SRJ
06-22-2007, 04:55 AM
When I hear all of this stuff about the Spurs' style being "unwatchable", I think about the US Open golf tournament.
Tiger Woods, unofficially the greatest golfer ever, finished the 2007 US open at +6, or six shots over par. The winner, Argentina's Angel Cabrera, finished at +5. In most tournaments, scores like this would be on the low end of the scorecard, fairly near the cut line.
Now, golf fans understand what's going on here. It's not as though Cabrera and Woods and everybody else sucked for one weekend or anything. The real story is that US Open courses are designed to test every last bit of skill, resolve, and poise a golfer has. The rough is absurdly tall. The fairways are narrow, with small landing areas. And the putting greens are lightning fast. Par is an excellent score at a US Open tournament.
What the Spurs have done for the better part of a decade is something like what the USGA does for a US Open course. To score consistently, to play your game, to beat Bowen on the perimeter and Duncan inside requires that a talented team play its best game. To do that four times out of a possible seven games requires the best from the best.
An example of this is reflected in the list of teams that have vanquished Duncan's Spurs:
1998 - Utah, advanced to NBA Finals
2000 - Duncan didn't play (injured)
2001 - LA Lakers, eventual champions
2002 - LA Lakers, eventual champions
2004 - LA Lakers, advanced to NBA Finals
2006 - Dallas, advanced to NBA Finals
Except for Duncan's 2000 absence, every team that eliminated the Spurs reached the NBA Finals. Two of those teams won the championship. In other words, it took the best playing their best to eliminate the Spurs.
Many casual fans don't understand this. They see a low-scoring Spurs game filled with missed shots and turnovers and think, "Boy, these teams stink!"; In reality, a Spurs game is like a US Open - you don't need to score well to win. But good luck getting to 90 points.
Obviously, this style takes it's toll on the Spurs offense too, or else the Spurs would win every game by 15+ points. Nevertheless, it's a different brand of ball, and not one Joe Fan can easily grasp.
Oh well.
Tiger Woods, unofficially the greatest golfer ever, finished the 2007 US open at +6, or six shots over par. The winner, Argentina's Angel Cabrera, finished at +5. In most tournaments, scores like this would be on the low end of the scorecard, fairly near the cut line.
Now, golf fans understand what's going on here. It's not as though Cabrera and Woods and everybody else sucked for one weekend or anything. The real story is that US Open courses are designed to test every last bit of skill, resolve, and poise a golfer has. The rough is absurdly tall. The fairways are narrow, with small landing areas. And the putting greens are lightning fast. Par is an excellent score at a US Open tournament.
What the Spurs have done for the better part of a decade is something like what the USGA does for a US Open course. To score consistently, to play your game, to beat Bowen on the perimeter and Duncan inside requires that a talented team play its best game. To do that four times out of a possible seven games requires the best from the best.
An example of this is reflected in the list of teams that have vanquished Duncan's Spurs:
1998 - Utah, advanced to NBA Finals
2000 - Duncan didn't play (injured)
2001 - LA Lakers, eventual champions
2002 - LA Lakers, eventual champions
2004 - LA Lakers, advanced to NBA Finals
2006 - Dallas, advanced to NBA Finals
Except for Duncan's 2000 absence, every team that eliminated the Spurs reached the NBA Finals. Two of those teams won the championship. In other words, it took the best playing their best to eliminate the Spurs.
Many casual fans don't understand this. They see a low-scoring Spurs game filled with missed shots and turnovers and think, "Boy, these teams stink!"; In reality, a Spurs game is like a US Open - you don't need to score well to win. But good luck getting to 90 points.
Obviously, this style takes it's toll on the Spurs offense too, or else the Spurs would win every game by 15+ points. Nevertheless, it's a different brand of ball, and not one Joe Fan can easily grasp.
Oh well.