'16-'18 Fools Gold Regular Seasons Were Worst Thing That Could Happen

[TD 21]

In particular, the minor miracle series win vs Rockets and 25 point game 1 lead vs Warriors.

Instead of realizing that the game was passing them by and that they were mostly winning at that level because they lucked into an MVP caliber player, an All-Star (who wanted to play in San Antonio more than he wanted to be a Spur), continuity and defense, they ignored their structural issues, increasingly believed their own hype and doubled down on intangibles and tertiary things.

It culminated in their becoming so brazen that they actually had the audacity to think that this horrifically assembled roster could improve upon 47 wins, instead of realizing the error of their ways and why they were covered up.

The more enlightened, knowledgeable posters pointed out the festering issues during those seasons, but were scoffed at for supposedly being contrarians, pessimists, etc. In reality, we were seeing the forest from the trees.

Now, it's all come to a head and this franchise is increasingly becoming the laughingstock of the league.

[apalisoc_9]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

[Dex]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

Surprisingly on point.

[TD 21]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.


Fatigue and Parker falling off a cliff prevented them from being a 60 win team in '15, but they were going to be a 60 win team with Leonard's ascenion, Aldridge's arrival, continuity and defense. They lucked into the first 2 and the last 2 were remnants of the previous era.

Thinking they could beat math period was a combination of arrogant and stupid. Thinking they could do so with inferior talent was insane.

[Leetonidas]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

:tu

The Spurs were an elite team especially in '16 and again in '17. FO has made some atrocious decisions since then than have royally fucked us so they obviously deserve criticism. But you can't blame them for assembling an elite back to back 60 win team just because the team is garbage now. Who could have predicted nephew quitting on us and forcing a trade?

[Pavlov]

Oh look, a hot take OP.

[Lonnie Walker IV]

Oh look, a hot take OP.
It's not even "Trash take" worthy. :lol

[Lonnie Walker IV]

quitter left. End of story faggot. :lmao

[apalisoc_9]

Fatigue and Parker falling off a cliff prevented them from being a 60 win team in '15, but they were going to be a 60 win team with Leonard's ascenion, Aldridge's arrival, continuity and defense. They lucked into the first 2 and the last 2 were remnants of the previous era.

Thinking they could beat math period was a combination of arrogant and stupid. Thinking they could do so with inferior talent was insane.

Basketball is not math. Theoretically speaking, you can beat 3 ball basketball by slowing pace via efficient offense that modern teams are more than willing to give. It's not their philosophy that killed them, but it's their scouting within the NBA landscape.

The Spurs arent going to willingly play with lesser talent because they want to, they're playing with less talent because there is deficiency in their decision making in terms of personel buildup.

I suppose you are right in that they were arrogant for thinking they could beat the league that way after Leonards departure.

Its just that their philosophy is hard in terms of application because of the needed talent to make it work.

They need new blood in the organization that is in touch with modern day talent. They seem to be doing good drafting college players but struggle to properly evaluate existing NBA talent.

[Chillen]

Reality is setting in for Spurs. You trade away a top 5 NBA player this is what happens. It's not their fault Leonard forced his way out of San Antonio though.

The injuries have not helped this team at all. As it is they have enough to sneak into the playoffs but the defense has been awful so they are losing games and playoffs in jeopardy.

They need a trade because at this point what difference does it make really this team probably is not going to reach playoffs the way things are looking now.

The loss of Parker, Kawhi, Manu, Green sure did not help.

[Chinook]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

Amazing that you're one of the few folks who seems to have really understood this. It wasn't just Leonard, though. They'd have a chance at being a solid second-tier team if they still had some semblance of defense to go along with DeRozan's scoring. If they find two great defensive forwards (like OG/Siakam) in the draft and gets Murray to shoot threes at a high rate, they can get back to being a top team. Issue is that Aldridge will be even farther from his 2017 self. I've maintained that Gasol failing to punish smaller players is the single biggest reason the Spurs had a limited ceiling in the last couple of years. There was no point in having Pau play next to Aldridge, because Gasol doesn't play like a big 70 percent of the time. Had they had Zach Randolph from a couple of years ago, they'd've been able to punish smaller teams. Now Aldridge can't even pretend to play the four, so they'd need a legit PF who is also a talented post player. Don't know of one that exists. Maybe that could be Hachimura.

[apalisoc_9]

Reality is setting in for Spurs. You trade away a top 5 NBA player this is what happens. It's not their fault Leonard forced his way out of San Antonio though.

The injuries have not helped this team at all. As it is they have enough to sneak into the playoffs but the defense has been awful so they are losing games and playoffs in jeopardy.

They need a trade because at this point what difference does it make really this team probably is not going to reach playoffs the way things are looking now.

The loss of Parker, Kawhi, Manu, Green sure did not help.

They need a trade but not for the reasons the fans want. The season is lost because of Murray injury and obviously Derozan being derozan.

They need to trade before Gay, Derozan, Aldridge value plummets even more.

Probablem is ownership. They probably want to remain competitive. I get it. Its business.

[apalisoc_9]

Amazing that you're one of the few folks who seems to have really understood this. It wasn't just Leonard, though. They'd have a chance at being a solid second-tier team if they still had some semblance of defense to go along with DeRozan's scoring. If they find two great defensive forwards (like OG/Siakam) in the draft and gets Murray to shoot threes at a high rate, they can get back to being a top team. Issue is that Aldridge will be even farther from his 2017 self. I've maintained that Gasol failing to punish smaller players is the single biggest reason the Spurs had a limited ceiling in the last couple of years. There was no point in having Pau play next to Aldridge, because Gasol doesn't play like a big 70 percent of the time. Had they had Zach Randolph from a couple of years ago, they'd've been able to punish smaller teams. Now Aldridge can't even pretend to play the four, so they'd need a legit PF who is also a talented post player. Don't know of one that exists. Maybe that could be Hachimura.

It would be arrogant to continue with this philosophy, imo. It's great and I personally think before zaza injuries the spurs had a better chance than the fans give them credit but the reality is that talent from college and overseas are all within the new era.

Like you said, you dont know one that exist. It's suicide to continue moving with the same philosophy. College and Europe arent birthing Tim Duncans and rasheed wallaces. To add to that, Kawhi is a generational player. The best route is to adapt and embrace the new NBA because that gives PATFO more options in terms of personel buildup.

The Spurs gave derozan way too much credit. Its crazy how they didnt get OG at least in that trade. Anunoby is a good fit for the modern NBA and will be a decent fit if they do decide to continue with the Anti pace approach.

If by a mircale, they

[SpurSpike]

Never thought id say this but apalisoc is on point.

[TD 21]

Basketball is not math. Theoretically speaking, you can beat 3 ball basketball by slowing pace via efficient offense that modern teams are more than willing to give. It's not their philosophy that killed them, but it's their scouting within the NBA landscape.

The Spurs arent going to willingly play with lesser talent because they want to, they're playing with less talent because there is deficiency in their decision making in terms of personel buildup.

I suppose you are right in that they were arrogant for thinking they could beat the league that way after Leonards departure.

Its just that their philosophy is hard in terms of application because of the needed talent to make it work.

They need new blood in the organization that is in touch with modern day talent. They seem to be doing good drafting college players but struggle to properly evaluate existing NBA talent.

Not in a single game, but over the long haul, it is. You need as much variance as possible if you're even going to think about being teams with more elite talent and it starts with not hamstringing yourself by intentionally matching up poorly. Low event/variance basketball wasn't getting it done in 4 out of 7 or less. The Rockets got this and gave themselves a punchers chance.

They played with lesser and poorly assembled talent in large part because they were arrogant enough to think they could continue to out IQ teams instead of realizing that the '14 team was its own separate entity, with underrated talent.



Amazing that you're one of the few folks who seems to have really understood this. It wasn't just Leonard, though. They'd have a chance at being a solid second-tier team if they still had some semblance of defense to go along with DeRozan's scoring. If they find two great defensive forwards (like OG/Siakam) in the draft and gets Murray to shoot threes at a high rate, they can get back to being a top team. Issue is that Aldridge will be even farther from his 2017 self. I've maintained that Gasol failing to punish smaller players is the single biggest reason the Spurs had a limited ceiling in the last couple of years. There was no point in having Pau play next to Aldridge, because Gasol doesn't play like a big 70 percent of the time. Had they had Zach Randolph from a couple of years ago, they'd've been able to punish smaller teams. Now Aldridge can't even pretend to play the four, so they'd need a legit PF who is also a talented post player. Don't know of one that exists. Maybe that could be Hachimura.

So their thinking wasn't flawed because if they only had a bunch of pieces that are difficult to attain and could turn the clock back with a specific player, they could be good (but not good enough)? Great logic.

[Seventyniner]

Another shit thread from someone who will find any reason to pat himself on the back. Good job. I guess.

[Chinook]

So their thinking wasn't flawed because if they only had a bunch of pieces that are difficult to attain and could turn the clock back with a specific player, they could be good (but not good enough)? Great logic.

The actual logic was established by Apa and backed up by data. They've never had a problem keeping up with three-point shooting teams, because their D and efficient offense could always make up that advantage. It's plum ludicrous to argue that '16 and '17 were fool's gold. They were way closer to competing than a bum-ass team like Houston. Games are between two teams, not between two averages on a stat sheet. It doesn't matter how well a team shoots from three if in a series versus the Spurs, they can't seem to get enough open looks or stop the Spurs from using judicious offense to erase the TS% gap. By and large in every series the Spurs have played, they've either won or been right there in the shooting battle.

[apalisoc_9]

Not in a single game, but over the long haul, it is. You need as much variance as possible if you're even going to think about being teams with more elite talent and it starts with not hamstringing yourself by intentionally matching up poorly. Low event/variance basketball wasn't getting it done in 4 out of 7 or less. The Rockets got this and gave themselves a punchers chance.

They played with lesser and poorly assembled talent in large part because they were arrogant enough to think they could continue to out IQ teams instead of realizing that the '14 team was its own separate entity, with underrated talent.




So their thinking wasn't flawed because if they only had a bunch of pieces that are difficult to attain and could turn the clock back with a specific player, they could be good (but not good enough)? Great logic.


They won back to back 60 with that philosohpy so yes it was working in the long-run. I dont even think the spurs expected to win 60 in both those seasons. Their philosophy was more tailor made for a 7 game series.

Thankfully the league is not full of GSW so they're always going to win 50+ with their appraoch and I firmly believe everything they did was to counter golden state.

No one is beating Golden State playing threeball. You beat Golden state with an Elite wing and a competent big. Ala Cavs. And its what the spurs had before Kawhi left.

[RC_Drunkford]

They won back to back 60 with that philosohpy so yes it was working in the long-run. I dont even think the spurs expected to win 60 in both those seasons. Their philosophy was more tailor made for a 7 game series.

Thankfully the league is not full of GSW so they're always going to win 50+ with their appraoch and I firmly believe everything they did was to counter golden state.

No one is beating Golden State playing threeball. You beat Golden state with an Elite wing and a competent big. Ala Cavs. And its what the spurs had before Kawhi left.

Absolutely on point. Especially in 2017 the Spurs were absolutely built to defeat GS. GS couldn't guard Kawhi nor LaMarcus and Jonathon Simmons gave them problems as well. They had a mobile big who can switch pick and rolls in Dedmon and since Parker got injured Dejounte would've gotten minutes at PG to check Livingston. Add to that wing defenders like Danny Green and Kyle Anderson. And even David Lee played well for us and wasn't a bad defender that year. That team if healthy might have beaten Golden State and even if not, they were only a point guard away. Put Kemba on that roster and they ring. George Hill with the way he played in Utah that year might've even been enough, but he demanded way too much money in the offseason.

[tenbeersbold]

Is Gasol what's missing...Spurs had a 6-3 record when he went down

[BlackAndWhite]

2016 wasn't fools gold. They were legit before Duncan's second knee collapsed. If Parker, Kwad, and David Lee wasn't injured we had a good chance of beating the warriors in 2017.

[Bad Takes]

Another shit thread from someone who will find any reason to pat himself on the back. Good job. I guess.

Always the same poster with the hot take.

[TD 21]

The actual logic was established by Apa and backed up by data. They've never had a problem keeping up with three-point shooting teams, because their D and efficient offense could always make up that advantage. It's plum ludicrous to argue that '16 and '17 were fool's gold. They were way closer to competing than a bum-ass team like Houston. Games are between two teams, not between two averages on a stat sheet. It doesn't matter how well a team shoots from three if in a series versus the Spurs, they can't seem to get enough open looks or stop the Spurs from using judicious offense to erase the TS% gap. By and large in every series the Spurs have played, they've either won or been right there in the shooting battle.

Those teams were as fool's gold as it gets, which is why the national media never took them all that seriously to begin with. There was no way their archaic, low variance style was beating elite talents in a series. They were fortunate the '17 Rockets lacked anything resembling a 2nd star.



They won back to back 60 with that philosohpy so yes it was working in the long-run. I dont even think the spurs expected to win 60 in both those seasons. Their philosophy was more tailor made for a 7 game series.

Thankfully the league is not full of GSW so they're always going to win 50+ with their appraoch and I firmly believe everything they did was to counter golden state.

No one is beating Golden State playing threeball. You beat Golden state with an Elite wing and a competent big. Ala Cavs. And its what the spurs had before Kawhi left.

And the '18 Raptors won 59, narrowly missing 60 by losing their finale in overtime to the Heat: Were they not fool's gold?

Who cares about fattening up the record on run of the mill teams? With the championship in mind, only the Warriors, Cavaliers, Clippers and '16 Thunder mattered.

There's a happy middle between trying to mimic the Warriors and obstinance, but the Spurs were too consumed with trying to look smarter than everyone else as opposed to trying to strike that balance.

The Cavs were a lethal 3-point shooting team in their own right and need a series of breaks to win that series.

[R. DeMurre]

The 67 win team was absolutely legit, but they had the natural issues of aging & change to deal with.
You can't blame the FO for keeping Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, & Diaw around for a last hurrah while transitioning to a more Kawhi-centric team while also incorporating their first Big Time free agent signing in LMA... In many ways, the LMA experiment worked great that year: He had both the best DRtg and the best FG% of his career... It was also a big deal for the Spurs generally-- I still remember the conventional wisdom that summer being that there was no way LMA would wind up in San Antonio because major free agents "never" considered the Spurs... He wasn't (and isn't) perfect, but it was still a good move at the time, considering Duncan was close to retirement, and there weren't any better options.

I dunno, in a way I find all of this hand-wringing and analysis kind of funny... A team that over two seasons lost Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Kawhi Leonard, and Danny Green, and also lost their young new PG to injury is struggling and having a (relative) down year?? Unimaginable!
In a year of incredible parity in the West so far, the absolute worst season in twenty years finds the Spurs 5.5 games out of first place after 26 games... that's a pretty mild mannered disaster if you ask me.

[apalisoc_9]

Those teams were as fool's gold as it gets, which is why the national media never took them all that seriously to begin with. There was no way their archaic, low variance style was beating elite talents in a series. They were fortunate the '17 Rockets lacked anything resembling a 2nd star.




And the '18 Raptors won 59, narrowly missing 60 by losing their finale in overtime to the Heat: Were they not fool's gold?

Who cares about fattening up the record on run of the mill teams? With the championship in mind, only the Warriors, Cavaliers, Clippers and '16 Thunder mattered.

There's a happy middle between trying to mimic the Warriors and obstinance, but the Spurs were too consumed with trying to look smarter than everyone else as opposed to trying to strike that balance.

The Cavs were a lethal 3-point shooting team in their own right and need a series of breaks to win that series.

Why compare the 18 raptors to the 17 spurs. We're talking about basketball philosophies here and wether or not it has its merits.

You beat Golden state playing slow with a dominant wing and a big. Thats exactly what the spurs were trying to do. Take the midrange the league is gonna give them, set your defense up as a result.

[SAGirl]

I don't think they were fool's gold, they did require health and didn't have it, between Timmy busting his one remaining knee, Tony busting a hamstring, and Kawhi famously getting Zaza'd, plus miscellaneous nags here or there, who knows? They were a legit contender, especially b4 Durant to the Warriors happened. But PATFO probably stood complacent resigning the old cast at bloated prices and standing pat, plus more standing pat... and eventually guys got old, the big 3 retired and Kawhi revealed his ultimate end game apparently. It was fun while it lasted, but I did feel at the time, PATFO had a small window and was standing pat too much.

Anyways, now they need to reload through the draft. In spite of wanting to remain competitive they appear to have taken a step back and that's not a good sign. It's only December, still so we will see what happens. They are not a contender, but are they even a playoff team?

[daslicer]

I don't think they were fool's gold, they did require health and didn't have it, between Timmy busting his one remaining knee, Tony busting a hamstring, and Kawhi famously getting Zaza'd, plus miscellaneous nags here or there, who knows? They were a legit contender, especially b4 Durant to the Warriors happened. But PATFO probably stood complacent resigning the old cast at bloated prices and standing pat, plus more standing pat... and eventually guys got old, the big 3 retired and Kawhi revealed his ultimate end game apparently. It was fun while it lasted, but I did feel at the time, PATFO had a small window and was standing pat too much.

Anyways, now they need to reload through the draft. In spite of wanting to remain competitive they appear to have taken a step back and that's not a good sign. It's only December, still so we will see what happens. They are not a contender, but are they even a playoff team?

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got dicked over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.

[DMC]

I don't think they thought they could win. I think they thought they could compete. There's money to be made even outside of the Finals, else we'd not have half the NBA teams we have now, but the outward facade is that they build for championships. I think they build to sell tickets.

[anon]

Why compare the 18 raptors to the 17 spurs. We're talking about basketball philosophies here and wether or not it has its merits.

You beat Golden state playing slow with a dominant wing and a big. Thats exactly what the spurs were trying to do. Take the midrange the league is gonna give them, set your defense up as a result.

I liked your thread about pace control being a designed method the entire bball ops and player roster agreed upon to beat GS, apac. It certainly was true for the regular season, and the method still held firm versus the rest of the contending field. It especially held up against falsification when two pace-controlling teams in the Spurs and Grizzlies went to a 6 game series that was ultimately decided by which team had the better one-on-one producer, quantity of possessions being roughly equal.

However. That 2017 WCF Game 1 match threw pace control out of the window. Spurs non-figuratively ran with the Warriors for 4 quarters and were winning for 3 of them. Fastbreaking forwards led the charge with nearly every break resulting in a conversion. I don't remember which pundit exclaimed on national tv how shocked the SSOL Warriors were that the Spurs were playing and beating the Warriors at their own game, probably Miller. At least for Game 1. Always thought the switch in pace was a mind game Pop was playing to plant the seed of doubt in the opponent's head, who would then return to using the entire shot clock for Game 2 when the opponent would be second-guessing themselves. Leonard, Green, Simmons, Mills and Dedmon all leveraged their legs on the open floor for Game 1 and it was paying off. Maybe the team couldn't sustain that pace and win for 7 games. Maybe it was a judicious use of what athleticism the team had to draw first blood and nullify the Warriors' home advantage. Maybe Pop had no hand in it and it was Leonard's initiative to beat GS at their own pace, staking on superior wing and help defense to deny the opponent a possession (that often would have resulted in a 3) while converting on the other end before the opposing defense was set--for multiple 4 or 5 or 6 point swings. We will never know.

There are two teams noteworthy in this 2019 season that took notice of the 2017 Spurs' initial success during Game 1 and have attempted to replicate the marriage of two-way play and SSOL as a season-long philosophy: the Lakers and the Raptors, with Orlando and Sacramento enjoying modest success as well despite lacking the defensive mindset (or ambition) as the former two.

[RC_Drunkford]

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got dicked over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.

The Kawhi/Gay/Aldridge front line would've given the Dubs serious trouble, that's why they signed Gay. Sadly we could never witness that. Add to that that Steph was injured in the beginning of the Playoffs and Spurs could've gone for the title.

The fact that we are the only team going 8-9 against them in the regular season since 2014/15 speaks volumes on how the roster has been constructed. We have the best regular season record against the Dubs in the entire NBA if we don't count Playoffs. I don't count the Playoff series cause we were never fully healthy, not for 1 game.

[daslicer]

The Kawhi/Gay/Aldridge front line would've given the Dubs serious trouble, that's why they signed Gay. Sadly we could never witness that. Add to that that Steph was injured in the beginning of the Playoffs and Spurs could've gone for the title.

The fact that we are the only team going 8-9 against them in the regular season since 2014/15 speaks volumes on how the roster has been constructed. We have the best regular season record against the Dubs in the entire NBA if we don't count Playoffs. I don't count the Playoff series cause we were never fully healthy, not for 1 game.

Agreed that's how I feel.

[TD 21]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?



Why compare the 18 raptors to the 17 spurs. We're talking about basketball philosophies here and wether or not it has its merits.

You beat Golden state playing slow with a dominant wing and a big. Thats exactly what the spurs were trying to do. Take the midrange the league is gonna give them, set your defense up as a result.

Because they're a recent and prime example of a team winning lots of regular season games, with a strong point differential, but never really being contenders. Philosophically, I don't think the Spurs obstinance has merit because the margin for error was virtually non existent and they had inferior talent compared to other elites. Given the latter, they couldn't afford to be the former.

Since when were you on the front office's bandwagon? I thought they've been antiquated for years? Now, suddenly they're geniuses . . .

[SAGirl]

I felt the moves the front office made when it came to the summers of '15 and '16 were good moves. Those teams were contenders and what really held them back was injuries. The FO deserves criticism for the summer of '17 moves in signing Gasol and Mills to bloated contracts. Those are the moves people can get upset about it but prior to that I felt they had made the right moves. Spurs got dicked over big time in '17 with the Zaza play and then #2 going rogue. I really do believe if #2 played last year the Spurs had a chance of winning it all. They are the only team that had 4 good wing defenders in #2,Green,Murray,Anderson. The Rox had only 2 good wing defenders in Ariza/Moute and were on the verge of beating the Warriors.
That’s true. My timing wasn’t all that accurate but you are right.

[apalisoc_9]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?




Because they're a recent and prime example of a team winning lots of regular season games, with a strong point differential, but never really being contenders. Philosophically, I don't think the Spurs obstinance has merit because the margin for error was virtually non existent and they had inferior talent compared to other elites. Given the latter, they couldn't afford to be the former.

Since when were you on the front office's bandwagon? I thought they've been antiquated for years? Now, suddenly they're geniuses . . .

I'm not on the PATFO side. I do think their philosophy doesnt coincide with the available talent in the NBA and the upcoming draft but again their apprach absoultley had merit. From an X and O Standpoint, their plan was exactly how you beat a threeball fast pace oriented team. The Spurs couldnt move towards the threeball appracoh because they didnt velieve they'd acquire the players needed to play Golden State ball against Golden state.

[TD 21]

I'm not on the PATFO side. I do think their philosophy doesnt coincide with the available talent in the NBA and the upcoming draft but again their apprach absoultley had merit. From an X and O Standpoint, their plan was exactly how you beat a threeball fast pace oriented team. The Spurs couldnt move towards the threeball appracoh because they didnt velieve they'd acquire the players needed to play Golden State ball against Golden state.

Based on what? I missed when the blueprint for this was established.

Not true. Virtually every prominent jump shooting big from Aldrige's era, either from common sense or being nudged, migrated to 3 point land years ago.

Parker always needed to do the same to have a chance to age reasonably well. He never did because they never prioritized it.

DeRozan obviously wasn't on the teams I was referencing, but he's another example of their obstinance. He was up to 3.6 attempts from 3 last season. He's down to 1.3 this season (in almost 2 more mpg, but still).

[TDMVPDPOY]

THE 67 WIN TEAM, they shouldve tried keep those bench players who were on 1yr rentals, then the following year they got rid of more players due to FA, then u have this year losing kawhi, green, anderson the spurs whole perimeter defense rotation for a bunch of offensive players who plays no lick of defense

if u knew parker and ginoboli were retiring, why did they give out loyalty contracts to mills and pau?

dont get me started with the players stash in europe...who could be useful but the glut in the roster rotation left them with no space to add anyone without sacrificing anyone...

[Splits]

The 67 win team was absolutely legit, but they had the natural issues of aging & change to deal with.
You can't blame the FO for keeping Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, & Diaw around for a last hurrah while transitioning to a more Kawhi-centric team while also incorporating their first Big Time free agent signing in LMA... In many ways, the LMA experiment worked great that year: He had both the best DRtg and the best FG% of his career... It was also a big deal for the Spurs generally-- I still remember the conventional wisdom that summer being that there was no way LMA would wind up in San Antonio because major free agents "never" considered the Spurs... He wasn't (and isn't) perfect, but it was still a good move at the time, considering Duncan was close to retirement, and there weren't any better options.

I dunno, in a way I find all of this hand-wringing and analysis kind of funny... A team that over two seasons lost Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Kawhi Leonard, and Danny Green, and also lost their young new PG to injury is struggling and having a (relative) down year?? Unimaginable!
In a year of incredible parity in the West so far, the absolute worst season in twenty years finds the Spurs 5.5 games out of first place after 26 games... that's a pretty mild mannered disaster if you ask me.

dont forget there are few if any greater cliff jumping faggots with horrific takes than OP

[FkLA]

OP always comes off like an elitist armchair GM. We'd probably be on our way to a ten-peat if he ran the team.

[Chinook]

Those teams were as fool's gold as it gets, which is why the national media never took them all that seriously to begin with. There was no way their archaic, low variance style was beating elite talents in a series. They were fortunate the '17 Rockets lacked anything resembling a 2nd star.

:lol thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win titles in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

[Fusternino]

:lol thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win titles in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

I still think if Tiago hadn't gotten injured in 2015 or we had a legit 7-footer (i.e. Dedmon) instead of West in 2016 then we win at least one more championship.

[Chinook]

:lol thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win titles in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.

Both were close. The Spurs matched up very well with the pre-Durant Warriors. I do think that with both teams at 100 percent, SA wins in 15 and GS in 16

[BlackAndWhite]

I agree. DWorst was probably the most unlikeable player on that team

[Popabitch]

Porker falling off the cliff & his extension kicking in right on cue when the league was becoming PnR heavy killed the team.

When Porker played decent they were able to annihilate teams even in the playoffs (Gm 1 vs OKC) but once teams figured Porker was TOSB & forced him to be a scorer it was a struggle to score. Carlisle was the first one that dared Porker to be a scorer but he still had some gas left in tank back in '14 & was able to toast Blair in Gm 7 along with the Glazers in the following round.

In '15, Porker had one of the shittiest postseason series by a starting point guard & it took a miraculous shot to beat the team.

In '16, they could have easily beaten OKC (the same team Iggy claimed were the "best in the league") if Porker was able to make a shot in the 4th quarter of Gm 5 when OKC dared anyone but Kawhi to beat them including Softridge. (Let's not talk about the BS foul on Danny.....)

In '17, who knows what would have happened if Zaza didn't take out Kawhi..........

PATFO fucked up the summer of '17 when they brought back Fatty/Pau knowing the team needed a secondary playmaker instead of spot up shooters.

[Popabitch]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?

In '16, Curry was playing on one leg & Gaymond/Barnes were burnt out along with Iggy having back issues.

[Seventyniner]

Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't beat them

All that needed to be said.

[TD 21]

:lol thinking what the national media thinks matters. That a). b) is that they media totally thought the Spurs were contenders in 2015 and 2016. 2017 was the only year where the Spurs were thought to not have much of a chance, and that was when Leonard got Zaza'd. Honestly, this teleological method of thinking you have is getting old. Unless we're going to go by the causal closure of the physical, the Spurs have had chances to win titles in many more years than you seem to think they did. Them losing to the Thunder is not a statement that they couldn't
beat them, especially considering how close two of those losses were. That was the same year that two teams came back from 1-3 deficits to win series. Did those losing teams "have no chance" despite having huge leads? My guess is you'll say they did have chances, because it's silly to argue otherwise. However, you will continuously support your arguments against the Spurs either by pointing to the loss or just repeating that you don't think they could win. It doesn't make sense.

It's really absurd too that you act as if the Rockets win was some accident when the Spurs won the series going away despite missing two of their three best offensive players. The Spurs weren't lucky at all. They were just better, especially schematically.

You want to argue that the Spurs' desired style is hard to play and that they don't have the personnel to do it? I can agree. You want to say that that style isn't effective, and you come off as a flat-Earther. They were in the top three most successful teams in the league over that stretch, despite how many games their star player missed.



They don't, but I'll take a consensus of people who do this for a living over a homer any day. They collectively and correctly jumped off the bang wagon following the Warriors obliterating them in one of the most hyped regular season games ever, in '16.

I didn't say it wasn't effective, I said it wasn't effective enough to win a championship. None of those years were missed opportunities, the way '00, '04, '06, '12 and obviously '13 were.

By this logic, the Raptors, Hawks, Pacers, Grizzlies, at various points in this decade, were contenders.

This thread has been derailed by homers like yourself either missing or ignoring the point, which was they became emboldened by their fool's gold regular seasons and missed the forest from the trees.

[Mr. Body]

Yeah, no. I disagree. The team was built for a last run during the Big Three era. Pop had/has the template to beat the Warriors and might have done it, if Steve Kerr hadn't instructed Zaza Pachulia to take out Kawhi Leonard.

Warriors are just a lucky fucking team. They would have lost last year if Paul hadn't gone down.

So, no, it wasn't Fools Gold. What torpedoed everything was fucking Kawhi. Biggest soft-ass bust traitor in sports history.

[RC_Drunkford]

Yeah, no. I disagree. The team was built for a last run during the Big Three era. Pop had/has the template to beat the Warriors and might have done it, if Steve Kerr hadn't instructed Zaza Pachulia to take out Kawhi Leonard.

Warriors are just a lucky fucking team. They would have lost last year if Paul hadn't gone down.

So, no, it wasn't Fools Gold. What torpedoed everything was fucking Kawhi. Biggest soft-ass bust traitor in sports history.

the Warriors won all 3 of their titles with an asterix to it. In 15 Kyrie and Love were injured, in 17 they injured Kawhi in game 1 and in 18 Chris Paul was injured for a game 7. They might have 0 championships if they had to play teams at full strength. Not to mention the rounds before those where they also played a bunch of injured team (18 Spurs without Kawhi and so on). I think it was 2016 or 17 where they basically only played injured Western Conference teams. They are not as dominant as people think. I remember wanting a Spurs - Warriors series for 3 years cause I thought we would beat them and then when it finally happened Zaza took out Kawhi

[spurraider21]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.
apa with... the goods?

:tu

[spurraider21]

OP always comes off like an elitist armchair GM. We'd probably be on our way to a ten-peat if he ran the team.
OP has been the biggest crybaby for at least the last several years. its why i petitioned to have his name changed from TD21 to RJ24

[tbdog]

https://streamable.com/n5sk1

This guy stopped us.

[K...]

On a related note: I will genuinely love to see kawhi actually dominate a series again. He'll probably be hurt again, but he's got to produce if not. Here's stronger than anyone else in his position and should know how to pass out of doubles

[duncan2k5]

Half right.

The Spurs built the 15-17 team as a direct way to compete against pace and threeballs. The team was all about limiting fastbreaks, killing teams in areas they're not accustomed to defending (Aldridge), Midrange and being set defensively in the halfcourt better than anyone in the league. It got them back to back 60 wins.

The issue is that Leonard is gone and to recreate the same team requires specific skillsets thats not as abundant in the NBA anymore.

They screwed up with the Gasol and Mills contract, but the philosophy itself is not without merrit.

this would only make sense if kawhi made toronto worse...but theyre the best team in the NBA...my point is we could have built a good team around kawhi...but we decided to stick with a bunch of scrubs simply because kawhi was good enough to make us elite

[duncan2k5]

Is Gasol what's missing...Spurs had a 6-3 record when he went down

LMFAO! if gasol is our savior, we are in DEEP shit

[duncan2k5]

The 67 win team couldn't even beat the Thunder, who they were heavily favored to beat (I correctly stated at the time that it was a virtual coin flip and I was skeptical of the Spurs). Yeah, I know that Thunder team pushed and should have beaten the Warriors, but they matched up well with them. The Spurs didn't match up well with either, so if they couldn't beat the former, why would anyone have thought they could beat the latter?

Regular season record vs them is largely irrelevant. The Grizzlies have played them tough over the years too. Were they contenders?




Because they're a recent and prime example of a team winning lots of regular season games, with a strong point differential, but never really being contenders. Philosophically, I don't think the Spurs obstinance has merit because the margin for error was virtually non existent and they had inferior talent compared to other elites. Given the latter, they couldn't afford to be the former.

Since when were you on the front office's bandwagon? I thought they've been antiquated for years? Now, suddenly they're geniuses . . .

coaching was the reason we lost to the thunder...they were KILLING us on the boards, and pop was stubburn and continued to play our undersized guys more minutes than they should have had...dude only pulled out boban in the dying quarter of elimination, and guess what? thunder couldnt grab offensive rebounds over him...THAT was the reason we lost...we were a better team, but Pop does that sometimes...the obvious moves he should make, he shuns...

[Fusternino]

coaching was the reason we lost to the thunder...they were KILLING us on the boards, and pop was stubburn and continued to play our undersized guys more minutes than they should have had...dude only pulled out boban in the dying quarter of elimination, and guess what? thunder couldnt grab offensive rebounds over him...THAT was the reason we lost...we were a better team, but Pop does that sometimes...the obvious moves he should make, he shuns...

Normally bad takes, but this is correct. At least put in Boban since we goofed the previous offseason by signing West over a legit 7 footer. Sure, his defense is terrible but Kanter could be destroyed on the other end as well.

[therealtruth]

coaching was the reason we lost to the thunder...they were KILLING us on the boards, and pop was stubburn and continued to play our undersized guys more minutes than they should have had...dude only pulled out boban in the dying quarter of elimination, and guess what? thunder couldnt grab offensive rebounds over him...THAT was the reason we lost...we were a better team, but Pop does that sometimes...the obvious moves he should make, he shuns...

Pop did the same thing in '11 playoffs against the Grizzlies. He played Dice/Blair and they got killed by Z-Bo/Gasol on the inside. Only when they were close to elimination did he pull Splitter of the bench.