Spurs: Make the Playoffs Again [Archive]

DMC

06-04-2020, 11:12 PM

The NBA's Board of Governors approved a plan on Thursday that would restart the season in Orlando utilizing a 22-team format, according to the league.
Three-fourths of the 30 NBA teams must ratify the proposal.
The new plan would see 13 Western Conference teams and nine Eastern Conference teams play eight "seeding" games to determine seeds in the playoffs. Afterwards, the seven teams in each conference with the best combined records with both regular season games and seeding games would qualify for the playoffs -- set to proceed the way they always have.
The top eight teams in both conferences will be a part of the 22 teams playing, the NBA said. The remaining six teams will be those within six games of eighth place.
The 22 teams participating are: Milwaukee Bucks, Toronto Raptors, Boston Celtics, Miami Heat, Indiana Pacers, Philadelphia 76ers, Brooklyn Nets, Orlando Magic and Washington Wizards, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, Denver Nuggets, Utah Jazz, Oklahoma City Thunder, Houston Rockets, Dallas Mavericks, Memphis Grizzlies, Portland Trail Blazers, New Orleans Pelicans, Sacramento Kings, San Antonio Spurs and Phoenix Suns.

:hat

Dirks_Finale

06-05-2020, 08:58 AM

So getting an attempt to get an 8 seed that you wont get qualifies as the playoffs to you?

MultiTroll

06-05-2020, 11:28 AM

So getting an attempt to get an 8 seed that you wont get qualifies as the playoffs to you?
:lol Immortan Pop followers.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/ImmortanJoeMadMax.jpeg

daslicer

06-05-2020, 02:44 PM

I prefer to miss the playoffs. The only thing awaiting the Spurs if they get the 8th seed is a sweep from the Lakers. It would be a dull series to watch.

TimDunkem

06-05-2020, 03:03 PM

^This

Dirks_Finale

06-05-2020, 04:51 PM

Spurs should be tanking like a mofo right now.

Play your worst lineup 48 minutes and attempt to lose all 8 games.

DMC

06-05-2020, 07:30 PM

So getting an attempt to get an 8 seed that you wont get qualifies as the playoffs to you?

Fuck yeah, if you're going to lodge the asterisk then you bet.

Dirks_Finale

06-05-2020, 07:37 PM

Not everyone is lodging asterisks. Some talking heads claim the champion will be even more solid as a result of having to overcome all this, no HCA, a lot of isolation, etc.

Fuck yeah, if you're going to lodge the asterisk then you bet.

DMC

06-05-2020, 08:09 PM

Not everyone is lodging asterisks. Some talking heads claim the champion will be even more solid as a result of having to overcome all this, no HCA, a lot of isolation, etc.

1999 retard

This year is completely non-legit.

Dirks_Finale

06-05-2020, 08:36 PM

So you consider 99 an illegitimate title?

Who cares what Phil Jackson said. Are you promoting him to commissioner?

And no, the Spurs streak is dead unless they manage to get the 8th seed. Sorry, not sorry.

Duh duh duh

MultiTroll

06-05-2020, 08:49 PM

Not everyone is lodging asterisks. Some talking heads claim the champion will be even more solid as a result of having to overcome all this, no HCA, a lot of isolation, etc.
Good points.
Of course it will be a novel year.

But good points nonetheless.

Millennial_Messiah

06-05-2020, 09:07 PM

99 was as legit as any other year. Just because there were some less games, and the league was generally devoid of offensive talent since Jordan was gone and the rest of the 90s stars were in rapid decline and the young generation were too raw (except for Duncan), doesn't make the 99 title any less legit. The Spurs had the best player on the planet and took advantage of it and won the championship. Plain and simple.

ElNono

06-05-2020, 10:18 PM

I bet Rogelio is really mad at this

Seventyniner

06-05-2020, 11:58 PM

I prefer to miss the playoffs. The only thing awaiting the Spurs if they get the 8th seed is a sweep from the Lakers. It would be a dull series to watch.

There were some Lakers fans that were glad they got that exact fate in 2013 rather than finish in the lottery.

daslicer

06-06-2020, 01:15 AM

There were some Lakers fans that were glad they got that exact fate in 2013 rather than finish in the lottery.

The Lakers had a lot of hype that year when they acquired Dwight. The media and their fans believed they were going to go to at least the WCF and a lot thought they would win it all. Them getting into the playoffs was a pride thing for their fans because if they missed it it would have been embarrassing for them and Kobe's legacy. The Spurs on the other hand were picked by a lot of media pundits to either miss the playoffs or barely get in. So missing the playoffs would not be embarrassing.

For me I'm just tired of the last few years of seeing the Spurs as a 7th seed with no upside to get better.

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 08:27 AM

Yeah, I hear ya on that. It's the mediocrity treadmill of hell that the Utah Jazz had been on forever. Now after 2 decades they are finally off it, apparently. Your Spurs have a gifted front office and you might be able to get a superstar with picks 10-15. You've done it before. For the rest of us, a total tank job needs to happen to get a cant miss player like Doncic.

The Lakers had a lot of hype that year when they acquired Dwight. The media and their fans believed they were going to go to at least the WCF and a lot thought they would win it all. Them getting into the playoffs was a pride thing for their fans because if they missed it it would have been embarrassing for them and Kobe's legacy. The Spurs on the other hand were picked by a lot of media pundits to either miss the playoffs or barely get in. So missing the playoffs would not be embarrassing.

For me I'm just tired of the last few years of seeing the Spurs as a 7th seed with no upside to get better.

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 08:35 AM

DMC

06-06-2020, 10:07 AM

Rosewood

06-06-2020, 11:42 AM

Tanking is for weak franchises and pussies. Fight to the bitter end, every season.

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 02:58 PM

It was one of the weakest title teams I have seen, honestly. I know they had a nice 15-2 run but that roster with Jaren Jackson and the crew left much to be desired on the perimeter. And they were badly exposed in the following years before they reloaded... Still, they played the same competition as everybody else that year and everybody else didn't win it, so I don't buy into Phil's asterisk. If the 99 Spurs are illegitimate then so are the 2012 Heat.
Exactly. And the 2002 Lakers because of the riggedness. Game 6, forget all the other bad calls, if they didn't miss the obvious offensive flagrant foul on Kobe when he basically did the same thing to Mike Bibby that Artest did to James Harden in 2012... Bibby gets two free throws and the Kings likely have the lead AND possession and almost certainly go on to win the game, and the championship. One of the biggest crocks in sports. The 2002 Lakers were NOT the best team in the league; they were old and tired, and got bailed out.

If you're going to lodge the asterick in one place, you can't have double standards. Else, what stands stands.

Yes, the 1999 Spurs team was weaker than the 1996-1998 Bulls and Jazz and weaker than the 2000-2002 Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Blazers etc... but it was the best team in the NBA in 1999, and they took advantage of it.

For the record, even though a lot of older Spurs fans have nostalgia about '99, it wasn't my favorite championship team; instead, 2003 was, because they weren't one of the 3 or even 5 best teams in the league and they overcame tons of adversity, the refs, hit-or-miss shooting, early season struggles/mediocrity and other teams simply having superior rosters. But the only thing the Spurs had in their favor is that Duncan was the greatest queen of the chess board ever that year. You can argue the Dirk injury prevented a potential 7 game series, but the Spurs were already essentially up 2-1 in the series and the Spurs pretty much ran over the Mavs that series except for when Nelson resorted to hack-a-faggot. :lol

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 03:03 PM

Spurs tanked to get Duncan and the result was 5 titles.

I'd say it worked out pretty well for them.

Tanking is for weak franchises and pussies. Fight to the bitter end, every season.

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 03:08 PM

It was 17 years ago but it feels like Kerr and Jackson are still burying three's on us. Damn that game 6 was a nightmare :lol I thought we were going 7 and Dirk walks out there and tries to play through it if that happened, but we know how it ended. And I do feel like you guys were the better team because you actually defended well while we were pretty predictable with the zone. And I recall Speedy Claxton coming out of nowhere and saving Parker's butt in that title run. It was just as unpredictable as our 2011 run.

Exactly. And the 2002 Lakers because of the riggedness. Game 6, forget all the other bad calls, if they didn't miss the obvious offensive flagrant foul on Kobe when he basically did the same thing to Mike Bibby that Artest did to James Harden in 2012... Bibby gets two free throws and the Kings likely have the lead AND possession and almost certainly go on to win the game, and the championship. One of the biggest crocks in sports. The 2002 Lakers were NOT the best team in the league; they were old and tired, and got bailed out.

If you're going to lodge the asterick in one place, you can't have double standards. Else, what stands stands.

Yes, the 1999 Spurs team was weaker than the 1996-1998 Bulls and Jazz and weaker than the 2000-2002 Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Blazers etc... but it was the best team in the NBA in 1999, and they took advantage of it.

For the record, even though a lot of older Spurs fans have nostalgia about '99, it wasn't my favorite championship team; instead, 2003 was, because they weren't one of the 3 or even 5 best teams in the league and they overcame tons of adversity, the refs, hit-or-miss shooting, early season struggles/mediocrity and other teams simply having superior rosters. But the only thing the Spurs had in their favor is that Duncan was the greatest queen of the chess board ever that year. You can argue the Dirk injury prevented a potential 7 game series, but the Spurs were already essentially up 2-1 in the series and the Spurs pretty much ran over the Mavs that series except for when Nelson resorted to hack-a-faggot. :lol

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 03:25 PM

It was 17 years ago but it feels like Kerr and Jackson are still burying three's on us. Damn that game 6 was a nightmare :lol I thought we were going 7 and Dirk walks out there and tries to play through it if that happened, but we know how it ended. And I do feel like you guys were the better team because you actually defended well while we were pretty predictable with the zone. And I recall Speedy Claxton coming out of nowhere and saving Parker's butt in that title run. It was just as unpredictable as our 2011 run.
Yep. Even going into the first round of the playoffs a lot of pundits thought both the 60-win Spurs and the 50-win Pistons were two of the more vulnerable #1-seeds in a long time and the playoffs would be hotly contested on either side from the get-go. It turns out they were right:

-the Blazers were extremely close to doing the unthinkable of coming back from 0-3 to beat the Mavs, without HCA no less. The Blazers actually had the lead and the ball midway thru the 4th quarter of Game 7. IIRC, Pippen was on fire.

-the Pistons fell behind 1-3 to the 8th seeded Orlando Magic because Tracy McGrady was on a whole different planet early in that series. They came back and squeaked out a series victory, but it was surprisingly evenly matched

-Lakers vs Minnesota was very close and the Wolves were a couple possessions away from going up 3-1 in the series and ending the Lakers' title run early,

-the Pacers-Celtics series definitely didn't go the way people expected, and

-the Spurs were in a dogfight with the Suns, Marbury totally had Parker's number, and the Spurs were a remarkable, nail-biting 4th quarter comeback away from going down 0-2 at home to Phoenix, which would have been the death knell and the nail in the coffin for David Robinson's career. Also Dallas likely wins the championship that year (or Sacramento if Webber doesn't go down early in that series). Don't think Marbury and rookie Amare were enough offensive firepower to take down the loaded Mavs or Kings, but they had just the right combo that gave the Spurs fits, and with the Spurs hot-and-cold shooting that year they were frankly beatable by a lot of teams.

It's so odd how matchups worked in basketball during those times, pre-analytics, with all those great superstars in their primes. The Suns improved from #8 to #1 in the West by simply swapping out Marbury and defensive-minded Frank Johnson for Nash and D'Antoni, and keeping the rest of the team essentially the same. But the critical difference was that the 2003 team was a bone in the Spurs' throat while the 2005 team was completely stymied by the Spurs' poise and experience.

140

06-06-2020, 03:50 PM

Spurs tanked to get Duncan and the result was 5 titles.

I'd say it worked out pretty well for them.

Truth nuke tbh

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 03:58 PM

I had forgotten about some of those things you mentioned. Dang, 03 was NUTS :lol

I do remember Marbury practically owning Parker everytime they played. Marbury just overpowed him. And I'm sure that 03 team gave you a few ulcers as I remember them always blowing leads and having to hit some big shots to close games out that should not have been necessary to begin with.

Of all your title teams, I thought 05 was the best. I know many will argue with 2014 but to me, 05 had the perfect mixture of stars in their prime and good role players. The defense was incredible and they had a very difficult Final's opponent. Even though the Spurs had won a few, many did not feel like they were all that legit until they knocked off Detroit in 05. They talked about 99 'Asterisk' and the 03 Horry shot that rimmed out and tried to claim the Spurs were in the right place at the right time. But in 05 all that was squelched. The Wallace boys played great defense on Duncan and that Detroit team was as mentally fit as they come. Very underrated series.

Yep. Even going into the first round of the playoffs a lot of pundits thought both the 60-win Spurs and the 50-win Pistons were two of the more vulnerable #1-seeds in a long time and the playoffs would be hotly contested on either side from the get-go. It turns out they were right:

-the Blazers were extremely close to doing the unthinkable of coming back from 0-3 to beat the Mavs, without HCA no less. The Blazers actually had the lead and the ball midway thru the 4th quarter of Game 7. IIRC, Pippen was on fire.

-the Pistons fell behind 1-3 to the 8th seeded Orlando Magic because Tracy McGrady was on a whole different planet early in that series. They came back and squeaked out a series victory, but it was surprisingly evenly matched

-Lakers vs Minnesota was very close and the Wolves were a couple possessions away from going up 3-1 in the series and ending the Lakers' title run early,

-the Pacers-Celtics series definitely didn't go the way people expected, and

-the Spurs were in a dogfight with the Suns, Marbury totally had Parker's number, and the Spurs were a remarkable, nail-biting 4th quarter comeback away from going down 0-2 at home to Phoenix, which would have been the death knell and the nail in the coffin for David Robinson's career. Also Dallas likely wins the championship that year (or Sacramento if Webber doesn't go down early in that series). Don't think Marbury and rookie Amare were enough offensive firepower to take down the loaded Mavs or Kings, but they had just the right combo that gave the Spurs fits, and with the Spurs hot-and-cold shooting that year they were frankly beatable by a lot of teams.

It's so odd how matchups worked in basketball during those times, pre-analytics, with all those great superstars in their primes. The Suns improved from #8 to #1 in the West by simply swapping out Marbury and defensive-minded Frank Johnson for Nash and D'Antoni, and keeping the rest of the team essentially the same. But the critical difference was that the 2003 team was a bone in the Spurs' throat while the 2005 team was completely stymied by the Spurs' poise and experience.

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 05:10 PM

I had forgotten about some of those things you mentioned. Dang, 03 was NUTS :lol

I do remember Marbury practically owning Parker everytime they played. Marbury just overpowed him. And I'm sure that 03 team gave you a few ulcers as I remember them always blowing leads and having to hit some big shots to close games out that should not have been necessary to begin with.

Of all your title teams, I thought 05 was the best. I know many will argue with 2014 but to me, 05 had the perfect mixture of stars in their prime and good role players. The defense was incredible and they had a very difficult Final's opponent. Even though the Spurs had won a few, many did not feel like they were all that legit until they knocked off Detroit in 05. They talked about 99 'Asterisk' and the 03 Horry shot that rimmed out and tried to claim the Spurs were in the right place at the right time. But in 05 all that was squelched. The Wallace boys played great defense on Duncan and that Detroit team was as mentally fit as they come. Very underrated series.

100% agree about '03 giving my 9 year old tummy ulcers all season long and '05 being the best overall Spurs team. While the '14 team was the deepest, the healthiest and the best offensively, '05 was the best overall mix, they matched up well against just about anybody, had the Big 3 all in their prime and was the best coordinated team on both sides of the ball. It took an all-time fantastic defensive, hard-nosed team (Detroit, featuring a deep, well-coached team featuring 5 fringe all-star starters who were not superstars but were all Top 3 NBA defensive players at their positions) to push them to the very brink of defeat and even so, the Spurs ultimately prevailed in an all-time dogfight that was IMO the best NBA Finals ever because points were such at a premium, such a dogfight to even get shots off, much less score.

'03 made me cry with elation and that we finally, fiiiiiiinally got over that Laker hump, and won it all. I was 9. '05 featured more mature emotional tears, as I was 11, but it felt more like an amazing culmination of a long-fought struggle, not so much to beat one specific team or win a ring for one specific player (e.g. Robinson), but to justify the Spurs as a true legendary all-time team; that the Spurs didn't need any injury luck or any advantage of weak competition ('99) to assert themselves and win the championship.

'07 added to the Spurs legacy but it just didn't feel as good because the Spurs only beat 1 of the league's best 3 other non-Spurs teams, and even that one was controversial. I was upset at the Amare suspension big time then even as a Spurs fan because I didn't want to win "that" way. It's not like Amare did anything dirty; it was simply a judgment call by the league on a sheer technicality in the rules, (that the league major double-standardized with Curry in 2016) that wasn't ultimately the right decision. I believed the Spurs were good enough to beat Phoenix on the road with Amare playing, and they didn't have that chance. As for the other 2 best teams, they got lucky because they were eliminated by vastly inferior third parties due to simple matchup/timing reasons.

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 06:09 PM

100% agree about '03 giving my 9 year old tummy ulcers all season long and '05 being the best overall Spurs team. While the '14 team was the deepest, the healthiest and the best offensively, '05 was the best overall mix, they matched up well against just about anybody, had the Big 3 all in their prime and was the best coordinated team on both sides of the ball. It took an all-time fantastic defensive, hard-nosed team (Detroit, featuring a deep, well-coached team featuring 5 fringe all-star starters who were not superstars but were all Top 3 NBA defensive players at their positions) to push them to the very brink of defeat and even so, the Spurs ultimately prevailed in an all-time dogfight that was IMO the best NBA Finals ever because points were such at a premium, such a dogfight to even get shots off, much less score.

'03 made me cry with elation and that we finally, fiiiiiiinally got over that Laker hump, and won it all. I was 9. '05 featured more mature emotional tears, as I was 11, but it felt more like an amazing culmination of a long-fought struggle, not so much to beat one specific team or win a ring for one specific player (e.g. Robinson), but to justify the Spurs as a true legendary all-time team; that the Spurs didn't need any injury luck or any advantage of weak competition ('99) to assert themselves and win the championship.

'07 added to the Spurs legacy but it just didn't feel as good because the Spurs only beat 1 of the league's best 3 other non-Spurs teams, and even that one was controversial. I was upset at the Amare suspension big time then even as a Spurs fan because I didn't want to win "that" way. It's not like Amare did anything dirty; it was simply a judgment call by the league on a sheer technicality in the rules, (that the league major double-standardized with Curry in 2016) that wasn't ultimately the right decision. I believed the Spurs were good enough to beat Phoenix on the road with Amare playing, and they didn't have that chance. As for the other 2 best teams, they got lucky because they were eliminated by vastly inferior third parties due to simple matchup/timing reasons.

I would have guessed that you were like 10 years older than you actually are. :toast

You guys have two of the best Finals series ever...2013 will also go down as one of the greatest (even though it was a losing effort). And then of course there's our series with you guys in 06, which Duncan has said was the greatest series he has ever been a part of. I remember feeling as though we were watching the evolution of basketball in real time during that series. A tug of war between the old guard of traditional big men and the new era of uber-men bigs with guard skills, battling it out. Once Pop was forced to go small, I knew the game of basketball was forever changing as he was as old school and traditional as they come.

Speaking of that, 07 sucked, of course, because we didn't live up to the hype of a 67 win team and play you guys again. We were built to beat SA and not necessarily to win a title... and we paid for it. And I do believe you would have beat PHX with Amare in 07. The reason being is the Spurs just rose to the occasion when they needed to. And I have never been convinced in D'Antoni as the leader of a team. I could honestly see him coughing up a 3-0 lead in the NBA finals. :lol

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 06:41 PM

Speaking of that, 07 sucked, of course, because we didn't live up to the hype of a 67 win team and play you guys again. We were built to beat SA and not necessarily to win a title... and we paid for it. And I do believe you would have beat PHX with Amare in 07. The reason being is the Spurs just rose to the occasion when they needed to. And I have never been convinced in D'Antoni as the leader of a team. I could honestly see him coughing up a 3-0 lead in the NBA finals. :lol
The Mavs were head and shoulders the best team in the NBA in 2007, and one of the best organized, most poised teams of all time. They won 67 games IN SPITE OF an 0-4 start to the season. What separated that team from past Mavs teams is that they weren't just the high-octane, fast-paced team of old with an unguardable Dirk but a questionable halfcourt offense and zone defense. The 2007 Mavs had completed the transition to a halfcourt offense, still with an unguardable Dirk but also an elite halfcourt defense. The offense was built on a lot of on-ball screens and forcing switches, to get favorable one-on-one matchups for not only Dirk, but high-post iso specialists like Stackhouse and Howard and to force double teams and net tons of open shots. They didn't shoot a ton of threes and they were near the bottom of the NBA in assists, but they were extremely efficient on a pro rata basis.

The 2007 Mavs were built to beat the Spurs, Pistons and Heat. They were also slightly better than the Suns because they could mix up the tempo dynamically and force Nash into bad situations on defense. Harris, the Mavs PG at the time, was an excellent man defender at his position. The only Suns player who could adequately guard Dirk was Boris Diaw, which forced the Suns into a concession of playing him and Amare together, which reduced their ability to fast break and hit a bunch of 3's.

The 2007 Mavs had one, one, but one fatal weakness: the fast break. Fast tempo, fast break, crazy, smallish (but not-so-small), "death lineup" offenses that featured a bunch of versatile, medium-tall players who were all athletic and proficient at three-point shooting, ballhandling, and on-ball defense. In 2007, there was only one of those teams in the NBA: the Golden State Warriors. They were a poor man's version of their later 2015-2018 "death lineup" title teams, sure, but they were the closest thing to that very concept at the time, and they were full of mojo, gangsta, bad boy mentality, nasty, and underdog spirit. They were 42-40 but better than that record because they didn't make the big trades until the trade deadline. Between Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson and Mickael Pietrus, they had plenty of weapons to mitigate Dirk, and plenty of height to win in the paint on both ends of the court. The Mavericks did not have a tall, low-post threat. In that kind of series, they needed a Duncan or Garnett type to win the chess game, not a Dirk. The "We Believe" Warriors had the horses to match up with everything Dallas wanted to do on both sides of the ball. And, to top things off, Don Nelson knew darn well how Avery Johnson had mastered the Mavericks. An unusual, unlikely perfect storm that provided for possibly the most historic playoff upset in NBA history, one that likely will never be replicated.

However, the Warriors easily were stamped out by a Utah Jazz team that had peaked extremely early in the regular season that year and honestly was not all that great. Boozer, Okur and Millsap were too much for the Warriors in the low post, and the Jazz had one other advantage: Derek Fisher hit threes, at his usual blazing playoff clip. Whereas, Golden State didn't have to respect Devin Harris on the perimeter, so that was a key flaw in the Mavs' game as well. Once again, all about matchups. Matchups carried the day and ultimately were a huge overall benefit to the Spurs, as the two teams that were both built to beat them (the Mavs and Pistons) were eliminated by inferior teams in Golden State and Cleveland, the latter because of a truly epic ECF by LeBron James and Rasheed Wallace's temper ultimately deep-sixing the mighty Pistons.

Dirks_Finale

06-06-2020, 06:56 PM

The Mavs were head and shoulders the best team in the NBA in 2007, and one of the best organized, most poised teams of all time. They won 67 games IN SPITE OF an 0-4 start to the season. What separated that team from past Mavs teams is that they weren't just the high-octane, fast-paced team of old with an unguardable Dirk but a questionable halfcourt offense and zone defense. The 2007 Mavs had completed the transition to a halfcourt offense, still with an unguardable Dirk but also an elite halfcourt defense. The offense was built on a lot of on-ball screens and forcing switches, to get favorable one-on-one matchups for not only Dirk, but high-post iso specialists like Stackhouse and Howard and to force double teams and net tons of open shots. They didn't shoot a ton of threes and they were near the bottom of the NBA in assists, but they were extremely efficient on a pro rata basis.

The 2007 Mavs were built to beat the Spurs, Pistons and Heat. They were also slightly better than the Suns because they could mix up the tempo dynamically and force Nash into bad situations on defense. Harris, the Mavs PG at the time, was an excellent man defender at his position. The only Suns player who could adequately guard Dirk was Boris Diaw, which forced the Suns into a concession of playing him and Amare together, which reduced their ability to fast break and hit a bunch of 3's.

The 2007 Mavs had one, one, but one fatal weakness: the fast break. Fast tempo, fast break, crazy, smallish (but not-so-small), "death lineup" offenses that featured a bunch of versatile, medium-tall players who were all athletic and proficient at three-point shooting, ballhandling, and on-ball defense. In 2007, there was only one of those teams in the NBA: the Golden State Warriors. They were a poor man's version of their later 2015-2018 "death lineup" title teams, sure, but they were the closest thing to that very concept at the time, and they were full of mojo, gangsta, bad boy mentality, nasty, and underdog spirit. They were 42-40 but better than that record because they didn't make the big trades until the trade deadline. Between Al Harrington, Stephen Jackson and Mickael Pietrus, they had plenty of weapons to mitigate Dirk, and plenty of height to win in the paint on both ends of the court. The Mavericks did not have a tall, low-post threat. In that kind of series, they needed a Duncan or Garnett type to win the chess game, not a Dirk. The "We Believe" Warriors had the horses to match up with everything Dallas wanted to do on both sides of the ball. And, to top things off, Don Nelson knew darn well how Avery Johnson had mastered the Mavericks. An unusual, unlikely perfect storm that provided for possibly the most historic playoff upset in NBA history, one that likely will never be replicated.

However, the Warriors easily were stamped out by a Utah Jazz team that had peaked extremely early in the regular season that year and honestly was not all that great. Boozer, Okur and Millsap were too much for the Warriors in the low post, and the Jazz had one other advantage: Derek Fisher hit threes, at his usual blazing playoff clip. Whereas, Golden State didn't have to respect Devin Harris on the perimeter, so that was a key flaw in the Mavs' game as well. Once again, all about matchups. Matchups carried the day and ultimately were a huge overall benefit to the Spurs, as the two teams that were both built to beat them (the Mavs and Pistons) were eliminated by inferior teams in Golden State and Cleveland, the latter because of a truly epic ECF by LeBron James and Rasheed Wallace's temper ultimately deep-sixing the mighty Pistons.

I feel like this is the crux of the matter. No Nellie on their sidelines and we still win that series. He knew all our schemes. He knew where Dirk loved to get the ball. He knew how to fluster us. And he was extremely motivated given his history with Cubes. Kinda like you guys running into Memphis in 2011 -- just a horrible matchup...but as you say, our loss may be the greatest upset ever.

LkrFan

06-06-2020, 07:07 PM

So getting an attempt to get an 8 seed that you wont get qualifies as the playoffs to you?

:lol

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 07:54 PM

I feel like this is the crux of the matter. No Nellie on their sidelines and we still win that series. He knew all our schemes. He knew where Dirk loved to get the ball. He knew how to fluster us. And he was extremely motivated given his history with Cubes. Kinda like you guys running into Memphis in 2011 -- just a horrible matchup...but as you say, our loss may be the greatest upset ever.

The 2007 Mavs losing to the Warriors was still the greatest upset ever, and obviously Nellie was a big factor, but so was the legion of well-built, 6'8"+ versatile guys they could throw at Dirk. They weren't a deep team by any means (Golden State) but they were 8 or 9 deep, fast, young, healthy, and they could all shoot 3's and play defense (except Monta Ellis, who was probably the worst rotation player for GSW in that series). Dampier/Diop were rendered unplayable in the series so the paint was wide open for the taking, and that home crowd was arguably the most raucous in NBA history, even more so than the Splash Brothers era Warriors crowds. Reminiscent of the Seattle Seahawks home stadium during the "Legion of Boom" era if you follow football.

Spurs beating at the hands of 'Grit N Grind' Memphis in 2011 just doesn't compare. If you'd noticed, that 2011 Spurs team was a ticking time bomb from the start. They peaked too early in the season, starting 13-1, 25-3, 37-6, 44-8, 51-11, but weren't the same team down the stretch after suffering a crushing string of injuries to the Big 3 at the worst possible time of the season. A pretty hard fall to 61-21, which looked good on the surface but definitely didn't tell the whole story. Matt Bonner and DeJuan Blair were 2 of the 3 rotation bigs (when they weren't playing smallball), as Diaw wasn't on the team yet and Popovich refused to play Splitter that year. George Hill and Gary Neal were streaky but flawed players, they had flaws all over their defense, Richard Jefferson was too inconsistent, and they didn't really have another pure SF or SF/PF hybrid that year behind Jefferson. They were built on a foundation that over-relied on the veteran Big 3 and they got injured at the worst possible time. Even if they got past Memphis and got healthier, they likely wouldn't have beat the Mavs, Lakers or Heat in a playoff series that year. Too many flaws, the bench was too shallow, the rotation players after the Big 3 were too flawed. But even so, all the Spurs losses to Memphis were close, even with Manu playing the last 5 games on a broken arm, Duncan and Parker playing through soft tissue injuries.

The other notable upsets just don't compare at all. Bulls vs Sixers in 2012 wasn't a thing at all, obviously, because Derrick Rose was that franchise, and in line to be a top-50 all time NBA player before his sad string of injuries that started at the end of a decisive Game 1 win of that series. The two in the 90s aren't the same either, because those were only 5-game series, though the Nuggets were another 42-win team that beat a 60-win Seattle team in a Game 5 even though they'd lost only twice at home the entire regular season. The Knicks beating the Heat in '99 wasn't really impressive either because those Heat teams were bad on offense and there was tons of clustered parity from 1-8 in the East that year since Jordan was retired and the season was shortened. It could be argued that the Knicks were roughly on the same level and the series could have gone either way.

Of course, 2016 NBA Finals was definitely an upset-- but if you'd watched the WCF that year, and the way that Warriors regular season ended, you knew they were both tired and vulnerable to ultimate defeat that year. Green being an idiot getting suspended for game 5 and the Warriors collectively being entitled brats and losing their temper in game 6 was sure fun to watch. LeBron James being on the other side of all that makes it less of an upset for sure. Not to mention a career year for Kyrie Irving, culminating in one of the great flat-arced shots of all time, by the flat-earther no less (!).

Spurtacular

06-06-2020, 08:15 PM

So, the teams not in the top 22 have their seasons ended?

Really weird.

And the Spurs basically have to play tougher teams to reach the 8 seed and in a very limited number of games? :lol

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 08:16 PM

The Mavs of '07 were fully healthy virtually all year and in the playoffs, they were poised, and a well-oiled machine. They were balanced, efficient, and had an unstoppable superstar in his prime, in fact the MVP of the season. Unlike a Duncan or Shaq, you couldn't foul this 7-footer in attempts to hinder him. The '07 Mavs shot over 85% from the free-throw line (and got there frequently), mastered the art of the pick-and-roll, maximized matchup mismatch opportunities, and played lock-down halfcourt defense. Aside from Dirk, they had stud iso-specialists in Howard and Stackhouse, savvy leadership and clutch shooting in Terry, the second-best defensive PG in the NBA (behind Billups) in Harris, and more than enough low-post defensive bodies in Dampier, Diop, etc. to match up with the Duncan's, Garnett's and Shaq's of the league.

They were consistently among the league leaders in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Their PPG was down because of the reduced tempo, but, that didn't matter.

There were at least 27, possibly 28 (if you count Phoenix), teams in the NBA that the 2007 Mavericks would have beaten in a seven-game series without much of a doubt. There was only 1 team out there that they couldn't beat, and it had been foreshadowed all year, even to some extent the previous year in '06, and, well.... the Mike Dunleavy Clippers didn't do their job in knocking them out of playoff contention when they had the chance.

And there you had it. If you want to consider lodging an asterisk next to any Spurs championship season, you can make at least somewhat of a case for 2007... between the lack of Dallas and Detroit (or Miami) and the league sabotaging a more well-rounded Phoenix (than the exciting but offense-only 2005 Suns team that was no match for the Spurs)... but definitely not 1999. 1999, the Spurs were the clear best team in the NBA (after a lousy first couple weeks), took full advantage, and won the championship fair and square.

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 08:28 PM

So, the teams not in the top 22 have their seasons ended?

Really weird.

And the Spurs basically have to play tougher teams to reach the 8 seed and in a very limited number of games? :lol

Why not? They were already mathematically eliminated. They're keeping the draft spots in the same order. Why risk injury, covid, etc?

Spurtacular

06-06-2020, 09:09 PM

Why not? They were already mathematically eliminated. They're keeping the draft spots in the same order. Why risk injury, covid, etc?

COVID's not killing athletes, bruh. Come to terms with the hoax.

Millennial_Messiah

06-06-2020, 10:58 PM

COVID's not killing athletes, bruh. Come to terms with the hoax.

Why risk injury when you're not going to be making revenue? People don't care to watch lotto teams

Spurtacular

06-06-2020, 11:25 PM

Why risk injury when you're not going to be making revenue? People don't care to watch lotto teams

I don't know how much people are gonna want to watch this glorified Summer League anyhow.

Millennial_Messiah

06-07-2020, 02:41 AM

I don't know how much people are gonna want to watch this glorified Summer League anyhow.

Exactly. Just cancel the 2020 season and start fresh as normals in October. No play-in tournament crap. The 2020 champion is determined by ping pong balls. The Lakers and Bucks get the most ping pong balls but they each only have around, say, a 15% chance, and then less for each team from there.

Killakobe81

06-07-2020, 06:56 AM

The Lakers had a lot of hype that year when they acquired Dwight. The media and their fans believed they were going to go to at least the WCF and a lot thought they would win it all. Them getting into the playoffs was a pride thing for their fans because if they missed it it would have been embarrassing for them and Kobe's legacy. The Spurs on the other hand were picked by a lot of media pundits to either miss the playoffs or barely get in. So missing the playoffs would not be embarrassing.

For me I'm just tired of the last few years of seeing the Spurs as a 7th seed with no upside to get better.

Nope not me ...i said not a legit contender with a 2nd round ceiling was what I predicted ...

Dirks_Finale

06-07-2020, 07:39 AM

I don't know how much people are gonna want to watch this glorified Summer League anyhow.

I'm really interested to see the ratings once they get started. Artificial crowd noise and cardboard cut out fans :lol

How exciting.

Dirks_Finale

06-07-2020, 07:42 AM

The 2007 Mavs losing to the Warriors was still the greatest upset ever, and obviously Nellie was a big factor, but so was the legion of well-built, 6'8"+ versatile guys they could throw at Dirk. They weren't a deep team by any means (Golden State) but they were 8 or 9 deep, fast, young, healthy, and they could all shoot 3's and play defense (except Monta Ellis, who was probably the worst rotation player for GSW in that series). Dampier/Diop were rendered unplayable in the series so the paint was wide open for the taking, and that home crowd was arguably the most raucous in NBA history, even more so than the Splash Brothers era Warriors crowds. Reminiscent of the Seattle Seahawks home stadium during the "Legion of Boom" era if you follow football.

Spurs beating at the hands of 'Grit N Grind' Memphis in 2011 just doesn't compare. If you'd noticed, that 2011 Spurs team was a ticking time bomb from the start. They peaked too early in the season, starting 13-1, 25-3, 37-6, 44-8, 51-11, but weren't the same team down the stretch after suffering a crushing string of injuries to the Big 3 at the worst possible time of the season. A pretty hard fall to 61-21, which looked good on the surface but definitely didn't tell the whole story. Matt Bonner and DeJuan Blair were 2 of the 3 rotation bigs (when they weren't playing smallball), as Diaw wasn't on the team yet and Popovich refused to play Splitter that year. George Hill and Gary Neal were streaky but flawed players, they had flaws all over their defense, Richard Jefferson was too inconsistent, and they didn't really have another pure SF or SF/PF hybrid that year behind Jefferson. They were built on a foundation that over-relied on the veteran Big 3 and they got injured at the worst possible time. Even if they got past Memphis and got healthier, they likely wouldn't have beat the Mavs, Lakers or Heat in a playoff series that year. Too many flaws, the bench was too shallow, the rotation players after the Big 3 were too flawed. But even so, all the Spurs losses to Memphis were close, even with Manu playing the last 5 games on a broken arm, Duncan and Parker playing through soft tissue injuries.

The other notable upsets just don't compare at all. Bulls vs Sixers in 2012 wasn't a thing at all, obviously, because Derrick Rose was that franchise, and in line to be a top-50 all time NBA player before his sad string of injuries that started at the end of a decisive Game 1 win of that series. The two in the 90s aren't the same either, because those were only 5-game series, though the Nuggets were another 42-win team that beat a 60-win Seattle team in a Game 5 even though they'd lost only twice at home the entire regular season. The Knicks beating the Heat in '99 wasn't really impressive either because those Heat teams were bad on offense and there was tons of clustered parity from 1-8 in the East that year since Jordan was retired and the season was shortened. It could be argued that the Knicks were roughly on the same level and the series could have gone either way.

Of course, 2016 NBA Finals was definitely an upset-- but if you'd watched the WCF that year, and the way that Warriors regular season ended, you knew they were both tired and vulnerable to ultimate defeat that year. Green being an idiot getting suspended for game 5 and the Warriors collectively being entitled brats and losing their temper in game 6 was sure fun to watch. LeBron James being on the other side of all that makes it less of an upset for sure. Not to mention a career year for Kyrie Irving, culminating in one of the great flat-arced shots of all time, by the flat-earther no less (!).

It may have been louder than even the old Chicago Stadium. Sacramento and Utah used to get pretty loud as well...but that crowd was off the charts. Kudos to them for great support of their then, losing franchise.

Millennial_Messiah

06-07-2020, 01:10 PM

It may have been louder than even the old Chicago Stadium. Sacramento and Utah used to get pretty loud as well...but that crowd was off the charts. Kudos to them for great support of their then, losing franchise.

Yep. Sorry that your team was deprived of a championship that year, but the We Believe Warriors had a completely different type of fanhood from the entitled 2015-2019 version of their "fans". The players were different, too... they were more like a gangsta brotherhood who went out like dogs; they weren't afraid to get technical fouls, shove a mofucker that deserved it and get ejected, cuss out the refs or taunt a guy or two... but they never came across as whiny, bitchy or pussy. All in all, they were much more likeable than the spoiled-ass, arrogant, whiny, bitchy, softcore microaggressive, leftist, quivering pink vagina culture that littlebitch Kerr installed circa 2014-15. (The prelude to this was OKC from about 2011-2016.)

Dirks_Finale

06-07-2020, 04:41 PM

I didn't see them as some sort of lock for the title even though they won all those games. I thought a rematch with the Spurs was 50/50 tbh. We were so evenly matched I think we could have played 20 more games in 06 and 07 and been 10-10. Just came down to who had the ball last, tbh.

What really stung was seeing a great human being in Dirk receive his MVP trophy in street clothes. He deserved better.

Yep. Sorry that your team was deprived of a championship that year, but the We Believe Warriors had a completely different type of fanhood from the entitled 2015-2019 version of their "fans". The players were different, too... they were more like a gangsta brotherhood who went out like dogs; they weren't afraid to get technical fouls, shove a mofucker that deserved it and get ejected, cuss out the refs or taunt a guy or two... but they never came across as whiny, bitchy or pussy. All in all, they were much more likeable than the spoiled-ass, arrogant, whiny, bitchy, softcore microaggressive, leftist, quivering pink vagina culture that littlebitch Kerr installed circa 2014-15. (The prelude to this was OKC from about 2011-2016.)

LkrFan

06-08-2020, 02:14 PM