Spurs Brazil
07-12-2007, 04:28 AM
Mike Finger: Page 2 - Spurs choose static formula
Web Posted: 07/11/2007 11:56 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
Somewhere around 500 B.C., the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said "nothing endures but change." Twenty-four centuries later, Winston Churchill noted, "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." And then in 1993, Matthew McConaughey (as modern-day intellectual David Wooderson in "Dazed and Confused") marveled at his own time-related discovery about high schoolers.
"I get older," he said, "they stay the same age."
Now, it's doubtful that any of those deep thinkers considered themselves Spurs fans. But if they did, chances are all three of them would be a little concerned about the team's uneventful offseason.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the comings and goings on the Spurs' roster this summer, fear not. You haven't missed much. All 12 players who suited up for the NBA Finals will be back. And barring a trade of Jackie Butler or a dismissal of James White, so will two guys who were inactive for the playoffs. The only Spur who definitely won't be back to try to help defend the title is 15th-man Melvin Ely.
That, my friends, is stability. The U.S. Supreme Court has a higher turnover rate. Given the Spurs' current veteran-laden roster, the patients on heart-and-lung transplant waiting lists have a better chance of getting their wish than the poor saps trying to earn a silver-and-black jersey.
The trick is figuring out whether this is a good thing for the Spurs. On one hand, it's difficult to argue with the idea of keeping intact the group that just swept its way through the NBA Finals. Familiarity and consistency can be huge benefits in today's league.
On the other, the Spurs were the oldest team in the league last season, and as Wooderson would point out, they're getting older, and the rest of the league is staying the same age. Change, at least some form of it, would seem to be the only way to stay ahead of pursuers such as Phoenix, Dallas and Utah.
In an era of constantly fluctuating rosters, what the Spurs are attempting to do — win a championship with the same team that won it the year before — is quite rare. But it's not entirely unprecedented.
During the past 13 seasons — a period in which unrestricted free agency took off — several other championship teams have resisted the urge to change. For instance, the top 10 scorers for the 1996-97 Bulls had played on Chicago's title team in 1995-96. That worked out all right — that season the Bulls won their second of three consecutive championships.
But there also have been disappointments. After the Lakers won their third-straight title in 2001-02, they tried to make it four with essentially the same team. Led by nine scorers who all had been in Los Angeles the year before, the 2002-03 Lakers won eight fewer games in the regular season and lost to the Spurs in the second round of the playoffs. A similar fate met the Miami Heat this past season, when they used a near-identical roster to their 2005-06 championship team but wound up losing in the first round (Dwyane Wade's injury didn't help).
In total, 13 NBA Finals teams since 1994 have played the next season without adding a new player that ranked in the top six on the team in scoring. Of those 13, four made it back to the Finals (the 1996-97 Bulls and 2001-02 Lakers won; the 1997-98 Jazz and 2002-03 Nets lost). Three lost in the conference finals, four lost in the second round, and two (the 2006-07 Heat and 2006-07 Mavericks) were knocked out in the first round.
What does all this mean?
For the Spurs, it's tough to tell. All they can do is hope to prove Heraclitus wrong.
For a year, at least.
* * *
IF IT ISN'T BROKE . . .
Since 1994, 13 teams that made the NBA Finals failed to add (or chose not to add) a player that ranked among the team's top six in scoring the next season. Here's how those teams fared:
Team -- Top-scoring newcomer (team rank) -- Win differential from previous season -- Postseason finish
1994-95 Knicks -- Monty Williams (11th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in second round
1995-96 Magic -- Joe Wolf (9th) -- plus-3 -- Lost in conference finals
1996-97 Bulls -- Robert Parish (11th) -- minus-3 -- Won NBA Finals
1997-98 Jazz -- Jacque Vaughn (12th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in NBA Finals
1999 Jazz -- Thurl Bailey (8th) -- minus-1* -- Lost in second round
1999-2000 Knicks -- John Wallace (8th) -- plus-6* -- Lost in conference finals
2001-02 Lakers -- Lindsey Hunter (7th) -- plus-2 -- Won NBA Finals
2002-03 Nets -- Rodney Rogers (7th) -- minus-3 -- Lost in NBA Finals
2003-04 Nets -- Zoran Planinic (10th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in second round
2005-06 Pistons -- Maurice Evans (7th) -- plus+10 -- Lost in conference finals
2006-07 Heat -- Eddie Jones (11th) -- minus-8 -- Lost in first round
2006-07 Mavericks -- Devean George (7th) -- plus-7 Lost in first round
(*Victory totals for the lockout-shortened 1999 season were adjusted by percentage to that of an 82-game season.)
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA071207.02C.COLfinger.page2.30c2287.html
Web Posted: 07/11/2007 11:56 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
Somewhere around 500 B.C., the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said "nothing endures but change." Twenty-four centuries later, Winston Churchill noted, "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." And then in 1993, Matthew McConaughey (as modern-day intellectual David Wooderson in "Dazed and Confused") marveled at his own time-related discovery about high schoolers.
"I get older," he said, "they stay the same age."
Now, it's doubtful that any of those deep thinkers considered themselves Spurs fans. But if they did, chances are all three of them would be a little concerned about the team's uneventful offseason.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the comings and goings on the Spurs' roster this summer, fear not. You haven't missed much. All 12 players who suited up for the NBA Finals will be back. And barring a trade of Jackie Butler or a dismissal of James White, so will two guys who were inactive for the playoffs. The only Spur who definitely won't be back to try to help defend the title is 15th-man Melvin Ely.
That, my friends, is stability. The U.S. Supreme Court has a higher turnover rate. Given the Spurs' current veteran-laden roster, the patients on heart-and-lung transplant waiting lists have a better chance of getting their wish than the poor saps trying to earn a silver-and-black jersey.
The trick is figuring out whether this is a good thing for the Spurs. On one hand, it's difficult to argue with the idea of keeping intact the group that just swept its way through the NBA Finals. Familiarity and consistency can be huge benefits in today's league.
On the other, the Spurs were the oldest team in the league last season, and as Wooderson would point out, they're getting older, and the rest of the league is staying the same age. Change, at least some form of it, would seem to be the only way to stay ahead of pursuers such as Phoenix, Dallas and Utah.
In an era of constantly fluctuating rosters, what the Spurs are attempting to do — win a championship with the same team that won it the year before — is quite rare. But it's not entirely unprecedented.
During the past 13 seasons — a period in which unrestricted free agency took off — several other championship teams have resisted the urge to change. For instance, the top 10 scorers for the 1996-97 Bulls had played on Chicago's title team in 1995-96. That worked out all right — that season the Bulls won their second of three consecutive championships.
But there also have been disappointments. After the Lakers won their third-straight title in 2001-02, they tried to make it four with essentially the same team. Led by nine scorers who all had been in Los Angeles the year before, the 2002-03 Lakers won eight fewer games in the regular season and lost to the Spurs in the second round of the playoffs. A similar fate met the Miami Heat this past season, when they used a near-identical roster to their 2005-06 championship team but wound up losing in the first round (Dwyane Wade's injury didn't help).
In total, 13 NBA Finals teams since 1994 have played the next season without adding a new player that ranked in the top six on the team in scoring. Of those 13, four made it back to the Finals (the 1996-97 Bulls and 2001-02 Lakers won; the 1997-98 Jazz and 2002-03 Nets lost). Three lost in the conference finals, four lost in the second round, and two (the 2006-07 Heat and 2006-07 Mavericks) were knocked out in the first round.
What does all this mean?
For the Spurs, it's tough to tell. All they can do is hope to prove Heraclitus wrong.
For a year, at least.
* * *
IF IT ISN'T BROKE . . .
Since 1994, 13 teams that made the NBA Finals failed to add (or chose not to add) a player that ranked among the team's top six in scoring the next season. Here's how those teams fared:
Team -- Top-scoring newcomer (team rank) -- Win differential from previous season -- Postseason finish
1994-95 Knicks -- Monty Williams (11th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in second round
1995-96 Magic -- Joe Wolf (9th) -- plus-3 -- Lost in conference finals
1996-97 Bulls -- Robert Parish (11th) -- minus-3 -- Won NBA Finals
1997-98 Jazz -- Jacque Vaughn (12th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in NBA Finals
1999 Jazz -- Thurl Bailey (8th) -- minus-1* -- Lost in second round
1999-2000 Knicks -- John Wallace (8th) -- plus-6* -- Lost in conference finals
2001-02 Lakers -- Lindsey Hunter (7th) -- plus-2 -- Won NBA Finals
2002-03 Nets -- Rodney Rogers (7th) -- minus-3 -- Lost in NBA Finals
2003-04 Nets -- Zoran Planinic (10th) -- minus-2 -- Lost in second round
2005-06 Pistons -- Maurice Evans (7th) -- plus+10 -- Lost in conference finals
2006-07 Heat -- Eddie Jones (11th) -- minus-8 -- Lost in first round
2006-07 Mavericks -- Devean George (7th) -- plus-7 Lost in first round
(*Victory totals for the lockout-shortened 1999 season were adjusted by percentage to that of an 82-game season.)
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA071207.02C.COLfinger.page2.30c2287.html