even 2014 but neither were the Lakers in 2012. You didnt offer those excuses for the 2012 Lakers so the 2015 Spurs dont get an out here either, buddy. Besides at least you have Kiwi just entering his prime ...The 2012 Lakers had no prime stars except a hobbled Dwight.

Dwight was in his prime, MVPau was slightly past his prime, so was Kobe. Duncan is way past his prime, David West is way way way past his prime, Parker and Ginobili are both years away from their primes. Kawhi and LMA are the only ones in or entering their primes. Which I reckon is still pretty good.


You aint getting away with this shit sandwich. I think you will ring so it wont matter ...but if you don't I will ram that same turd sandwich down your virtual pie hole so far, my hand will be coming out your ass.

You can do what you want, but the Spurs are not favourites. Even your vegas odds didn't have the Spurs at the top. So I am not sure what type of gloating you can possibly have done.


Remember, I told you, El, DPG, Kool everyone that posted regular that year that the 2012 Lakers had a WCF ceiling ... no one would listen to me then ...and I aint trying to hear you now. You are trying to do the same with the 2015 Spurs and you may be right.. same as me ...but it has never stopped you from bring that shit up regularly.

And? What did the press say? What did Vegas say? Did you say they were going to get 7th seed and get embarrassed in the 1st round? Oh, wait, you said WCF! They couldn't even get close to that, and that was the worst case prediction on these boards. What is the worst case scenario for the Spurs this year? 2nd round? WCF?

If the 2012 Lakers made the WCF, I wouldn't point out how much of a monumental failure they were, because they wouldn't be. If you want to harp on the Spurs not winning the championship as some sort of failure if they failed to do so, they do so, you will just look like a total retard.


So you will get no quarter here, Amb. if you do not win this shit (and again I think you will win) eat it.

Note: not sure why you bring up 2004 they made the Finals if you are favorite and lose in the Finals it's still an upset but not a failure like 2012 ...Unless you predicting another 1st round loss not sure how that will apply here ..no way Spurs lose in back to back 1st rounds ...will they?

I don't know if they will. If the Spurs lose in the 1st round, or fail to make the playoffs, I would say that is a failture. If they don't win the championship? I can give them a pass.

[Killakobe81]

I'd say common sense. But regardless, the Spurs aren't even title favourites, so what's the big deal. I mean, we are not talking about 2004 Lakers or 2012 Lakers, or even 2008 post-MVPau trade Lakers. Unless the Spurs finish worse than 7th seed in the west and get kicked out of the 1st this season, they will never be worse than the 2012 Lakers.



I can see injury as their issue, chemistry is something they could have worked out. They couldn't, and the biggest issue they had was not running the offense through MVPau.



They should get praise for their off season move, because they got the biggest FA, and got David West for a total steal, but there comes a cost, and people forgot about those.



Dwight was in his prime, MVPau was slightly past his prime, so was Kobe. Duncan is way past his prime, David West is way way way past his prime, Parker and Ginobili are both years away from their primes. Kawhi and LMA are the only ones in or entering their primes. Which I reckon is still pretty good.



You can do what you want, but the Spurs are not favourites. Even your vegas odds didn't have the Spurs at the top. So I am not sure what type of gloating you can possibly have done.



And? What did the press say? What did Vegas say? Did you say they were going to get 7th seed and get embarrassed in the 1st round? Oh, wait, you said WCF! They couldn't even get close to that, and that was the worst case prediction on these boards. What is the worst case scenario for the Spurs this year? 2nd round? WCF?

If the 2012 Lakers made the WCF, I wouldn't point out how much of a monumental failure they were, because they wouldn't be. If you want to harp on the Spurs not winning the championship as some sort of failure if they failed to do so, they do so, you will just look like a total retard.



I don't know if they will. If the Spurs lose in the 1st round, or fail to make the playoffs, I would say that is a failture. If they don't win the championship? I can give them a pass.

You were here. I said WCF ceiling, you do know what that means, right? Meaning if everything breaks right that is how high I saw that team. Some of that was out of respect for OKC and LAC ...and I predicted 2nd round loss plenty that year you can look it up ...not even knowing the injuries at the time.

In My rankings just like yours losing one round earlier is not a huge failure based on MY predictions, if that is the case. SO does that absolve the Lakers from failing that year just because I did not see them ringing?

I dont give a shit if you want to try and downplay this shit and getting your blame game sights on Tony's fatass, if you guys dont ring ... I will be doing all the same bullshit you do about 2012.

Get your ass ready because my foot is getting warmed up just in case ...

[Killakobe81]

I already posted Vegas odds but since Amb says spurs are not faves ... some respected guys plenty who love advanced metrics love dem Spurs

NBA com click here (Favorites Warriors or Spurs) (http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2015/07/16/20150715-starters-favorites-next-season.nba/)

From Lowe at Grantland (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-free-agency-winners-and-losers/?ex_cid=GrantlandFB)

I could go on ... Lowe even addresses the same concerns you have above and still thinks the Spurs once they work LMA in their offense could be "devastating". Are they slamdunk favorites? No. But only dumbass casual fans, Laker homers and shitty media thought the 2012 Lakers were slamdunks. Like everyone else they point to Lebron's path as an advantage ...and hard to argue Cavs are not the favorites ...but they have ?'s too. their #2 and #3 have both had significant injuries the past two years and Lebron has played A LOT of minutes the past 8 years especially the past 5 seasons.

[DMC]

Not true. If a bunch of high school kids beat the Spurs, the leader of that high school team deserves credit. If they lost, it's simply because they were out matched. Your bias assumption was faulty.


Last I checked Tim doesn't play on a high school team. So you made a bad analogy.

If one HS team beat another HS team and no one told you why, and you said "well that just speaks to the leadership of that coach" and then you find out the score was reversed by mistake and you say "well, it's not that coach's fault", you're guilty of using a double standard.

If the Spurs win, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership were responsible. If they lost, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership or lack thereof was responsible. Since no one knows why your hypothetical scenario played out as a win, you've set the standard by crediting Tim's leadership sans any knowledge, so you have special pleading going on to say that without also allowing that the same suggestion would then be true for the loss. Sure you could reshape your prediction so that Tim's leadership becomes the major factor, and that they still lose because 3 other starters are injured, but you didn't do that. It's also possible that the other team had injured players.


Your assumptions lack basic logic.

I didn't make an assumption, you did. You suggested the win and the reason for it. I only made the logical conclusion based on your rules.


Use you brain, fat hands.
You don't understand logic. It's ok, you're a forum fuckhole so I was just taking my turn.

[cjw]

I'm going to go with Duncan finally gets a season ending injury

Lakers fans forget Duncan has already had a season-ending injury in 2000 that paved the way for Shaq's first title.

[ambchang]

You were here. I said WCF ceiling, you do know what that means, right? Meaning if everything breaks right that is how high I saw that team. Some of that was out of respect for OKC and LAC ...and I predicted 2nd round loss plenty that year you can look it up ...not even knowing the injuries at the time.

In My rankings just like yours losing one round earlier is not a huge failure based on MY predictions, if that is the case. SO does that absolve the Lakers from failing that year just because I did not see them ringing?

I dont give a shit if you want to try and downplay this shit and getting your blame game sights on Tony's fatass, if you guys dont ring ... I will be doing all the same bullshit you do about 2012.

Get your ass ready because my foot is getting warmed up just in case ...

Well, what do you mean by "if everything breaks right?" If everything breaks right for the Lakers in 2012, they would have won the championship, it would be true for every team, but unfortunately for you, nothing broke right for the Lakers that year, and they ended up 7th and swept in the 1st round.

When I read "everything breaks right", I would imagine it being everything went according to plan and within expectations. According to most people, that would be a championship, according to you, that would be a WCF. They ended up 7th (really struggle to even get to the playoffs, aided by a suspicious streak of FTA disparity not only for them, but for teams that compete with them for the 8th spot in the final few months of the season (see the post I made back then, too lazy to dig it up). Therefore, even according to your standards, it was a failure.


I already posted Vegas odds but since Amb says spurs are not faves ... some respected guys plenty who love advanced metrics love dem Spurs

NBA com click here (Favorites Warriors or Spurs) (http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nba_tv/2015/07/16/20150715-starters-favorites-next-season.nba/)

From Lowe at Grantland (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-free-agency-winners-and-losers/?ex_cid=GrantlandFB)

I could go on ... Lowe even addresses the same concerns you have above and still thinks the Spurs once they work LMA in their offense could be "devastating". Are they slamdunk favorites? No. But only dumbass casual fans, Laker homers and shitty media thought the 2012 Lakers were slamdunks. Like everyone else they point to Lebron's path as an advantage ...and hard to argue Cavs are not the favorites ...but they have ?'s too. their #2 and #3 have both had significant injuries the past two years and Lebron has played A LOT of minutes the past 8 years especially the past 5 seasons.

So ... Lowe said they are not a slamdunk favourite, and that they are in the running for the title, and I agree with that, because Duncan is ALWAYS in the running for the title (except 2009 to around 2011). In fact, Lowe said:

The Spurs? They always win. It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since the reloading Cavs have a much easier path to the Finals. The Thunder could earn their way back into this stratosphere fast. The defending champs are young, and the Spurs are leaning on at least five key players over 30. But the Spurs have a chance to be devastating.

What's this? "a chance to be devastating", "It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since ...." Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement to me.

The article is absolutely right, the Spurs were the biggest winners in the offseason, no question about that. It also didn't say the Spurs are odds-on favourites to win it all.

[ambchang]

Last I checked Tim doesn't play on a high school team. So you made a bad analogy.

If one HS team beat another HS team and no one told you why, and you said "well that just speaks to the leadership of that coach" and then you find out the score was reversed by mistake and you say "well, it's not that coach's fault", you're guilty of using a double standard.

If the Spurs win, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership were responsible. If they lost, it would only speak to Tim's leadership if that leadership or lack thereof was responsible. Since no one knows why your hypothetical scenario played out as a win, you've set the standard by crediting Tim's leadership sans any knowledge, so you have special pleading going on to say that without also allowing that the same suggestion would then be true for the loss. Sure you could reshape your prediction so that Tim's leadership becomes the major factor, and that they still lose because 3 other starters are injured, but you didn't do that. It's also possible that the other team had injured players.


Last I checked, you said:


If Duncan's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning. He cannot only benefit without risk.

You just said it in your response, which I predicted was your intent in your post to which I first responded.

Your responses are tiresome and lack abstract thought.

See above, Balky.

So if a person's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning.

You were saying something about benefit without risk and abstract thought?


I didn't make an assumption, you did. You suggested the win and the reason for it. I only made the logical conclusion based on your rules.

You don't understand logic. It's ok, you're a forum fuckhole so I was just taking my turn.

You made an assumption, you assumed that if the presence of success leads to credit, then the absence of it must lead to blame. I showed you not to be true.

I didn't suggest the reason for the win, I suggested that Duncan is the leader of the team, which is what have been observed quite consistently for years.

:rollin, you talking about logic. The fat in your hands must have traveled to your brain and blocked your ability to think.

[DMC]

Last I checked, you said:



So if a person's leadership is responsible for winning, then it must be to blame for not winning.

You were saying something about benefit without risk and abstract thought?



You made an assumption, you assumed that if the presence of success leads to credit, then the absence of it must lead to blame. I showed you not to be true.

I didn't suggest the reason for the win, I suggested that Duncan is the leader of the team, which is what have been observed quite consistently for years.

:rollin, you talking about logic. The fat in your hands must have traveled to your brain and blocked your ability to think.


I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:


Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

[Killakobe81]

Well, what do you mean by "if everything breaks right?" If everything breaks right for the Lakers in 2012, they would have won the championship, it would be true for every team, but unfortunately for you, nothing broke right for the Lakers that year, and they ended up 7th and swept in the 1st round.

When I read "everything breaks right", I would imagine it being everything went according to plan and within expectations. According to most people, that would be a championship, according to you, that would be a WCF. They ended up 7th (really struggle to even get to the playoffs, aided by a suspicious streak of FTA disparity not only for them, but for teams that compete with them for the 8th spot in the final few months of the season (see the post I made back then, too lazy to dig it up). Therefore, even according to your standards, it was a failure.



So ... Lowe said they are not a slamdunk favourite, and that they are in the running for the title, and I agree with that, because Duncan is ALWAYS in the running for the title (except 2009 to around 2011). In fact, Lowe said:


What's this? "a chance to be devastating", "It’s too early to declare them undisputed favorites, especially since ...." Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement to me.

The article is absolutely right, the Spurs were the biggest winners in the offseason, no question about that. It also didn't say the Spurs are odds-on favourites to win it all.

Apparently, DMC decided to break his foot off in your ass first, no room left for my size 12's ... so We can take this up later ... But do I really have to explain the concept of "ceiling" to you? Or argue that if "everything breaks right" for the T'wolves or Sixers this year it STILL wont = a championship?! Seriously?

Has DMC slapped you stupid? What is going on around here?

[Killakobe81]

I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:



This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

havent read all of the recent stuff but this post right here? that is vintage DMC. You are still an asshole, and I still wont wage with you anymore ...but good to see the old fire spittin' borderline racist back.

[ambchang]

I already explained this to you.

For the others on the forum who might be as slow as you:



This is you assigning credit to Tim Duncan's leadership abilities with zero exception for anything else that might cause the Spurs to win That means I am not assuming anything. You're inferring that the presence of success leads to credit since you've assigned it with only one condition: success. Way to kick your own ass.

You're also hedging your bets here, that much is obvious. Cherry picking is on the table as well, since winning validates Tim's abilities while losing does not invalidate them.

If I were to take your story at face value, I'd think Tim's leadership ability is the key to winning. You're saying now that it's not. But then again you're saying that it is. You don't know whether to shit or go blind.

If the Spurs win it all and Tim is injured and sitting on the bench the entire time, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

If Tim dies in a car accident and the Spurs win it all regardless, that really speaks to Tim's leadership abilities.

In each of those, they won it all and yet Tim Duncan wasn't on the court. In the first example Tim must be leading from the bench, and in the 2nd he must be leading from the afterlife.

Wipe your mouth and get off your knees now.

So your assumption is if Tim dies that his past leadership has no effect on the team? I disagree. Duncan put his stamp on this team, and it has a lasting effect. You not being able to grasp is not my problem.

Which is another point you are making from your original point, which was if Tim gets credit for winning, he MUST be held responsible for losing, which I have shown is not the case.

But then, your fat hands may have blocked the view of your monitor.

[ambchang]

Apparently, DMC decided to break his foot off in your ass first, no room left for my size 12's ... so We can take this up later ...proceed.

You are above this, DMC horrible "logic" has been exposed. Please don't tell me you are as stupid as he is, or would sink so low to agree with something that stupid so that you can "argue" with me.

[DMC]

So your assumption is if Tim dies that his past leadership has no effect on the team? I disagree. Duncan put his stamp on this team, and it has a lasting effect. You not being able to grasp is not my problem.

It's very simple:

If the team loses, was Tim's leadership not up to snuff?
If the team wins, was Tim's leadership up to snuff?

I predict you will say Tim's leadership would be up to snuff regardless, which makes it not the deciding factor in a win or a loss.


Which is another point you are making from your original point, which was if Tim gets credit for winning, he MUST be held responsible for losing, which I have shown is not the case.

Tim wouldn't get credit for winning if he wasn't on the court. He'd get a ring, but so would Peter Holt.


But then, your fat hands may have blocked the view of your monitor.
I've bested you and that's all you can come up with? It wasn't funny the first couple of times, it's not going to suddenly become funny.

[Killakobe81]

You are above this, DMC horrible "logic" has been exposed. Please don't tell me you are as stupid as he is, or would sink so low to agree with something that stupid so that you can "argue" with me.

Havent read it all yet not choosing sides ...I just gave him credit for spitting with fire not his logic. And yes you make great arguments but are calling him "fat hands" repeatedly ... not usually a sign of "winning" an argument when you are name-calling.
But the fight is still early and I need to review the early rounds ... but that last round went to DMC ... for being the the more aggressive and busier fighter. Sometimes accuracy is less important than ferocity especially when this can not be decided with facts.

You know amb, you one of my faves I do not choose to argue with you I think you choose to argue with me more ... but that's our thing ...can't be mad either way. We just leave Kobe alone for now because duncan has been elevated over him on my list ...not sure what else you have to gain by continuing with me ...do you want me to place Pau over him too?

[ambchang]

It's very simple:

If the team loses, was Tim's leadership not up to snuff?
If the team wins, was Tim's leadership up to snuff?

No and yes. No what?


I predict you will say Tim's leadership would be up to snuff regardless, which makes it not the deciding factor in a win or a loss.

Tim wouldn't get credit for winning if he wasn't on the court. He'd get a ring, but so would Peter Holt.

You heard me say Peter Holt doesn't deserve credit if the Spurs win the championship?


I've bested you and that's all you can come up with? It wasn't funny the first couple of times, it's not going to suddenly become funny.

It wasn't funny, it's just true you have fat hands.

[ambchang]

Havent read it all yet not choosing sides ...I just gave him credit for spitting with fire not his logic. And yes you make great arguments but are calling him "fat hands" repeatedly ... not usually a sign of "winning" an argument when you are name-calling.

He does have fat hands. After typing "you" and "DMC" for so many times, I have to come up with something else.

And spitting fire is not usually a sign of "winning" an argument either.


But the fight is still early and I need to review the early rounds ... but that last round went to DMC ... for being the the more aggressive and busier fighter. Sometimes accuracy is less important than ferocity especially when this can not be decided with facts.

Who made you the judge? The rounds will go to DMC because he is taking your side. It's like asking you to judge a beauty pageant with your daughter being a contestant.


You know amb, you one of my faves I do not choose to argue with you I think you choose to argue with me more ... but that's our thing ...can't be mad either way. We just leave Kobe alone for now because duncan has been elevated over him on my list ...not sure what else you have to gain by continuing with me ...do you want me to place Pau over him too?

MVPau should be ranked below Kobe, it really isn't a fair ranking, but it's tough to argue otherwise. If MVPau played with Shaq and a team with a competent wing, he may be ranked much higher. Player rankings are based on a lot of things, and you can't deny that team success is one of them, which means that the ranking of an individual is based on circumstances outside his control (along with competition, team location, franchise history, etc ....). For how high Kobe ranked, it was due almost EXCLUSIVELY to these other factors, which to me is just hilarious. Other than points, he really isn't great at any stats (and he got a lot of points with questionable efficiency), traditional or advanced, he does have a lot of accolades but many of those are reputation based (his D-team selections come to mind), his own individual dominance never really coincided with team success. In fact, his best years were his sidekick years (undisputed ones next to Shaq, not the MVPau ones), and you just have to look at it and say, which top 10, or even top 20 player has that resume?

[Killakobe81]

He does have fat hands. After typing "you" and "DMC" for so many times, I have to come up with something else.

And spitting fire is not usually a sign of "winning" an argument either.



Who made you the judge? The rounds will go to DMC because he is taking your side. It's like asking you to judge a beauty pageant with your daughter being a contestant.



MVPau should be ranked below Kobe, it really isn't a fair ranking, but it's tough to argue otherwise. If MVPau played with Shaq and a team with a competent wing, he may be ranked much higher. Player rankings are based on a lot of things, and you can't deny that team success is one of them, which means that the ranking of an individual is based on circumstances outside his control (along with competition, team location, franchise history, etc ....). For how high Kobe ranked, it was due almost EXCLUSIVELY to these other factors, which to me is just hilarious. Other than points, he really isn't great at any stats (and he got a lot of points with questionable efficiency), traditional or advanced, he does have a lot of accolades but many of those are reputation based (his D-team selections come to mind), his own individual dominance never really coincided with team success. In fact, his best years were his sidekick years (undisputed ones next to Shaq, not the MVPau ones), and you just have to look at it and say, which top 10, or even top 20 player has that resume?

yawwwwwwwwwwwwn. There is no official judge. I gave my opinion, because this is a forum and it's place for it. Don't like to be judged? Don't post. Where do I agree with him or he with me? DMC is one of the posters I agree with the least, doesn't mean he can't be right from time to time.

[Raven]

Al qaeda agent Kirby self explodes in the AT&T center

[DMC]

No and yes. No what?


You're saying Tim's leadership wasn't up to snuff if the team loses? You're being purposely obtuse. Specify your claim.



You heard me say Peter Holt doesn't deserve credit if the Spurs win the championship?

Would you say that, if the Spurs win, it a testament to Peter's great leadership? How about the last man in the rotation? How about the front office worker? Why did you make a claim about Tim then pretend it's not restricted to Tim?


It wasn't funny, it's just true you have fat hands.

You have poor reasoning skills. That's on full display.

[ambchang]

yawwwwwwwwwwwwn. There is no official judge. I gave my opinion, because this is a forum and it's place for it. Don't like to be judged? Don't post. Where do I agree with him or he with me? DMC is one of the posters I agree with the least, doesn't mean he can't be right from time to time.

Since when I did say I didn't want to be judged. I said your judging is biased.

And you straight out said you agreed with him in this thread and another. What the hell?

[ambchang]

You're saying Tim's leadership wasn't up to snuff if the team loses? You're being purposely obtuse. Specify your claim.

Typo. No to the first question then yes to the second. I meant to type "now what?" Not "no what"



Would you say that, if the Spurs win, it a testament to Peter's great leadership? How about the last man in the rotation? How about the front office worker? Why did you make a claim about Tim then pretend it's not restricted to Tim?

They all deserve credit. Because they have a hand in the winning of the championship. Duncan's share is obvious because he has been the leader of the team for years.



You have poor reasoning skills. That's on full display.

How so? Like how blame must be present in failures when credit is due in success? See how great your logic was in that one.

[Killakobe81]

Since when I did say I didn't want to be judged. I said your judging is biased.

And you straight out said you agreed with him in this thread and another. What the hell?

I was shocked as you but i meant with the argument in this thread ...all of us are biased even the metric lovers here.

[ElNono]

If we lose, it's probably because there was a better team, tbh

[DMC]

Typo. No to the first question then yes to the second. I meant to type "now what?" Not "no what"


Still obtuse.

Either way:

1. No, Tim's leadership isn't up to snuff if the team loses = that's what I said initially.
2. Yes, Tim's leadership is up to snuff even if they lose = Tim's leadership isn't the deciding factor


They all deserve credit. Because they have a hand in the winning of the championship. Duncan's share is obvious because he has been the leader of the team for years.

They all deserve credit, he says. This is after saying the team isn't great, and that if they win it highlights Tim's great leadership abilities. You called out one person and yet you're now saying everyone would deserve credit.


How so? Like how blame must be present in failures when credit is due in success? See how great your logic was in that one.

I don't see a problem with that concept. You didn't say if they win because of Tim, Tim should receive credit. You said if they win it will be because of Tim. That's not giving credit, that's assigning responsibility. Responsibility doesn't change hands when you lose.

[benefactor]

Spurs will win the last game they play.

[ambchang]

Still obtuse.

Either way:

1. No, Tim's leadership isn't up to snuff if the team loses = that's what I said initially.
2. Yes, Tim's leadership is up to snuff even if they lose = Tim's leadership isn't the deciding factor

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.


They all deserve credit, he says. This is after saying the team isn't great, and that if they win it highlights Tim's great leadership abilities. You called out one person and yet you're now saying everyone would deserve credit.

It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.


I don't see a problem with that concept. You didn't say if they win because of Tim, Tim should receive credit. You said if they win it will be because of Tim. That's not giving credit, that's assigning responsibility. Responsibility doesn't change hands when you lose.

You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

Lose in the second round.

The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities.

[Killakobe81]

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.



It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.



You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

My boy amb loves to play the semantics game ...
2nd round?
That is your official prediction?

[DMC]

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.


Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.


It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.


It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.

Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.


You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?
"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."

[Killakobe81]

Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.

Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.

Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.

"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."
:corn:

[ambchang]

My boy amb loves to play the semantics game ...
2nd round?
That is your official prediction?

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.


Then winning it all doesn't indicate what you said it does. I've given you every possible scenario. You already said the team isn't great and that a win would mean Tim basically carried them through with his leadership.

I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer


Tim's leadership. You keep ignoring that part.

How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?


Expectations and blame/credit are unrelated. There are reasons a team loses, and you can find those and those are to blame. It doesn't mean you expected that to not be the case. We expect Chris Paul to falter in the playoffs, and he does. That doesn't negate his part in the loss.

I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.


"The Spurs simply aren't that great of a team. If they win it all this year, it really speaks for the greatness of Duncan and his leadership abilities."




And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.



I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer



How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?



I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.



And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

So your prediction for this year's Spurs is the same as mine for the 2012 Lakers? Very interesting.

[ambchang]

So your prediction for this year's Spurs is the same as mine for the 2012 Lakers? Very interesting.

Wasn't yours WCF?

[Killakobe81]

Wasn't yours WCF?

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...

[ambchang]

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...

I know I am good, but you don't have to commit blasphemy and proclaim me to be something I am not.

I seemed to recall you predicted WCF, but whatever you say.

[Killakobe81]

I know I am good, but you don't have to commit blasphemy and proclaim me to be something I am not.

I seemed to recall you predicted WCF, but whatever you say.

Your memory is shitty then. I said what I said then and the past two days and we have argued about it before I said WCF Ceiling ...

Here is an example of ceiling floor scenario from NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000519673/article/nfc-ceilingfloor-scenarios-high-variance-for-dallas-arizona)

IF I say (and I am leaning this way) that the 2015 Clippers have a WCF ceiling and a 1st round floor but 2nd round loss is "probable" ... that means at best (if things break right) I expect a trip to the WCF. At worst, I expect a first round loss but a 2nd round ouster is the most likely outcome.

I said the same about the 2012 Lakers (minus the first round sweep of course). It's funny you dont remember but I do. In fact, I remember arguing with you and Deeps about what a "contender" was ... If you recall, Deeps even argued that by me saying they could make the WCF (as a ceiling) they were legit contenders and I argued they were not. This also came up when the Rox got Dwight and I argued (mostly with Deeps and Djohn and the Rox faithful) that they were not legit contenders either.

That year and the year before and even last year ...you have placed higher expectations on the Lakers roster than is reasonable, buying hype that I have not bought. I watched over 70 Lakers game a year (most years all 82 plus playoffs). I want them to win but yet YOU predicted more wins than I did. I get it ... you are using those expectations to slam Kobe... but taken at face value you suck at predicting the Lakers or are just full of shit or both.

Either way Spur fan better hope you are wrong about dem Spurs ...either way I aint buying what you are selling.

[Killakobe81]

For the record my early legit contenders:

1A. Cavs
1B. Spurs
3. Warriors

Darkhorses: Clippers, Rox & OKC but not sure if any of these teams are mentally tough enough to ring ...

I only see those first 3 teams as legit contenders the other 3 are long-shots ... if someone other than those 3 teams ring I will be shocked. IF it's someone outside of those 6 (Bulls, Grizz, Heat, Hawks) I dont know shit about NBA ball.

[ambchang]

Your memory is shitty then. I said what I said then and the past two days and we have argued about it before I said WCF Ceiling ...

Here is an example of ceiling floor scenario from NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000519673/article/nfc-ceilingfloor-scenarios-high-variance-for-dallas-arizona)

IF I say (and I am leaning this way) that the 2015 Clippers have a WCF ceiling and a 1st round floor but 2nd round loss is "probable" ... that means at best (if things break right) I expect a trip to the WCF. At worst, I expect a first round loss but a 2nd round ouster is the most likely outcome.

I said the same about the 2012 Lakers (minus the first round sweep of course). It's funny you dont remember but I do. In fact, I remember arguing with you and Deeps about what a "contender" was ... If you recall, Deeps even argued that by me saying they could make the WCF (as a ceiling) they were legit contenders and I argued they were not. This also came up when the Rox got Dwight and I argued (mostly with Deeps and Djohn and the Rox faithful) that they were not legit contenders either.

That year and the year before and even last year ...you have placed higher expectations on the Lakers roster than is reasonable, buying hype that I have not bought. I watched over 70 Lakers game a year (most years all 82 plus playoffs). I want them to win but yet YOU predicted more wins than I did. I get it ... you are using those expectations to slam Kobe... but taken at face value you suck at predicting the Lakers or are just full of shit or both.

Either way Spur fan better hope you are wrong about dem Spurs ...either way I aint buying what you are selling.

Well, you should remember your own takes more than I do, it's not like I have a mental database of what you predicted, but you did repeat over and over again about the WCF ceiling, so I took it at that.

The Lakers are bad this year, they are worse than I thought, and Kobe is not helping. The Lakers simply played the same or better without him on the floor, that's a fact.

[ambchang]

For the record my early legit contenders:

1A. Cavs
1B. Spurs
3. Warriors

Darkhorses: Clippers, Rox & OKC but not sure if any of these teams are mentally tough enough to ring ...

I only see those first 3 teams as legit contenders the other 3 are long-shots ... if someone other than those 3 teams ring I will be shocked. IF it's someone outside of those 6 (Bulls, Grizz, Heat, Hawks) I dont know shit about NBA ball.

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

[Killakobe81]

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

Let's be real ...

Odds are aginst a dubs repeat. Teams that repeat are teams that have truly dominant players in their primes. Spurs had one of the better ones and could not do it ..I dont see Curry leading this team to a repeat either. Players like Shaq, Lebron, MJ Magic lead repeats ... teams led by players like KG, Dirk, Wade etc, lead one and dones. curry is closer to the second list than the first and I love Curry.

[ambchang]

Let's be real ...

Odds are aginst a dubs repeat. Teams that repeat are teams that have truly dominant players in their primes. Spurs had one of the better ones and could not do it ..I dont see Curry leading this team to a repeat either. Players like Shaq, Lebron, MJ Magic lead repeats ... teams led by players like KG, Dirk, Wade etc, lead one and dones. curry is closer to the second list than the first and I love Curry.

I am not entirely sure about that. The Bad Boys Pistons repeated, and I wouldn't call him truly dominant. Besides, you are basically saying Shaq, Magic, and Hakeem in their primes > Duncan in his prime, and I disagree. Numbers showed that they are very similar.

Bird in his prime was about as prime as they come, and yet he couldn't repeat.

It depends on competition and teammates as well. Your worldview of superstars leading everything is simply incorrect, and history has shown as such.

The thing about GSW is that they are very versatile and can play many types of offense and defense. They were historically great last year, and I fail to see a huge fall off from last year to this year. Keep in mind that they were inexperienced last year, and still managed to win. They don't have many weaknesses, and if one player goes cold, they can substitute another similar player in for most positions. Curry is pretty much the only irreplaceable player on that roster, and he won the MVP last year (so he shouldn't be irreplaceable).

There really aren't that many teams that has that versatility GSW has. The only way I see them lose is if the entire league goes big, and that would wear out the Warriors after a couple of rounds.

If GSW goes against Spurs, Clippers, and Memphis, and if each of these teams decide to pound the ball inside over and over and over again, I can see GSW wearing out eventually and losing in one of the rounds.

[Killakobe81]

I am not entirely sure about that. The Bad Boys Pistons repeated, and I wouldn't call him truly dominant. Besides, you are basically saying Shaq, Magic, and Hakeem in their primes > Duncan in his prime, and I disagree. Numbers showed that they are very similar.

Bird in his prime was about as prime as they come, and yet he couldn't repeat.

It depends on competition and teammates as well. Your worldview of superstars leading everything is simply incorrect, and history has shown as such.

The thing about GSW is that they are very versatile and can play many types of offense and defense. They were historically great last year, and I fail to see a huge fall off from last year to this year. Keep in mind that they were inexperienced last year, and still managed to win. They don't have many weaknesses, and if one player goes cold, they can substitute another similar player in for most positions. Curry is pretty much the only irreplaceable player on that roster, and he won the MVP last year (so he shouldn't be irreplaceable).

There really aren't that many teams that has that versatility GSW has. The only way I see them lose is if the entire league goes big, and that would wear out the Warriors after a couple of rounds.

If GSW goes against Spurs, Clippers, and Memphis, and if each of these teams decide to pound the ball inside over and over and over again, I can see GSW wearing out eventually and losing in one of the rounds.

It's not my worldview it's facts. Duncan is an outlier and I already said that ... I was not calling him out for not repeating ... you did. My point is if Duncan could not hell no curry aint because tim is greater than Steph. You are right shaq, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, etc stopped a Duncan repeat. I am betting on Tim/Lebron to do the same to curry. Sure it's a team game etc. blah, blah. but the best teams have great players and I love Curry but he is not of that class.

As for Bird he was stopped from a repeat by Magic/Kareem and Dr.J/Moses no shame there ... also no shame if Lebron does the same to Curry

[ambchang]

It's not my worldview it's facts. Duncan is an outlier and I already said that ... I was not calling him out for not repeating ... you did. My point is if Duncan could not hell no curry aint because tim is greater than Steph. You are right shaq, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, etc stopped a Duncan repeat. I am betting on Tim/Lebron to do the same to curry. Sure it's a team game etc. blah, blah. but the best teams have great players and I love Curry but he is not of that class.

As for Bird he was stopped from a repeat by Magic/Kareem and Dr.J/Moses no shame there ... also no shame if Lebron does the same to Curry

I don't know what post you were reading but I never called Duncan out. I said it doesn't take great players in their primes to repeat. Isiah Thomas did it and no way is isiah better than Duncan.

It has more to do with the superstar, team makeup and competition plays a huge role and the GSW has the tools and cicumstances to do this.

Bird proved you wrong, Moses proved you wrong, Duncan proved you wrong, Isaiah proved you wrong, wily proved you wrong, and even Kareem proved you wrong (he never won b2b in his prime).

And how is superstars leading everything a fact？ if that's the case then the best player should win the championship every year. Lebron should be an eight time defending champ by now.

[spurs10]

The trick is continued excellence. I can't think of any team that has done that for a very long time.

[Mark Celibate]

Jesus Amb i predicted 2nd round with WCF as a ceiling if everything broke right ...what part of that is so hard to understand? I even said which you quoted yesterday they only finished one round below my prediction ...
I think a poster's avatar fairly reflects the intellectual level of the poster himself/herself, tbh.

[Mark Celibate]

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.
The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bullshit officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract whore during the off-season.

[Killakobe81]

The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bullshit officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract whore during the off-season.

I like the Warriors but what about this team speaks of enough dominance to repeat? They were the best regular season team stat wise but the playoffs exposed some flaws in the team ...but no opponent was good enough to make them pay for it. Much credit to Kerr and his staff for making adjustments. But smart money is to bet against a repeat ...and some of that is .. as good as Curry is I dont know if he can "drive" that team to a repeat. It not only takes talent but a repeat is really about a team's will as much as it about a great player's dominance we will see if I am wrong but I dont see either from the Warriors.

[Killakobe81]

I don't know what post you were reading but I never called Duncan out. I said it doesn't take great players in their primes to repeat. Isiah Thomas did it and no way is isiah better than Duncan.

It has more to do with the superstar, team makeup and competition plays a huge role and the GSW has the tools and cicumstances to do this.

Bird proved you wrong, Moses proved you wrong, Duncan proved you wrong, Isaiah proved you wrong, wily proved you wrong, and even Kareem proved you wrong (he never won b2b in his prime).

And how is superstars leading everything a fact？ if that's the case then the best player should win the championship every year. Lebron should be an eight time defending champ by now.

You called him out by making excuses for him when I already said he was an exception ... but whatever. I think the umbrage you take with the underrating of Moses is how I feel about Isiah. Thomas was (and still may be) the 2nd best PG. Was he a shoot first type? Y es but he still lead the NBA in assists one year and was the leader of a team that repeated and appeared in 3 straight Finals 5 straight ECF with two rings and had to beat teams led by Larry, Magic, MJ and Drexler going 2-1 in the Finals in that span and the conference losses to Bird and MJ led teams. yes that was a great team and Laimbeer and Dumars deserve plenty of credit too but that his team and he was clearly the best player on it.

[ambchang]

The warriors are just as flawed as the Lockets as far as you are concerned. They played great last season but it wasn't liked they dominated the playoffs as the Mavs did in 2011. If OKC were healthy or if the Spurs hadn't been eliminated in the first round due to bullshit officiating, the Warriors would've had a hard time qualifying for the WCF even, tbh. Also, it's hilarious to say the Clippers, a team led by a player who's never made the WCF in his lifetime, will have any chance at the championship just because they added a TOSB Pierce and a horribly overrated contract whore during the off-season.

Curry never made the WCF before last year either, yet he won MVP and got the ring. Clippers reminds me a lot of the Webber Kings in the sense that they are made up of a bunch of very talented chokers. The talent is there, but they just have to get over that mental hump. I am not sure if they can do it, but your guess is as good as mine. The Spurs has the opposite problem, they have the mental makeup of champions, but I am no longer sure if they have championship talent.

I also fail to see how GSW would be as flawed as Houston. Houston relies on the drive and kick, and really have one person who can create a shot. GSW have multiple players who can create shots, and have better outside shooting, can defend better, and can play both big and small.

[Mark Celibate]

Curry never made the WCF before last year either, yet he won MVP and got the ring. Clippers reminds me a lot of the Webber Kings in the sense that they are made up of a bunch of very talented chokers. The talent is there, but they just have to get over that mental hump. I am not sure if they can do it, but your guess is as good as mine. The Spurs has the opposite problem, they have the mental makeup of champions, but I am no longer sure if they have championship talent.

I also fail to see how GSW would be as flawed as Houston. Houston relies on the drive and kick, and really have one person who can create a shot. GSW have multiple players who can create shots, and have better outside shooting, can defend better, and can play both big and small.

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

[Killakobe81]

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

This. I would say he is great not just good (Curry) ...but not as great as the guys we discussed. Great post. :toast

[ambchang]

Spurs ain't shorter than no one in terms of talent for the 15-16 season imho, with the acquisition of LMA. Their bench may be thinner this year, but their starting five that consist of LMA/Duncan/Kawhi/Green/Parker is still one of the most formidable lineups in the league. Good depth of bench is mostly just an insurance against some unexpected injuries, since a 7-8 guys' rotation is normally sufficient for the playoffs if everyone is healthy.

Parker really suck now. I am not one of those Parker bashers, but look at what he has done since 11-12, he is going downhill fast. Really fast.

As for bench, it was true what you said, because the thought process goes that once you are in the playoffs, you ride your best players throughout so the bench is less relevant. However, in today's NBA, versatility is key and the bench provides a lot of those talents. It's becoming more and more of a matchup game and the smart coaches pick up on that.

Duncan, as great as he is, is old. Green is a good 3-D guy. LMA is a great talent, and so is Kawhi, but Clippers with CP3/Blake/DJ/Pierce/Reddick with Smith/Stephenson/Crawford/Prigioni is more talented. GSW with Curry/Thompson/Green/Barnes/Bogut is more talented, and even HOU has a case.


GSW got exposed multiple times in the playoffs and they were lucky enough they didn't have to confront the Spurs. The Cavs were basically just a replica of the 07' team with Irving and Love both injured, a team carried by Bron himself, yet the Warriors, despite how stacked they looked on paper, still needed 6 games to beat the crippled Cavs team. Yes, they have a good variety of game plans, but when it comes to big time you still need a go-to guy to win you the game, and Curry is unfortunately not the player you can safely count on when it really matters. Curry is a good player there's no doubt about that, but there's still a good distance between him and those great ones who can and deserve to win consecutive championships as the #1 guy, imho.

I attribute a lot of that to nerves, you see that in young teams. Now that they have proven they can win it all, they will have that attitude to them.

We will see how they react, but I would think the Warriors will be better this year than last (not in terms of regular season record, but in terms of overall effectiveness of the team).

[DMC]

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.



I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer

From what you said. It's right there. Why are you denying it?


How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?

You brought it up in your first post then ignored it when I called you out on it. Now you're pretending you never said it. Since that first mention, you've only discussed the rest of the team. Odd, in that they all were covered under the "not great" umbrella while Tim was "great" and had great leadership skills". Google "confirmation bias".


I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.

That's because you're a fucking idiot.


And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?
Now you're toning it down to "deserves credit" from being the take away from the win. You know, the Bulls were not that great of a team, the fact that they won just shows how great MJ was. What? I was giving them all credit! I didn't say ONLY MJ.

[ambchang]

From what you said. It's right there. Why are you denying it?

Re-read what I wrote.


You brought it up in your first post then ignored it when I called you out on it. Now you're pretending you never said it. Since that first mention, you've only discussed the rest of the team. Odd, in that they all were covered under the "not great" umbrella while Tim was "great" and had great leadership skills". Google "confirmation bias".

I brought it up in the first post, so I have established what I said. Me talking about the rest of the team doesn't mean Duncan doesn't not deserve credit. Do you have some sort of mental issues or something? Me going out and say, "Man, the ribs at this restaurant is really great! I can see why so man people come here." Does NOT mean, "People only come to this restaurant for the ribs.", or "The ribs are fantastic at the restaurant, but everything else sucks", or "The ribs are the only reason for the existence of this restaurant."


That's because you're a fucking idiot.

Because I fully understand that the game is more about matchups than seeing the future.


Now you're toning it down to "deserves credit" from being the take away from the win. You know, the Bulls were not that great of a team, the fact that they won just shows how great MJ was. What? I was giving them all credit! I didn't say ONLY MJ.

The Bulls really weren't that great of a team, especially if you take away Jordan. They were a WCSF team in a weak Eastern Conference without him. Does that mean Phil Jackson, Jerry Krause and Pippen doesn't deserve credit if they win? No. Just try to get that concept through your fat hands.

[Buddy Mignon]

The Warriors were fortunate to beat teams with injured PG's. One and done for those jokers.

[DMC]

Re-read what I wrote.



I brought it up in the first post, so I have established what I said. Me talking about the rest of the team doesn't mean Duncan doesn't not deserve credit. Do you have some sort of mental issues or something? Me going out and say, "Man, the ribs at this restaurant is really great! I can see why so man people come here." Does NOT mean, "People only come to this restaurant for the ribs.", or "The ribs are fantastic at the restaurant, but everything else sucks", or "The ribs are the only reason for the existence of this restaurant."



Because I fully understand that the game is more about matchups than seeing the future.



The Bulls really weren't that great of a team, especially if you take away Jordan. They were a WCSF team in a weak Eastern Conference without him. Does that mean Phil Jackson, Jerry Krause and Pippen doesn't deserve credit if they win? No. Just try to get that concept through your fat hands.
You're like the IRL version of cosmored.

[dbestpro]

I guarantee my prediction. The Spurs will not go undefeated.

[ambchang]

You're like the IRL version of cosmored.

You are like the fat hands version of a retard.

[DMC]

You are like the fat hands version of a retard.
You keep going back to that dry well don't you Corky.

[ambchang]

You keep going back to that dry well don't you Corky.

There's plenty of water where I'm going.

[DMC]

There's plenty of water where I'm going.
Only in your head, Downs boy.

[HemisfairArena]

The Warriors were fortunate to beat teams with injured PG's. One and done for those jokers.

Your team was unfortunate to have Kobrick for going on 4 straight years,,,

[ambchang]

Only in your head, Downs boy.

Also in you hands, fat hands.

[Fat Hands]

I keep getting pinged about someone using my name..whats going on here?

[Sean Cagney]

Injuries; not match-ups is the potential downfall; just like last season.

All really depends on how the new parts fit in. On paper they are better but chemistry? It could go downhill if they don't gel and we have seen this happen with teams before in any sport when signing a bunch of new parts. LA will be the key obviously and how he fits in, then you have the growth of Leonard and how much he can improve and be more consistent like he was the last 20 some odd games last year and the first four playoff games, we need that one more often. Also will Parker move faster than a slug this year?

[Spurtacular]

All really depends on how the new parts fit in. On paper they are better but chemistry? It could go downhill if they don't gel and we have seen this happen with teams before in any sport when signing a bunch of new parts. LA will be the key obviously and how he fits in, then you have the growth of Leonard and how much he can improve and be more consistent like he was the last 20 some odd games last year and the first four playoff games, we need that one more often. Also will Parker move faster than a slug this year?

Your chemistry point is not wrong; but I'm not that worried. When was the last time the Spurs had serious chemistry issues?

Pop has been loyal to Parker to a fault thus far. I'm interested to see if that changes at all this season.

[Sean Cagney]

Your chemistry point is not wrong; but I'm not that worried. When was the last time the Spurs had serious chemistry issues?

Pop has been loyal to Parker to a fault thus far. I'm interested to see if that changes at all this season.Spurs never really had serious chemistry issues, the last I can think of was probably Rodman at the end before he got traded and they went to the WCF that year. That wasn't even that serious and Pop was not there yet so I doubt it happens if he is the coach. I agree.

[DMC]

When even your opponent can't dislike you, your team chemistry should be fine.

[SpurSwag]

If we lose it'll be because of Tony and Manu not being able to create for open shooters like in the past. Obviously we are going to have more post ups than we've seen in a long time for the spurs with Aldridge, Kawhi, and Timmy being our best 3 players, but we need Tony and Manu to still be able to drive to the rim and either finish or kick out to shooters on a consistent basis. I think if we get a healthy, explosive Tony we will ring, and if not it'll be a huge struggle unless Kawhi picks up Tony and Manu's playmaking responsibilities a bit.

[DMC]

If/When the Spurs lose, it will be because they got worse on defense. Two of their starters are old as fuck, and LMA isn't a great defender. He can be better (maybe Thibs is doing that) but we relied on Danny and Kawhi last year while others who were instrumental in 2014 simply slacked off. There was no good play from anyone in the post season this year, everyone was mediocre and even Pop was mailing it in. Fouling Jordan up 13 in the 1st half was stupid as fuck, but it happened and here we are.

[Killakobe81]

Warriors, Cavs and Clippers are all better talents on paper.

Houston and Spurs are on similar ground. So yes, the Spurs have to climb over 3 guys that are above them to win it all, likely having to go through all 3 in order to do so. I'd say that is against the odds.



I do. Cp3 deserved it in 08, MVPau deserves at least 1 of the 2 FMVPs.

This nicca AMB ACTUALLY posted this ...

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, I would say 2nd round is about where the Spurs will end up. Anything more than that is gravy.



I did? I said if they won it would be Tim carried them through with his leadership? How did you interpret that as a proud Amer



How did I ignore that? I brought it up in my first post. Tim's leadership deserves credit if the Spurs win the championship. Do you want me to write that in every single post?



I didn't expect CP3 to falter in the playoffs.



And? The Spurs really aren't that great of a team where they can just go into the season and expect a championship. If they win, Duncan's greatness and leadership abilities deserve credit. How is that me saying if the Spurs win it would be (solely) BECAUSE of Duncan's leadership?

Gotta give you props, here Amb good call! :bobo
the rest :rollin

[Killakobe81]

I'm not so worried about Duncan even though he's old as fuck. His offensive game has already fallen way off anyways, but unless he blows out a knee I'm confident he'll still be a strong interior defender, rebounder, and garbage guy at the rim. Parker is the huge question mark, his game has fallen off a cliff since 2012-13. He was still decent in 2013-14, though nowhere near the player he was from about 2006-13, but if the Spurs lose it will be because they got completely demolished at the PG position just like in the Clipper series last year. As a Spurs fan that's what makes me nervous this year, that 2015 Parker is just who Parker is now, when the West is loaded with really strong points like Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Conley, Lawson and then Irving would be waiting in a potential Finals matchup.

Bum with so much goods ...

[Killakobe81]

I actually see the Cavs having the same chances as the Spurs. The Warriors are really the favourites. Clippers are next.

Cavs and Spurs are probably after that, Rox is not likely because I see that team is deeply flawed, but I can see them being on the same level as the Spurs, OKC has a punchers chance if they are all healthy, but I am not counting on it.

I am still very high on the Memphis Grizzlies, and am unreasonably optimistic about the Bulls chances.

Example of so much fails ... from pre-season last year
MVPau had that nicca Amb blind ...
Clips
Rox
Grizz
Spurs = Cavs

This is a short post from Amb based on normal wpp (words per post) and his shit was so wrong. Good thing you dont gamble, friend. I will say this you were right about your team ...but for some reason 67 wins changed your mind. I dont think your playoff predictions were anything like this ...:bobo

[Killakobe81]

Why is it an either or? You are basing this on the assumption that Duncan's leadership is the only factor that matters.

It's not.



It's not a great team. So if they win, they deserve credit for going above expectations. What part of that do you not understand.

It's like saying, if you can get your head out of your ass, you deserve credit, because it's something that is not expected of you. But if you keep your head in your ass, you don't deserve blame, because it's something expected of you.



You saw your logic where in my original post? Where did I say if the Spurs win it would have been because of Duncan?

DMC really got in this dude's head this was a great thread ...

[ambchang]

This nicca AMB ACTUALLY posted this ...


Gotta give you props, here Amb good call! :bobo
the rest :rollin


Example of so much fails ... from pre-season last year
MVPau had that nicca Amb blind ...
Clips
Rox
Grizz
Spurs = Cavs

This is a short post from Amb based on normal wpp (words per post) and his shit was so wrong. Good thing you dont gamble, friend. I will say this you were right about your team ...but for some reason 67 wins changed your mind. I dont think your playoff predictions were anything like this ...:bobo

More right than wont. cavs going deeper doesn't mean they have a better chance they just played in the east.