Here's the deal...let's cut the nonsense.

[jeffdrums22]

As far as I can see, the Spurs aren't playing any different than last season. The rest of the league has just gotten better. Something that NBA commentators, sports writers, and every other suck up to Dallas has been ignoring, is that the Spurs are 2nd in the league at opponent's points allowed per game (meaning, only Houston allows fewer points per game than SA) I mean, that's just the same defense as years' past, isn't it?.


Let's look at some of the losses the Spurs have had this season. Will regular season losses to teams like the Bobcats, Warriors, Bucks, Bulls, and Timberwolves, really matter when the postseason gets here? Sure they have lost games to Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah, but all of those 3 teams have at least lost one game to each other this season already (exception of Dallas-Phoenix), Spurs included. As long as the Spurs show that they can play with the top teams and not get blown out (they have already had at least 1 win against Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, and LA), there's no reason to panic.

Just because the media hypes Dallas as the favorite, does not mean they will win. In fact, it's very unlikely that a team that lost in the Finals coming out of the West, would even make it back the next year, unless you're in the Eastern Conference. I don't see Dallas going past the semi-finals this year, it's fool's gold (example: Detroit's 64 win season last year, Sacramento's 62 win season in 2001-2002). Look what happened last season. The past 3 seasons, the media hyped Lakers in 2004, Pistons in 2005, and Mavericks in 2006 as the favorites to win the championship. None of those happened.

Do not be fooled by who the sports writers and commentators think is the best team in the NBA. They always pick the good on paper teams. The only thing Dallas is doing different than SA, is beating the teams they are supposed to beat, the teams like Bobcats, Hawks, Warriors, etc. SA has simply lost to teams that won't even be in the playoffs. When you think about it, it doesn't really matter.Yes, the Mavs, they too have lost against top West teams like SA, Utah, Houston, and LA, remember?. Remember, best teams win championships (Dallas has how many? None. They have a regular season championship, not a real one).


The championship core of Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen are all still there. Don't forget Horry who could hit those big shots when called to. Phoenix and Dallas have more wins, but those teams have returned to the run-and-gun style that has yet to win a championship this decade. Spurs, despite their so-called "aging roster who isn't playing well" have the 3rd best record in the standings, and if people are calling the Spurs bad, then the 27 (yeah... 27, shocking isn't it?) teams behind us in the standings must really be bad too, which means 27 out of 30 NBA teams stink then, right, NBA commentators? I'll see you guys at the Riverwalk in June for the Spurs 4th NBA championship parade.

[FromWayDowntown]

The return/enter key is your friend. I promise.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

That "enter" button helps out for those who are reading.

But what you're failing to note is that the losses to teams the Spurs shouldn't be losing to causes the gap in the division to widen and lessen the opportunity for home-court advantage, which the Spurs would greatly benefit from even with the aura of playing against the Spurs in San Antonio diminishing.

The Phoenix team the Spurs beat at the beginning of the season was a much different team than the one they lost to this week. A healthy and confident (in the stength of his knees) Amare Stoudamire is a scary prospect with a Suns team that is scoring well.

People love to say that Dallas is winning the "regular-season" championship and that they have no experience - well, guess what, the Spurs didn't have championship experience in 1999 and hadn't even made a Finals before then. I refuse to believe a Dallas team that has tasted the Finals before is simply going to make the mistake of letting up in the post-season and anybody who truly believes that Dallas will simply roll over in the playoffs is forgetting that they defeated the Spurs last season in the WCSF.

[Trainwreck2100]

The spurs didn;t miss this many wide open shots last year.

[jaffies]

Sure they have lost games to Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah, but all of those 3 teams have at least lost one game to each other this season already (exception of Dallas-Phoenix), Spurs included. As long as the Spurs show that they can play with the top teams and not get blown out (they have already had at least 1 win against Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, and LA), there's no reason to panic. .


we don't have a winning record against any of the teams you mentioned, the mavs do.
and 1 win against a playoff team doesn't win a 7-game series

[jeffdrums22]

I don't know what the deal is with you guys talking about enter keys. Perfect way to ignore the obvious but hidden facts staring you in the face:

1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?
2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.

[objective]

"As far as I can see, the Spurs aren't playing any different than last season."

For one thing that people can watch for themselves as a sign of what's different this season compared to previous seasons, watch how many open jumpers opponents get without someone running out to them to get a hand in their face.

It used to be that teams almost never got wide open shots. The Spurs were famous for contesting EVERY shot. NBA2Night/FastBreak/Sportscenter would have segments about the Spurs defense showing highlights of how on every shot the shooter would have a hand in the face or someone running at them.

That isn't the case this year, I''ve noticed it since early December that this was the worst Spurs defensive closeout team I've seen in the Duncan era, and then a few weeks later Pop came public about this being the worst defensive team in many years. It wasn't lip service from Pop to try to fire his guys up, it's true. The shot contesting is just a part of it, but it matters.


The championship core of Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen are all still there. Don't forget Horry who could hit those big shots when called to.

Those core 3 along with a down Bowen aren't good enough to win the title. The Lakers tried it in 03 when Shaq and Kobe had the aging Fox, Shaw and Horry and scrubs like Medvedenko and Pargo (who has improved since then). It wasn't enough. They took the Spurs six games, and maybe if Horry's shot in game 5 went down they could have advanced, but they just didn't have the talent.

BTW, Robert Horry has been atrocious in the playoffs 3 of the last 4 seasons. He was brutally awful with the Lakers in 03, so bad he was on the bench most of the second half of game 6 for Medvedenko. He was nowhere for the Spurs in 04. And he was so bad in 06 that smallball became the full time lineup.

He was good throughout the entire 05 playoffs. Good throughout the regular season too, he was huge in the double OT Clipper game for instance.

But at some point people have to ask themselves what's more likely: the 75% chance of being revolting, or the 25% chance of contributing and making big plays?

[FromWayDowntown]

Boundless optimism is useful sometimes and I think that in a time when so many Spurs fans are abjectly pessimisitc about this teams, it is good to see someone trying to find the silver linings in the black clouds.

With that said, I think the big problem isn't so much the outcomes of games, but the consistent issues that seem to lead to the losses that the Spurs have suffered. Like jeffdrums22, I sat back a couple of weeks ago and thought: "Well, the Spurs had great chances with under 30 seconds to go in regulation to tie or win both Dallas games in San Antonio, the Charlotte loss, the Minnesota loss, the loss at home to Los Angeles, (and now, the second loss in Utah)," and considered that had they gotten a break here or there, they might have reasonably expected to win about half of those games.

The problem is that the Spurs put themselves in position to make games a 50/50 proposition by performing poorly in certain aspects of the game and failing to play the game it should be played, I think. The most obvious shortcoming is the rebounding problem, which doesn't really warrant any more discussion.

I think the Spurs are also "struggling" defensively more than they have in the past for at least two reasons: (1) Parker, for all of the good things that he does, is a terrible defensive player in two-man games and anytime that opponents involve him in a screen -- because he doesn't hold up his end on those plays, the defense behind him is out of position and gives up too many layups and other good looks; and (2) the Spurs other perimeter defenders are learning that they can't gamble like they once did, because they no longer have "positionally solid" bigs behind them who rotated as the defensive system demanded and contested shots.

Numbers don't always tell the truth; with this Spurs team, I think the numbers can be quite misleading sometimes.

I think this team also gets itself into trouble in stretches of games because it is far too willing to settle for 3PTA or long field goal attempts. There are long stretches of games where the Spurs don't make any real effort to attack the rim. When they do bother to attack the rim, they can be a good offensive team; when they hit 3's, they can appear to be a good offensive team; when they're clanging away as volume shooters from behind the arc, they are a bad offensive team. Too many times this season, the Spurs have fallen behind a bit, settled for a series of 3'd in the ensuing possessions, and looked up to find themselves down by 8 or 10 after conceding a long run to the opposition. To their credit, they've found ways to get back into those games, but I think sometimes they did the hole too deep for themselves by making foolish offensive decisions.

[Bruno]

Mavs and Suns are light year better than Spurs right now but Spurs in may/june will likely be way better than now (and it's not wishfull thinking, old teams usually do that).
Now, will it be enough to be at their level ?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I don't know what the deal is with you guys talking about enter keys. Perfect way to ignore the obvious but hidden facts staring you in the face:

1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?
2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.

See, much easier to read.

[jaffies]

...But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. .

spurs losses:
1 loss to Charlotte
1 loss to Chicago (above .500, possible playoff team)
2 losses to Cleveland (above .500, playoff team)
2 losses to Dallas
1 loss to Golden State
2 losses to Houston (above .500, playoff team)
2 losses to Lakers (playoff team)
1 loss to Milwaukee
1 loss to Minnesota
1 loss to Phoenix
2 losses to Utah


Total of 4 losses to sub .500 teams
turn those into wins AND WE'RE STILL BEHIND DALLAS in the standings!

[ArgSpursFan]

I don't know what the deal is with you guys talking about enter keys. Perfect way to ignore the obvious but hidden facts staring you in the face:

1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?
2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.

wrong,Phoenix has improved by bringing more defensive minded guys like bell and Boris Diaw.The spurs just brought in some useless shit like Finley(last year)and .........well we have so much shit in our bench.

[ducks]

another thread just like the other dozens

[FromWayDowntown]

I1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?

I'd dispute that it's the same team. They're far better defensively this year then they've been in the past -- particularly when Bell is healthy. They have the ability to rebound the ball better, as well. And some of their peripheral players like Barbosa are much, much better than the guys who played similar roles for that team in 2005.


2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.

I think you sell the Mavericks short if you think that the only difference between them and the Spurs is beating bad teams. Right now, the biggest gap in the West is the difference between being #2 and being #3, and that has much, much more to do with the consistency of the effort that the Mavericks and Suns give and the superior ability of those teams to close games against any opponent, regardless of record. The Spurs, in case you haven't noticed, struggle to close out teams most nights and, with alarming frequency, get "out-executed" down the stretch by opponents.

Sure, the Spurs have wins over the "good" teams (Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, LA, Utah). But they haven't beaten Dallas, Phoenix or Houston since November 14. They got a nice win at home over Utah, but I can't imagine that anyone really believes that Utah is going to compete for a title this season. The win over LA was an enticing suggestion that this team might still have some upside; but it may have just masked the fact that the team still has major problems (in terms of being competitive for titles).

[ArgSpursFan]

Oh,and going back to Phoenix,barbosa is Healthy this year.For one or other reazons he wasn´t 100% phisically last year and the year before.

[BgT]

The rest of the league is NOT better than the last year.

[Kori Ellis]

The Spurs are a far worse defensive team this year than last year. I don't need to crunch numbers or anything to know that. The points allowed might be skewed because every once in a while the Spurs blow someone out or because they hold teams down for a couple quarters. But this team is no where close to as good defensively as last year's team.

By the way, in all seriousness, you really need to use the enter key if you want responses. Your posts are extremely hard to read without paragraph breaks.

[RC's Boss]

I don't know what the deal is with you guys talking about enter keys. Perfect way to ignore the obvious but hidden facts staring you in the face:

1. The Phoenix team we see now is just about the same Phoenix team that we dropped in the 2005 WCF: Stoudemire dominating throwing some dunks in, Nash with a bunch of assists, everyone else run-and-gun and making a bunch of wild shots. Again, when has this style of play won a championship this decade?
2. Is Dallas playing well? Yes. Did they beat us last year? Yes. But if the only difference between Dallas, SA, and Phoenix this year is how well they play against non-playoff teams, does it really matter then? If SA was 6th or 7th in the standings, then we could make the arguments for this being a not-so-hot team. I know Dallas made an impressive run to the Finals last year, but what is it about Dallas that made them lose to an aging, slowed down, un-athletic team like the Miami Heat? I have yet to here a real answer other than "Oh the refs gave it to Miami". Dallas lacks the "it" that SA would have were they to make the Finals again.
I for one, agree w/ you. I'm not worried at all. Did I just read someone "claiming" Boris Diaw was defensive minded?????? WTF.

[timvp]

(1) Parker, for all of the good things that he does, is a terrible defensive player in two-man games and anytime that opponents involve him in a screen -- because he doesn't hold up his end on those plays, the defense behind him is out of position and gives up too many layups and other good looks

I'm going to have to disagree with that take. There was a time last year when Parker was using all his energy on the offensive end and his defense suffered. He picked it up some as the playoffs neared, but he never reached his 2004-05 defensive levels.

This year, his defense is back to be around the same level it was in 2004-05. Not quite all the way back, but about 95% back. He's putting pressure on the other team's point guards and is rarely losing focus. I only remember a couple poor defensive games (one each against Deron Williams and Rafer Alston, although a couple more could exist that I can't think of off the top of my head).

Looking at the stats, it pretty much backs up the thoughts that Parker's defense was best in 2004-05 and is close to that level again. Here are what point guards average against Parker when he's on the court:

2006-07: 11.4 points, 4.4 assists, 2.3 turnovers
2005-06: 13.1 points, 4.5 assists, 1.9 turnovers
2004-05: 11.7 points, 4.3 assists, 2.4 turnovers
2003-04: 12.5 points, 4.8 assists, 1.9 turnovers
2002-03: 15.5 points, 5.2 assists, 1.8 turnovers

Parker can still pick it up a notch defensively, but I don't see him as being one of the main problems. To hold opposing point guards down to the degree he has this year is impressive, especially considering that the Spurs' interior defense is worse than anytime since David Robinson was drafted.

In 2002-03, you could say Parker was a below average defensive player and the stats point to that. He give up huge numbers ... and that was with Tim and David in the middle. But this year, I'm not sure you can make the claim.

I know what you are talking about Parker struggling some in two-man situations, but I just haven't seen it much this year. Last year, yeah, you could say that for a lot of the regular season. But this season, I'd grade him rather highly on the defensive end of the court.

Plus, the way Pop utilizes Parker this year, I see nothing to indicate that he's lost confidence in Parker's defense. In fact, when asked why he doesn't put Bowen on Steve Nash, Pop said he prefers to go with Parker because Parker is the best Spur at guarding the pick-and-rolls.

[jeffdrums22]

Okay, I am done with this thread. People ignore FACTS. First of all, what's the point of having statistics if "numbers can be misleading" or whatever nonsense that was. I guess let's just not have an NBA Finals anymore either, because NBA Finals are misleading too now, right? It's not called boundless optimism, it's called looking at the standings and statistics (3rd best in the league, one of the top road records, 2nd in opponent's points per game allowed), not picking apart Spurs losses against the Sealions and the Bears or whoever, and saying: OMG they left Mark Madsen wide open for a jumper! Season's over! It's also called looking at the history of the style of the play of DAL/PHX and it's championship success (in this case, non-success) this decade. You know, if Dallas had won the championship, this would be a completely different thread, because they would have proved that jump shooting and wild shots win championships...was just not the outcome. Oh, and since we're allowed to make up wild stories about misleading numbers, try this: Phoenix is 1-6 vs Spurs, Dallas, Utah, and some other team, either houston or LA.

[ArgSpursFan]

The Spurs are a far worse defensive team this year than last year. I don't need to crunch numbers or anything to know that. The points allowed might be skewed because every once in a while the Spurs blow someone out or because they hold teams down for a couple quarters. But this team is no where close to as good defensively as last year's team.

By the way, in all seriousness, you really need to use the enter key if you want responses. Your posts are extremely hard to read without paragraph breaks.

I really think that the points allowed have something to do with the way the spurs play the game,not with the defence,cause I really think we suck this year on Defence.may be cause the spurs always use the shot clock and don´t have that many fastbreak points is that teams can´t reach 100 pts or so in 48 minutes.

[Extra Stout]

The differences between this Spurs team and last year's:

1) Their defense is worse. Points per game is not the right metric. Points per possession is, because that takes into account game pace. For years, the Spurs have been the most efficient defensive team. This year, they have slipped behind Houston and Chicago, and aren't that much better than Dallas.

2) They struggle against good defensive teams. Their lineup of aging jump shooters can get the job done against many teams, but the elite defensive teams rotate over quickly enough to squelch open shots. This is the same problem the team had in 2001 and 2002, the last time the geriatic brigade got so many minutes.

3) They struggle against efficient offenses. Again, this relates to age and lack of athleticism. The pass that a couple of years ago against the Spurs did not lead to an easy shot, now does.

4) Duncan has to do too much. The lack of competent center play means that Duncan has to spearhead the defense and rebounding essentially by himself. This leaves little margin for error.

The differences between this Spurs team and last year's are not night and day statistically, but they become quite evident against the elite teams.

[exstatic]

wrong,Phoenix has improved by bringing more defensive minded guys like bell and Boris Diaw.The spurs just brought in some useless shit like Finley(last year)and .........well we have so much shit in our bench.
Bell and Diaw were both there last year. Try again, Einstein.

[Extra Stout]

Bell and Diaw were both there last year. Try again, Einstein.
The comparison is between the 2007 and 2005 Suns. Sorry.

[ArgSpursFan]

Bell and Diaw were both there last year. Try again, Einstein.

excuse me,but I was talking about the deference between the 2004-2005 phoenix(without bell and diaw)when they lost to the spurs,with this year´s Phoenix.
so,try again later extatico! :reading
And if you don´t belive me,check his quote again,he was talking about the 2004-05 Suns.
you´re gonna have to do better tham that to get to own me dudie.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay, I am done with this thread. People ignore FACTS. First of all, what's the point of having statistics if "numbers can be misleading" or whatever nonsense that was. I guess let's just not have an NBA Finals anymore either, because NBA Finals are misleading too now, right?

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the title.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.


It's not called boundless optimism, it's called looking at the standings and statistics (3rd best in the league, one of the top road records, 2nd in opponent's points per game allowed), not picking apart Spurs losses against the Sealions and the Bears or whoever, and saying: OMG they left Mark Madsen wide open for a jumper! Season's over!

It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.


It's also called looking at the history of the style of the play of DAL/PHX and it's championship success (in this case, non-success) this decade. You know, if Dallas had won the championship, this would be a completely different thread, because they would have proved that jump shooting and wild shots win championships...was just not the outcome. Oh, and since we're allowed to make up wild stories about misleading numbers, try this: Phoenix is 1-6 vs Spurs, Dallas, Utah, and some other team, either houston or LA.

In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a title.

[timvp]

In my opinion, the biggest problems on defense are:

1) The bigs. Duncan's defense is much, much better than it was earlier this year. Still not great, but over the last five or so games he has picked it up.

In Elson's time on the court, he averages 4.8 points. The player he is guarding is averaging 7.3 points. In Oberto's time on the court, he averages 5.0 points. The player he is guarding is averaging 8.3 points. That's pretty horrible man-to-man defense ... and that's not even counting all the points they give up by not being able to guard the paint effectively.

2) Finley and Barry both get lit up more than the Riverwalk on Christmas. Opponents average 6 more points per 100 possessions with Finley on the court and 9 more points with Barry on the court. It seems like age and all those Nellie minutes have caught up to Finley, but I can't use that same excuse for Barry because he doesn't looked run down. I think Barry just isn't puttuing in the effort that he was last year ... and Pop can't bench him to prove a point because everyone else on the bench sucks worse.

3) Beno and Vaughn suck. Beno couldn't guard his own shadow and while Vaughn is active, his activity doesn't really translate to anything.

4) Rule changes. As the NBA gives more and more freedom to penetrating swingmen, that hurts the Spurs more and more. Not only do the lack they shotblockers of the past, but it's also harder to force opponents to go baseline. Refs call almost any contact now, so opponents can go middle or force the Spurs to get into foul trouble.

5) Rebounding. The Spurs are on pace to get the least amount of rebounds in franchise history. The Spurs have one player who averages more than five boards. Against the better teams in the league, the Spurs just can't get it done rebounding wise. They've been outrebounded by the Mavs 13 games in a row. Although overlooked, this could very well be the Spurs' biggest flaw.

[mabber]

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the title.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.



It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.



In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a title.

Good post! I totally agree with you in regards to stats and the fact that eventually somone who plays at a fast pace is gonna win a title as the league changes, etc.

You understand how the Mavericks play better than a few of the Mav posters on here :lol ...and MUCH better than most of the Spur's posters.

[Big Shot Rob]

I'm not very good with stats--I am the first to concede that point.

My gut feeling is that barring an injury to the Mavs, they would be the team that I would put my hard-earned cash on to take it all this year.

I think we could give the Suns a good competitive series. As much as our bench sucks, we were pretty much even within the last 3-4 minutes of the game. If just one guy hit a key bucket here or there, the game might have been different. Unfortunately, that did not happen and the floodgates opened for the Suns and they beat the shit out of us in the closing minutes.

Unfortunately, I still think the Mavs would clobber us if we don't change something--a player, rotation--something.

Quite honestly--if I had to choose, I think I'd rather see Dirk get a ring than that fucking prick Raja Bell. And I'd rather see Avery get a ring as a coach than that prick from the Suns.

Still--we're still in this thing--keep hope alive. I felt like jumping off the ledge after the Phoenix game.

After a day or two of reflection--as bad as our bench is--in a back to back game in Phoenix, the game could just as easily turned out the other way--we can still compete with the Suns in a seven game series.

[spurschick]

Beating all of the contenders in the regular season and pulling off a couple of sweeps in the playoffs would be great, but you have to admit that the drama and uncertainty of this season is going to make for a great championship dvd. :smokin

[FromWayDowntown]

Beating all of the contenders in the regular season and pulling off a couple of sweeps in the playoffs would be great, but you have to admit that the drama and uncertainty of the this season is going to make for a great championship dvd. :smokin

It's like our long-time ally, Phil Jackson, told Marc Stein:


"They're kind of like the Lakers were in 2001 or 2002," Phil Jackson says of the Spurs, comparing them to his turn-it-on, switch-flipping teams of the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant era.

"Older players know their limitations. They know what the regular season means. They're running the marathon, not trying to lead the pack. They know they can win on the road. They're comfortable with how they can play in playoff situations. Popovich knows how to do this.

"It's too early to say anything [dismissive] about them. They're still a team that has to be considered very, very dangerous."

This comes from a guy, remember, who has never been a member of any Gregg Popovich fan clubs.

[duncandaman]

we just have to many old guys around da big 3 and thats it, we need some athletic guys

[SenorSpur]

You're right -- statistics really tell the tale of a team's success; that must be why the team with the best record at the end of each season wins the title.

Statistics are helpful to understanding what you see, but they don't tell the whole story because they are ridiculously imprecise. If you really want to base arguments on nothing other than statistics, I'd suggest that you dig around at places like 82games.com or popcornmachine to find numbers that truly explain something meaningful.



It is optimism if you're willing to point to the standings as proof of an argument without including in your analysis things that happen on the court and are obvious to most other observers. The Spurs, for most of the 1990's, were a team that looked dominant in the standings every year, but had no chance in playoff series against teams that could exploit their rather obvious weaknesses. This team, compared to the rest of the league, looks more like a mid-90's Spurs team than a 1999-2005 Spurs team. I think most people who watch them would tell you that, despite their record. I hope that changes.



In the first place, Dallas isn't a run-and-gun team like it was under Don Nelson. If you want to talk about statistics, according to John Hollinger's numbers, the Mavericks actually play at a slower pace, night-in and night-out, than the Spurs do. In fact, only the Blazers and the Pistons play at a slower pace than the Mavericks. So, in terms of style of play, the Mavericks are virtually identical to the Spurs in that respect. The Mavericks are far more efficient on the offensive end at that pace, but they don't play the same style as Phoenix. If you really think that, you haven't been watching much basketball of late. I generally despise the Mavericks, but right now, I have no doubt that they are the best team in basketball. They are far more like the 2004-05 Spurs than this group of Spurs is. They defend pretty well, they're efficient on the offensive end, they are witches in the 4th quarter, and they can win playing any style.

Even if the Mavericks played the up-and-down style that you suggest they do -- and they clearly don't -- the notion that "well that style hasn't won in a while and it won't win now" strikes me as outrageously simplistic. At some point, as the style of play around the league changes, someone who plays at a fast pace is likely going to win a title.

:tu :tu

That's a touchdown!

I hate the Mavs like everyone else, yet if you watch basketball you can see the obvious difference in the way they're playing and in the "steely" determination with which they are methodically carving up their opponents night in and night out. Kinda Spurs like of a couple seasons ago.

[spurschick]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back titles is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.

[Extra Stout]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back titles is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.
The Mavericks have no player averaging as many as 37 minutes per game. Run out of gas?

[1Parker1]

IMO, one of the reasons that the Spurs haven't been able to win back-to-back titles is because playing deep into June has it's long-term effects in the following season's playoffs. Dallas, while obviously hungry, is playing at a pretty mean pace right now and I can't help but wonder if they're going to run out of gas some time in May.

As for the Suns, I still don't think they can beat the Spurs in a 7 game series.


Mavs are too deep of a team to run out of gas. I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mean pace" do you mean run and gun play style ala Mavs or winning many games all at once?

Either way, they have guys like Stackhouse, Devean George, even Croshure to help bail them out if they ever get into any offensive droughts. IMO, that is what the Spurs are missing desperately right now in their regular season losses. Despite the obvious rebounding and defense issues that have been discussed in this thread, Spurs were still in a position to win many of those games. Problem is, they're usually playing 3 on 5 in those situations. If we had just one other bench player step up for us, I think it'd be huge for them in terms of regular season wins. Horry, Beno, and Finley are shooting a combined 36% or something this season which is insane. Bruce Bowen's offense has also struggled since the New Year began and Barry is too up and down.

These aren't the same Spurs as last year: Last year the Spurs were en route to a 60+ win season, they were holding opponents to league low 42% (now it's something like 45%), and Finley/Bowen/Horry were playing a lot better. While you're right that the regular season rarely counts for anything since anything can happen in the playoffs, this year's losses are showing more and more holes in the Spurs offense and defense.

[1Parker1]

BTW, You know what I miss the most about the Spurs?

Remember back in the days, they would shoot 38-42% for three quarters. Then the 4th quarter would come and all of a sudden for a 7-8 minute stretch, they'd completely shut down the opponent and their will to win and come back from behind and win the game. We saw that momentarily in the Lakers win, but other than that, I think that's a big aspect of the Spurs MO that's been missing. Granted we don't have the personell to do that, but it makes you wonder how this fanchise managed to get away from the ideology so quickly after 2005.

[spurschick]

Mavs are too deep of a team to run out of gas. I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "mean pace" do you mean run and gun play style ala Mavs or winning many games all at once?

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.

[1Parker1]

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.

:lol Well, I sure hope you're right! I just think Avery is too good of a coach to let that happen. Though if the Suns continue to stay on their tails, he may have no choice but to continue giving his starters more time.

[Extra Stout]

Run and gun style - and they've had to slug out some of their wins. I realize they're deep, but it's a just a feeling that I have that they'll show some wear-and-tear around the second round. I don't have stats or anything to back that up... like I said, just a feeling.
The Mavericks don't play run-and-gun. Their game pace is slower than the Spurs' is.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Mavericks don't play run-and-gun. Their game pace is slower than the Spurs' is.

I thought I heard that somewhere. :nerd

[Extra Stout]

I thought I heard that somewhere. :nerd
Was it from you? Might have been. 82games agrees with you.

[FromWayDowntown]

Was it from you? Might have been. 82games agrees with you.

See above (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1429838&postcount=27) :nerd

[Extra Stout]

Spurs average 90 possessions per game. Mavericks average 89.

[spurschick]

The Mavericks have no player averaging as many as 37 minutes per game. Run out of gas?

If you're trying to make the point that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't care. I am just expressing an opinion that I don't think the Mavs will make it to the finals.

[RC's Boss]

wrong,Phoenix has improved by bringing more defensive minded guys like bell and Boris Diaw.The spurs just brought in some useless shit like Finley(last year)and .........well we have so much shit in our bench.
Diaw is not defensive minded. He's a forward w/ a point guards passing ability :rolleyes How the hell did you get defensive minded and Diaws name in the same sentence :lol

[RC's Boss]

If you're trying to make the point that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't care. I am just expressing an opinion that I don't think the Mavs will make it to the finals.
Yep, just like Detroit last year, they feel the sting of losing. Actually they feel it worse, Detroit just lost while the Mavs choked. Not to slight them, I believed they were far superior than Miami.

[Marcus Bryant]

The basic problem is that the Spurs allowed the quality of their #4-6 guys in the rotation to wane.

[ploto]

The Spurs used to be able to withstand offensive droughts through their defense, but that simply is not the case anymore. Do you remember the stat shown during the Phoenix game- for the previous few years the Spurs could shoot under 45% and still win over half of those games. The stat for this year was something like 4-12. Does anyone remember? Simply put, the Spurs defense can not be relied on to get stops to hold on when the offense comes up short.

And like it or not, last season the Spur with the best on court defensive numbers in terms of opponents points per 100 possessions- Rasho (96.4).

[Marcus Bryant]

Fuck man pick a former Spur to fixate on who actually helped the team win a title. Like say,

http://www.mysanantonio.com/specials/spurschamps/slideshows/spursmavericksgame2/images/jl2.jpg

or

http://www.mysanantonio.com/specials/spurschamps/slideshows/spursmavericksgame2/images/wl4.jpg

[dav4463]

Thanks to Mark Cuban's whining for years and the other sheep who do not appreciate good defensive basketball, the rules were changed. It is no coincidence that the Spurs and Pistons were both knocked out despite having the best records in the league last year. Quite simply, the teams were not allowed to play defense the way they did when they were winning championships. It's what the public wants ......touch fouls so LeBron, Dirk, and Dwayne can drive to the hole unmolested. It sucks, but it is the new NBA. They want to see more points scored. Spurs and Pistons have to adapt, but it is hard for a team to radically change the style of play that brought championships.

[Marcus Bryant]

Thanks to Mark Cuban's whining for years and the other sheep who do not appreciate good defensive basketball, the rules were changed. It is no coincidence that the Spurs and Pistons were both knocked out despite having the best records in the league last year. Quite simply, the teams were not allowed to play defense the way they did when they were winning championships. It's what the public wants ......touch fouls so LeBron, Dirk, and Dwayne can drive to the hole unmolested. It sucks, but it is the new NBA. They want to see more points scored. Spurs and Pistons have to adapt, but it is hard for a team to radically change the style of play that brought championships.

The Spurs were aware of the rules changes. They were unable to adapt, be it due to the lack of opportunities to add the right personnel or making the wrong choices (passing on Josh Howard, for example).

If only Josh's last name was Popsonofabich.

[dav4463]

The Spurs were aware of the rules changes. They were unable to adapt, be it due to the lack of opportunities to add the right personnel or making the wrong choices (passing on Josh Howard, for example).

If only Josh's last name was Popsonofabich.

I know they were aware of them and did not react, but I think it sucks that just because Cuban is a rich guy who always gets his way.....a league would change rules for him because his team couldn't win playing the old way. Spurs and Pistons were champs....the league should adapt to their style --not change the rules to help level the playing field.

[mabber]

I know they were aware of them and did not react, but I think it sucks that just because Cuban is a rich guy who always gets his way.....a league would change rules for him because his team couldn't win playing the old way. Spurs and Pistons were champs....the league should adapt to their style --not change the rules to help level the playing field.

I hope you really don't believe this is what happened :rolleyes

[Bookit]

An outsider view of the difference of this year's Spurs team and the last few year's team...........Tim Duncan. Yep, his name hasn't even surfaced once on this entire thread as being the culprit. Yeah, he is still very good. But he isn't so exremely dominating anymore that opposing teams are forced to double team him.

The Spurs offense is designed to attack the double team. In years past, Duncan would just score every single time if you didn't double him in the post and outside shooters would get clean looks off of those double teams. Now, teams have figured out that Duncan will miss a lot of those shots if he is left with one player guarding him. I have seen in time and time again this season. In fact, Duncan would prefer to be double teamed this year so he can pass it. He actually likes to pass it better because he knows he might miss.

And Tim's defense isn't as dominating either. Devin Harris and Jason Terry often have made it all the way to the rim on the Spurs this season. They just couldn't do that against the Heat. Mourning and Shaq completely shut that down. Duncan is just a step slower this seaon and it shows both offensively and defensively. Of course Duncan could get a second wind for the playoffs, only time will tell.

[Testing]

^Tim is shooting at a higher % this season than in years past, 50+%. When he's played one on one, he's unstoppable. Difference is when he's double teamed, actually. He often doesn't rotate quick enough and is slow moving in the post so he get's a TO or often nothing. Also, teams can now afford to double team him even more due to the fact that when he does pass it to the open shooter, they're missing their shots. Teams would rather take their chances that way now.

As for his defense, that has a lot to do with Oberto and Elson being horrible.

[mabber]

^Tim is shooting at a higher % this season than in years past, 50+%. When he's played one on one, he's unstoppable. Difference is when he's double teamed, actually. He often doesn't rotate quick enough and is slow moving in the post so he get's a TO or often nothing. Also, teams can now afford to double team him even more due to the fact that when he does pass it to the open shooter, they're missing their shots. Teams would rather take their chances that way now.

As for his defense, that has a lot to do with Oberto and Elson being horrible.

This is what I'm seeing as well.

[vander]

^Tim is shooting at a higher % this season than in years past, 50+%. When he's played one on one, he's unstoppable. Difference is when he's double teamed, actually. He often doesn't rotate quick enough and is slow moving in the post so he get's a TO or often nothing. Also, teams can now afford to double team him even more due to the fact that when he does pass it to the open shooter, they're missing their shots. Teams would rather take their chances that way now.

As for his defense, that has a lot to do with Oberto and Elson being horrible.

i don't watch all the games, but i have yet to see timmy make a bank shot this year, those used to be money. i thought players generally get more accurate as their career progresses, not less.

[mabber]

i don't watch all the games, but i have yet to see timmy make a bank shot this year, those used to be money. i thought players generally get more accurate as their career progresses, not less.

And the times now that he has the ball facing the basket where he either shoots the bankshot or drives to the basket...he seems to take much longer to decide which he's going to do than he used to.

[VaSpursFan]

And the times now that he has the ball facing the basket where he either shoots the bankshot or drives to the basket...he seems to take much longer to decide which he's going to do than he used to.

this is what kills me, he's awfully indecisive this season. instead of making a quick move, he holds the ball, dribbles until he thinks of something. for this team to be effective, timmy has to make quick, decisive moves in the post to put pressure on the d.

[sammy]

Bell and Diaw were both there last year. Try again, Einstein.


I agree! They still lost to the Spurs in WCF!

[sammy]

As far as I can see, the Spurs aren't playing any different than last season. The rest of the league has just gotten better. Something that NBA commentators, sports writers, and every other suck up to Dallas has been ignoring, is that the Spurs are 2nd in the league at opponent's points allowed per game (meaning, only Houston allows fewer points per game than SA) I mean, that's just the same defense as years' past, isn't it?.


Let's look at some of the losses the Spurs have had this season. Will regular season losses to teams like the Bobcats, Warriors, Bucks, Bulls, and Timberwolves, really matter when the postseason gets here? Sure they have lost games to Dallas, Phoenix, and Utah, but all of those 3 teams have at least lost one game to each other this season already (exception of Dallas-Phoenix), Spurs included. As long as the Spurs show that they can play with the top teams and not get blown out (they have already had at least 1 win against Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, and LA), there's no reason to panic.

Just because the media hypes Dallas as the favorite, does not mean they will win. In fact, it's very unlikely that a team that lost in the Finals coming out of the West, would even make it back the next year, unless you're in the Eastern Conference. I don't see Dallas going past the semi-finals this year, it's fool's gold (example: Detroit's 64 win season last year, Sacramento's 62 win season in 2001-2002). Look what happened last season. The past 3 seasons, the media hyped Lakers in 2004, Pistons in 2005, and Mavericks in 2006 as the favorites to win the championship. None of those happened.

Do not be fooled by who the sports writers and commentators think is the best team in the NBA. They always pick the good on paper teams. The only thing Dallas is doing different than SA, is beating the teams they are supposed to beat, the teams like Bobcats, Hawks, Warriors, etc. SA has simply lost to teams that won't even be in the playoffs. When you think about it, it doesn't really matter.Yes, the Mavs, they too have lost against top West teams like SA, Utah, Houston, and LA, remember?. Remember, best teams win championships (Dallas has how many? None. They have a regular season championship, not a real one).


The championship core of Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen are all still there. Don't forget Horry who could hit those big shots when called to. Phoenix and Dallas have more wins, but those teams have returned to the run-and-gun style that has yet to win a championship this decade. Spurs, despite their so-called "aging roster who isn't playing well" have the 3rd best record in the standings, and if people are calling the Spurs bad, then the 27 (yeah... 27, shocking isn't it?) teams behind us in the standings must really be bad too, which means 27 out of 30 NBA teams stink then, right, NBA commentators? I'll see you guys at the Riverwalk in June for the Spurs 4th NBA championship parade.


I agree!

allass had an opportunity to win the Finals, were up 2-0 against an old unathletic team Miami and choked! There are 35 games left in the season so anything can happen. Look at how allass & suns are playing to get the top seed as they don't want to play the Spurs in the 2nd Round!

[Testing]

i don't watch all the games, but i have yet to see timmy make a bank shot this year, those used to be money. i thought players generally get more accurate as their career progresses, not less.

He's taking them, I say he averages 2 - 4 per game. In fact, usually his first shot attempt lately has been a bank shot.

[41times]

The Biggest problem for the Spurs is not the "Big 3" it's that attitude that a "Big 3" is all you need. And that's just not the case.

Timmy, Tony and Gino are great. But your worker bees are not. They are either too old and their skills are declining or they are too inexperienced.

Ex: Finley, Barry, Horry. All used to be good or very good but in the last 2 years have begun to decline.

Oberto is good but it's year 1. Elson maybe be pretty good but it's early for him and he was injured. Bonner, too early.

The rest of the guys are spares or average at best.

If you expect to beat the Mavs and or Suns over 7 games, you will need 2-3 studs (which you have) + 5 other really good players (which you don't have)

Your GM better fix that over the off season or you will be wasting the "big 3" talent.

Spurs Roster

2006-07 Roster
NUM PLAYER POS HT WT DOB FROM YRS
17 Brent Barry G 6-7 210 12/31/1971 Oregon State 11
15 Matt Bonner F 6-10 240 04/05/1980 Florida 2
12 Bruce Bowen F 6-7 200 06/14/1971 Cal State Fullerton 10
45 Jackie Butler C 6-10 260 03/10/1985 Coastal Christian Academy (VA) 2
21 Tim Duncan F-C 6-11 260 04/25/1976 Wake Forest 9
16 Francisco Elson C 7-0 235 02/28/1976 California 3
4 Michael Finley G-F 6-7 225 03/06/1973 Wisconsin 11
20 Manu Ginobili G 6-6 205 07/28/1977 Argentina 4
5 Robert Horry F-C 6-10 240 08/25/1970 Alabama 14
7 Fabricio Oberto C 6-10 245 03/21/1975 Argentina 1
9 Tony Parker G 6-2 180 05/17/1982 France 5
14 Beno Udrih G 6-3 200 07/05/1982 Slovenia 2
11 Jacque Vaughn G 6-1 190 02/11/1975 Kansas 9
33 James White G-F 6-7 200 10/21/1982 Cincinnati R
55 Eric Williams F 6-8 220 07/17/1972 Providence 11

[cheguevara]

I stopped reading at "Oberto is good"

[Bookit]

And the times now that he has the ball facing the basket where he either shoots the bankshot or drives to the basket...he seems to take much longer to decide which he's going to do than he used to.

He does this because he is waiting for the double team. He actually wants the double team to arrive for whatever reason.

[mabber]

He does this because he is waiting for the double team. He actually wants the double team to arrive for whatever reason.

No, I'm talking about when he has the ball out aways from the basket (at that spot that he takes his bankshots from). He doesn't usually get double-teamed at that spot on the floor. Teams will double team him when he drives to the hoop instead of taking that bankshot.