PDA

View Full Version : Elite Spurs Succeed Without All the Fanfare



AceProfits
01-14-2007, 10:00 PM
By JOHN HOLLINGER

It's time for the annual public service announcement.

Every year at this time, we get caught up in the wondrous exploits of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade, or in how awesome it was to watch the Suns and Wizards zoom up and down the floor. We've seen the annual Heat-Lakers Christmas confab, saw Agent Zero drop 60, and watched 'Melo practice his hitand-run skills. So by this time, every year, we've completely forgotten about the league's most prominent franchise.

But lurking beneath the radar, you'll find the San Antonio Spurs merrily ripping off victory after victory while the shiny objects in the foreground divert everyone's attention. They've become so reliably, methodically good that it's become difficult to get anyone interested in their story. They're currently 24–11, have the league's best point differential, and are playing as well offensively as they have at any time in their team's glorious history — and somehow, absolutely nobody is talking about them.

People really should, because it's a remarkable story. Not only have the Spurs won three championships, they've done it with three completely different lineups, and each time rebuilding the surrounding roster on the fly while managing to remain among the league's elite. Since Tim Duncan joined the team in 1997–98 the Spurs have the best record in basketball, at 525–216. Pro-rating the lockout year of 1998–99, that's nearly a decade of performance in which they've averaged 58 wins per season.

In that same time period, 19 of the league's 30 teams have failed even once to win 58 games — including both local teams. In other words, an average season for the Spurs would be an anomalous, once-a-decade feat for two-thirds of the league's teams. They've had a winning road record for nine straight seasons, and are gunning for number 10. In fact, San Antonio's record in road games only equates to 49 wins per season, which would very nearly be the best season by either of the local teams in the past decade.

So if they're so amazingly, consistently good, why doesn't this get more attention? Certainly, their small market status doesn't help. San Antonio may not technically be the league's smallest market, but it's sure as heck the sleepiest — move two blocks in any direction from the Riverwalk and you might as well be in Schenectady — and with one notable, Desperate exception, it's not a place where the rich and famous tend to congregate.

What's more, their best player is perhaps the game's least marketable superstar. Tim Duncan may be an exemplary role model, a fundamentally impressive player, and the game's most down-toearth superstar, but his glaring lack of highlight film material and bulletin board-worthy quotes have made him the forgotten man among the league's elite. In the past week alone, I've seen several analysts post lists of MVP candidates that omitted him entirely, despite the fact that he remains one of the league's elite and plays for what is arguably its best team.

What's more, San Antonio's style isn't always conducive to high TV ratings. Yes, the Spurs have two dynamic offensive players in Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, but the core of their system has been the defense. Among the game's superstars, Duncan is almost certainly the best defender; rather unusually for high-scoring perimeter players, Ginobili and Parker are also quality defenders. Pair them with the sticky defense of stopper Bruce Bowen and a cast of role players selected mainly for their defensive ability ( Robert Horry, Jacque Vaughn, Francisco Elson), and the Spurs are suffocating.

To see just how suffocating they are, consider the trend in San Antonio's defensive stats. The Spurs have been in the top 3 in scoring defense every year since Duncan arrived, and they fare even better if one looks at Defensive Efficiency, my measure of a team's points allowed per 100 opponent possessions. San Antonio ranks second in this category this season — and they're mad as hell about it. They should be, because they've been no. 1 for five of the past six seasons. So a second-place finish, by their standards, is a crushing disappointment.

Obviously, this is an incredible credit to their coach, Gregg Popovich. Popovich has achieved two extremely difficult feats for an NBA coach: first, getting his players to buy into his system and give a full effort, and second, keeping the message fresh even in his 9th season at the helm of a roster that's seen fairly little turnover.

But even more, it's a credit to the organization — which again points back to Popovich. In his role as team president, he's proved better at balancing the short and long term than almost any other coachpresident you can name. Usually when a coach wears both hats he makes horrible long-term sacrifices for tenuous short-term gains (review Pat Riley's first tour in Miami for a shining example). Popovich has been unusually resilient in avoiding the temptation to sacrifice tomorrow for today.

As a result, one might describe the Spurs as the Yankees of basketball — only they're better. San Antonio has won 70.9% of its games in the Duncan era — the best mark in all of sports — the Bronx Bombers mustered only 61.1%.

But the comparison with the Yanks also brings up one more notable contrast: money. The Spurs have done all this winning without paying a cent of luxury tax (though they may end up paying this year if they can't drop a contract by the trade deadline), by making tough, business-like decisions with an eye toward fiscal prudence.

During this past off-season, for instance, they let both regular centers leave, signed two other centers who make far less (including ex-Knick Jackie Butler), and promoted a bench player. Thus far, they've seemed none the worse for it; the promoted bench player, Fabricio Oberto, and one of the free agents ( Francisco Elson) have matched the output of the departed. Meanwhile, the money saved allows them to afford the likes of Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker.

So for the next few months, keep oohing and ahhing over Kobe and LeBron, and gasping in wonder at the frenetic pace in Phoenix and Washington. Just keep one thing in the back of your mind as you're doing it: When May and June come around, those overlooked Spurs will still be standing long after most of those guys in the SportsCenter highlights are gone. They always are.

SequSpur
01-14-2007, 10:12 PM
Yeah, the output has definitely been matched... we can't beat a solid West team and we are getting wacked at home by bottom east feeders.....

got damn... anybody can write an article nowadays.

ShoogarBear
01-14-2007, 10:14 PM
are playing as well offensively as they have at any time in their team's glorious historyI stopped reading here.

spurschick
01-14-2007, 10:20 PM
Lighten up.

Brutalis
01-14-2007, 10:21 PM
I stopped reading here.
More like, "We're doing enough to win now but do not compare to the glory teams before it."

Solid D
01-14-2007, 10:26 PM
Hollinger is a stats guy, first and foremost. If he speaks of offensive performance, it's probably based on a mix of stat categories including ppg, FG%, assists/FG, etc. Guys like Hollinger & Hubie Brown look at point differential as a key indicator and the Spurs have certainly had that going for them all year, at +9 or there-abouts.

He's looking at the Spurs from 30,000 feet, however and he doesn't mention Dallas, who should not be ignored.

ShoogarBear
01-14-2007, 10:27 PM
No, the point is, the Spurs in the late 70s/early 80s under Doug Moe had some of the greatest offensive juggernauts in the history of the league.

The current team *may* be performing at a higher offensive level compared to other teams in the Tim Duncan era, but that's not what Hollinger said. Either he doesn't know NBA history, or he's not very precise with his words. Either one is a no-no for a national sports columnist.

Another point: first he writes, correctly, about how the Spurs have won NBA championships while "rebuilding on the fly". But then later he talks about Pop "keeping the message fresh even in his 9th season at the helm of a roster that's seen fairly little turnover". That a logical inconsistency.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the guy is just a sloppy writer.

And yes, I eventually did go back and read the rest of the article.

spurschick
01-14-2007, 10:30 PM
:( Shoog, did you just change your team to the Wizards?

Melmart1
01-14-2007, 10:31 PM
No, the point is, the Spurs in the late 70s/early 80s under Doug Moe had some of the greatest offensive juggernauts in the history of the league.

The current team *may* be performing at a higher offensive level compared to other teams in the Tim Duncan era, but that's not what Hollinger said. Either he doesn't know NBA history, or he's not very precise with his words. Either one is a no-no for a national sports columnist.

Another point: first he writes, correctly, about how the Spurs have won NBA championships while "rebuilding on the fly". But then later he talks about Pop "keeping the message fresh even in his 9th season at the helm of a roster that's seen fairly little turnover". That a logical inconsistency.

I appreciate the sentiment, but the guy is just a sloppy writer.

And yes, I eventually did go back and read the rest of the article.

Why would a WIZARDS fan read up so much about the Spurs?

Birthday:
September 19
Position:
Streaky Guard
Favorite Team:
Washington Wizards
Battle Blog Record:
2-0
Human:
Yes

Another one off the Spurs bandwaggon :depressed

ShoogarBear
01-14-2007, 10:31 PM
:lol Forgot to change it back after Friday's game.

dg7md
01-14-2007, 10:32 PM
As a whole, I've been fairly disappointed by this team so far.

spurschick
01-14-2007, 10:33 PM
He's looking at the Spurs from 30,000 feet, however and he doesn't mention Dallas, who should not be ignored.

They're doing their share of pulling games out of their asses lately, i.e. Utah and Toronto.

picnroll
01-14-2007, 10:36 PM
... and Indianna.

Suns are actually the team currently kicking ass.

Solid D
01-14-2007, 10:38 PM
Shoogar, you are correct about some of the old school Spurs teams. One season the Spurs averaged 120.3 ppg and shot .506 from the field, but they allowed 120.5 ppg and .505 and had a record of 37-45. He's either forgetting about the past or he's using stat mixes about offensive efficiencies that he failed to reference.

SequSpur
01-14-2007, 10:38 PM
Lighten up.

you back off chick.

spurschick
01-14-2007, 10:39 PM
you back off chick.


:p:

Quasar
01-14-2007, 11:34 PM
... In fact, San Antonio's record in road games only equates to 49 wins per season, which would very nearly be the best season by either of the local teams in the past decade

What does he mean by "Local Teams"??

Extra Stout
01-14-2007, 11:37 PM
Oh gee, it's time for the annual "I'm running out of material, so let's run the 'Spurs are running under the radar' column" columns.

ShoogarBear
01-14-2007, 11:38 PM
What does he mean by "Local Teams"??Knicks/Nets, I'm pretty sure.

Big Shot Rob
01-15-2007, 12:32 AM
How old is this article?

FromWayDowntown
01-15-2007, 01:48 AM
Shoogar, you are correct about some of the old school Spurs teams. One season the Spurs averaged 120.3 ppg and shot .506 from the field, but they allowed 120.5 ppg and .505 and had a record of 37-45. He's either forgetting about the past or he's using stat mixes about offensive efficiencies that he failed to reference.

That, or he could be using the term "glorious history" to mean the years after 1999 -- but that would be nonsense, since the Spurs have been fairly consistently among the league's good-to-elite teams since about 1976-77.

By most measures, the 1989-90 Spurs were a far better offensive team than this bunch; so, too, was the 1994-95 team. Each of those teams was fairly formidable.

So, mostly, I'm with Shoogar in thinking that Hollinger is basically full of crap or a complete fool.

FromWayDowntown
01-15-2007, 01:50 AM
Some information about the Spurs' "glorious history."

Link (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52859&highlight=all-time)

Spurminator
01-15-2007, 01:52 AM
Oh gee, it's time for the annual "I'm running out of material, so let's run the 'Spurs are running under the radar' column" columns.

:lol

Yeah, at what point does our underratedness become overrated?

phyzik
01-15-2007, 02:31 AM
I have to say I dont care what ANYONE fucking believes.... we are The original Patriots team of the NBA.... Hell, we MADE the patriots what they are today...

We dont need alot of bullshit pussy flash plays to win the fucking game, we just go out and do it.... and if we dont teams will STILL look over their shoulder for us.... BOTTOM FUCKING LINE!!!

Im sick and fucking tired of everyone here being a fucking pussy ass fan, man the fuck up and back your fucking team!!!

BTW, Fuck Beno..... :lol

bringBAKElie
01-15-2007, 02:37 AM
I think Tom Brady did that but I agree with you

phyzik
01-15-2007, 02:43 AM
I think Tom Brady did that but I agree with you

No doubt Tom Brady is the man.... but the patriots will always be second or third behind The Spurs and the supposed "America's team" Cowboys who fucking choke just like their NBA counter-parts :drunk

bringBAKElie
01-15-2007, 02:45 AM
is there any credibility to his "point's allowed per 100 opponet possessions" guage, I dont know what he means by this, does this extend to following games or what

bringBAKElie
01-15-2007, 02:47 AM
dont talk about the Cowboy's that way

timvp
01-15-2007, 04:42 AM
I stopped reading here.

Why? On a point per possession basis, this Spurs team only trails the 1994-95 team as the best offensive Spurs team ever. Those run-and-gun teams of the late 70's and early 80's averaged more points per game, but they also played in a league with a much faster pace.

What's more impressive ... averaging 100 points per game in the current NBA or averaging 120 points per game while playing in an NBA in a time where you get 1,500 more field goal attempts and 800 more free throw attempts per year?

Put this Spurs team in an era where the NBA didn't play defense and only cared about offense and this current squad would average 130.

:stirpot:

Extra Stout
01-15-2007, 09:07 AM
Put this Spurs team in an era where the NBA didn't play defense and only cared about offense and this current squad would average 130.
And instead of losing 90-85 to Dallas, they would lose 125-115.

ShoogarBear
01-15-2007, 04:20 PM
Yeah, at what point does our underratedness become overrated?Today looks like a good point.

ShoogarBear
01-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Put this Spurs team in an era where the NBA didn't play defense and only cared about offense and this current squad would average 130.

:stirpot::rollin

Believe that if you want.

I suppose you believe per 48 minute stats can be used to project which bench players are better than starters, too.

timvp
01-15-2007, 09:14 PM
:rollin

Believe that if you want.

I suppose you believe per 48 minute stats can be used to project which bench players are better than starters, too.

:lmao

So you want to argue that those run-and-gun Spurs teams could beat the championship Spurs teams? The run-and-gun Spurs were like the Suns, except they played worse defense and couldn't shoot as well.

And if you'd kindly tell me how much you think this Spurs team would average in an NBA where they got 20 more possessions per game on average, that'd be appreciated.

Thanks.

:smokin

spurschick
01-15-2007, 11:45 PM
I think you should change your sig because the purrs aren't taking anything back.

That means a lot coming from a Knicks fan. :heavy sarcasm